Posts by I_love

14

Daniel 10:13 "....Michael one of the chief princes."

by I_love_Jeff in

daniel 10:13 describes michael as "one of the chief princes.

" this possibly indicates that there is more than one archangel, because it places michael on the same level as the other "chief princes.

jehovah's witnesses state, "well, the prefix "arch," meaning "chief" or "principal," implies that there is only one archangel.

Daniel 10:13 "....Michael one of the chief princes."

by I_love_Jeff in

daniel 10:13 describes michael as "one of the chief princes.

" this possibly indicates that there is more than one archangel, because it places michael on the same level as the other "chief princes.

jehovah's witnesses state, "well, the prefix "arch," meaning "chief" or "principal," implies that there is only one archangel.

I_love_Jeff

Daniel 10:13 describes Michael as "one of the chief princes." This possibly indicates that there is more than one archangel, because it places Michael on the same level as the other "chief princes."

Jehovah's Witnesses state, "Well, the prefix "arch," meaning "chief" or "principal," implies that there is only one archangel." Yes it does IMPLY that there is one archangel, but did they overlook Daniel 10:13 giving reference to more than one archangel among the angels?

13

Did Jesus insult the Pharisees?

by I_love_Jeff in

this question not only aplies to jehovah's witnesses but to christians as well.

any one have a clear answer for me?

did jesus revile?

I_love_Jeff

Thank you Leolaia, Band on the Run, TD, King Solomon.

Leolaia quoted-"Jesus is portrayed particularly by Matthew as a Torah-observant reformer critical of the practices of the Pharisees while recognizing their halakhic authority".

So it really comes down to constructive critisism. I suppose this was normal practice of criticising one another among the Christian Jews and the Pharisees. With all the info you have given Leolaia, I thank you.

13

Did Jesus insult the Pharisees?

by I_love_Jeff in

this question not only aplies to jehovah's witnesses but to christians as well.

any one have a clear answer for me?

did jesus revile?

I_love_Jeff

Two conclusions to consider why Jesus spoke out the way he did:

1) "...tension between Jews and Christians, and, even, Jewish and Gentile Christians".

2) Constructive critisism

Thank you soooo much for all your responses. Cheers. Thank you Band on the Run.

13

Did Jesus insult the Pharisees?

by I_love_Jeff in

this question not only aplies to jehovah's witnesses but to christians as well.

any one have a clear answer for me?

did jesus revile?

I_love_Jeff

Correction 1 Peter 2:23

Also, one other note to add: Since the Jehovah's Witnesses state the apostles made mistakes when trying to cover up their (JWs) wishy washy doctrine, could it be possible that Peter made a mistake in the passage I am referring to above?

13

Did Jesus insult the Pharisees?

by I_love_Jeff in

this question not only aplies to jehovah's witnesses but to christians as well.

any one have a clear answer for me?

did jesus revile?

I_love_Jeff

This question not only aplies to Jehovah's Witnesses but to Christians as well. Any one have a clear answer for me? Did Jesus revile? What about 1 Peter 2:22? Did someone make a mistake? If someone said these harsh words to me, I would take them as insults. Wouldn't you? Are insults in the Bible called something else like constructive criticism?

The Bible:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the
kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor
allow those who would enter to go in."

"You blind men..."

"...straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!"

"...full of extortion and rapacity."

"...you appear righteous to men but within you are full of hypocrisy
and iniquity."

"You serpents, you brood of vipers..."

"Blind guides..."
"...how are you to escape being sentenced to hell."

Jehovah's Witness Elder's Manual- Reviling means "subjecting a person to insulting speech and heaping abuse upon him". This is something that is outlined in your official rulebook Elder's manual.

To JWs: Reviling is wrong is it not? According to the JW's rule book + 1Pe 2:22-"...he did not go reviling in return", Jesus would be accused of insulting the Pharisees, would he not? Would you be insulted if an apostate said these words to you?

Here is something a JW said in a previous question we posted on yahoo answers: "Like Jesus and many followers did, it's a matter if it's deserved or not"

So it's okay to insult others if it's done righteously? Some JWs say "If it's deserved, then it's okay". Interesting.

5

VAT 4956 question: What is Dr. Furuli talking about? "backward calculations"?

by I_love_Jeff in

"the following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of vat 4956: the diary is most likely a genuine tablet made in seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs.

because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year, and that the original tablet that was copied in seleucid times was made in 588/87.

because so many of the planetary positions are approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that they represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of nebuchadnezzar ii.

I_love_Jeff

Excellent answers!!!! thank you soooooo much!!!

4

VAT 4956 question: What is Dr. Furuli talking about? "backward calculations"?

by I_love_Jeff in

I_love_Jeff

Thank you BobCat and what about this quote from Carl Olof Jonsson:

"Finally, Furuli's hypothesis is self-contradictory. If it were true that the planetary positions "represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II," and if it were true that "the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87," which Furuli argues was the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar from the very beginning! No modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary".

I am not clear on this and I did read the article. It's very interesting indeed.

5

Could someone please explain this self contradiction made by Dr. Furuli?

by I_love_Jeff in

"furuli's hypothesis is self-contradictory.

if it were true that the planetary positions "represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of nebuchadnezzar ii," and if it were true that "the original tablet that was copied in seleucid times was made in 588/87," which furuli argues was the 37th year of nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37th year of nebuchadnezzar from the very beginning!

no modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary"..

I_love_Jeff

"Furuli's hypothesis is self-contradictory. If it were true that the planetary positions "represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II," and if it were true that "the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87," which Furuli argues was the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar from the very beginning! No modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary".

5

VAT 4956 question: What is Dr. Furuli talking about? "backward calculations"?

by I_love_Jeff in

"the following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of vat 4956: the diary is most likely a genuine tablet made in seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs.

because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year, and that the original tablet that was copied in seleucid times was made in 588/87.

because so many of the planetary positions are approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that they represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of nebuchadnezzar ii.

I_love_Jeff

"The following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of VAT 4956: The Diary is most likely a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs. Because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year, and that the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because so many of the planetary positions are approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that they represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from 588/87, and the planetary positions are backward calculations for the positions of the planets in 568/67."

I_love_Jeff

Posts by I_love_Jeff