Posts by PioneerSchmioneer

78

How can Babylon the Great be the WORLD of false religion?

by BoogerMan in

(revelation 17:5) “babylon the great, the mother of the prostitutes (plural!

) and of the disgusting things of the earth.”.

btg is spotlighted as being the principal "disgusting thing" which affects christians & christianity, with other lesser "prostitutes" in the background... (revelation 18:4) “get out of her, my people, (christians) if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.".

PioneerSchmioneer

It is likely Rome, but there is a possibility that the writer is using the image to refer to apostasy/traitors who persecute the Church in general, and may include apostate Jerusalem. We understand this from the earliest references to it in Christian history.

Since the Apocalypse of John was very late to the inclusion into the canon of the New Testament--practically unheard of in Christendom itself until the canon was officially closed by Athansius in 367 CE --the first commentary on it was not written until around 290 CE by Victorinus of Pettau, a bishop who was matryred by Diocletian.

It was treated as, well, the title suggests--an "apocalypse" and not a "forecast." It talks about the visions being allusions to persecutions and intrigues already suffered by the church at the time of its composition.

To further "blow the minds" of Jehovah's Witnesses, it makes reference to the Catholic teaching of the "restored" earth. Yes, the Catholics (like the Jews) have always talked about "Paradise restored." For instance, every Sunday at Mass they recite the words "I believe in...the resurrection of the body" (Apostles' Creed) or "I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." (Nicene Creed) Both this commentary from the 3rd century and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church talk about the "paradise" to come where the physical reuniting of soul and body will take place in a recreated universe in reference to the last chapters of Revelation.--See CCC 1046, 1047.

I recall how many Jehovah's Witness who became converts to the Watchtower religion simply on the "paradise" claim that "they showed me this from the Bible, which was so clearly a Christian teaching, so they must be the only true religion because they were the only ones teaching this," yet it was far from being a unique teaching. Like everything else Watchtower, it was stolen and repackaged.

I remember hearing from Bart Ehrman once (though he was talking from his experience with Fundamentalism and his disappointment from it) how he was startled to learn from reading Victorinus and the Church Fathers on Revelation and realizing that they did not believe it had anything to do with the future, like he had always been taught, but the past--except for those very last chapters--and then startled to hear about some "restored paradise" instead of heaven.

This view, of Victorinus and the Church Fathers, is called by academics the preterist view. It maintains that much of the book concerns the events within the lifetime of the author and his readers.

There are other views that developed afterwards:

Critical view: A current view--a struggle between Church and State withing the 1st century.
Idealist view: The never-ending struggles between good and evil in every Christian's life.
Historicist view: Panorama of the Church's life as it marches through history from beginning to the end.
Futurist view: The one held by the Watchtower (and some others) that the book is a forecast of events.

The understanding of an apocalypse is not meant to be "set in stone," so to speak--though it is not a prophetic forecast. Jewish writers hoped future readers could get encouragement from it when they faced difficult times as well since the main thrust of an apocalypse was that justice would always prevail.

This does not mean the writers knew that the details of their written visions were specific future forecasts of events. It was against both the Mosaic Law and Christian teaching to try to foretell the future or engage in divination. A writer of an apocalype was not necessarily the same as a prophet or a seer, and Christians often confuse the roles and the genres.

21

Christians Encouraged to Read 'Pagan' Works

by peacefulpete in

clement of alexandria.

the stromata, or miscellanies.

book vi.

PioneerSchmioneer

I'm leaving this thread with this final post:

I've said it before: we often confuse a certain familiar earmark of the Watchtower for "Watchtowerism" itself, and when we leave that type of belief system, when we see it elsewhere, we attack it, no matter where we see it, in whomever we see it.

If the Watchtower served us its cult teachings via the medium of banana splits, we might mistakenly tell everyone how "evil" banana splits were, calling everyone who enjoyed them fools and jumping on any study that criticized the ingredients of banana splits with praise.

In reality, banana splits are innocent fun. A cult can take any medium and twist it to do its bidding--including religion and a holy text.

The fact that I became a teacher of religion and have taught critical textual studies does not mean that I also taught that religion and holy texts of any kind are evil, including Christianity or the Bible. Religion in itself can be good. The Bible is not evil nor necessarily incorrect in what it tries to teach, though it is a product of its time.

What happens to people who leave the JWs is that they don't tend to shred the fear of the Governing Body and the elders and those who taught them their religion. So they invent targets that have nothing to do with what happened to them. Instead of blaming people that deserve the blame, we blame a thing that can't defend itself.

You can't blame a banana split, even though many of its ingredients are, to be honest, artificial. It's yummy.

I will leave you with the following to explain, even though it comes from a Catholic source. It's pretty smart, as it talks about the limits of critical study:

Pseudepigraphy is the common ancient practice of attributing texts to a popular figure in order to assert authority, honor a legacy, or build on someone else’s work. Consider the Ripley’s Believe it or Not franchise. While the original author, Robert Ripley, has been dead for decades, the brand retains his name to assure audiences that his work lives on. Or consider Caleb Weatherbee, the eternal fictional weatherman from the Farmer’s Almanac. If copies of this almanac are analyzed thousands of years from now, someone likely might posit the existence of a historical Caleb. Those of you who are fans of The Princess Bride will recall that the legendary Dread Pirate Roberts was later revealed to be not one person but several people who carried on his legacy, since no one would have feared or respected names such as “Wesley” or “Cummerbund.” Ancient Judaism and early Christianity were constantly threatened by heterodox works like the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Thomas. To establish legitimacy, the leading authorities of the time often attributed their texts to legendary figures like Moses....
I fondly recall convincing my little cousin to eat broccoli because it was what gave Yoda from Star Wars his strength (and color). Similarly, Santa Clause is an excellent conduit for teaching children the virtue of justice, and George Washington’s ahistorical chopping of the cherry tree teaches them honesty. Children, who are vastly imaginative, craft impressive lore to understand the world, just as our pagan ancestors did when theologizing about God. If Christ had made Himself known to the Buddhist tradition, I guarantee that he would have invoked its mythical figures to teach His commandments, but God chose to reveal Himself to the Jewish tradition, which means Christ had to speak to His people by invoking their beloved characters, both historical and legendary.
Christ was given the impossible task of translating perfect, immutable, divine laws into fallible, changing human language. His words are strictly analogous to a perfect and infinitely beautiful theological reality that goes beyond the limits of human vocabulary. This is likely why He spoke in so many parables. These stories conceal matters of faith and morals, regardless of their historicity. We do not care about who the Prodigal Son was or if he really lived. We are only concerned by how his story impacts our faith journeys. Americans have traditionally portrayed our founders as idealized caricatures, even if they were flawed human beings. When we teach our children to be like George Washington, we refer to George Washington the legendary symbol of strength, grace, and humility, not George Washington the historical owner of slaves. Likewise, Christ calls us to emulate Moses the myth, the beloved caricature constructed from generations of reflection and theologizing, not Moses the man.--Who Wrote the Bible? Three Catholic Perspectives on Biblical Authorship, Clarifying Catholicism

Don't get angry or hurt when someone mentions a fact about religion or the Bible that does not sit well with you once you left the Watchtower. It is not the fault of religion or the Bible that the Watchtower screwed you over. The medium used by a cult is not the problem. The cult did it to you. A cult is people.

A banana split is not people...unless you are thinking of those Sid and Marty Krofft characters (but they were just people in suits). Even if you got a banana split painfully smushed into your face, you can't be mad at it. Someone had to put it there.

21

Christians Encouraged to Read 'Pagan' Works

by peacefulpete in

clement of alexandria.

the stromata, or miscellanies.

book vi.

PioneerSchmioneer

I don't know who literally wrote any of the gospels.

I was discussing contrary to Watchtower doctrine. I thought that in the context of this discussion, as a rule, you, likely did not accept the traditional views that "the apostle Matthew wrote Matthew, etc."

So I wrote that "Luke" is obviously a Gentile convert to Judaism--whether he is the traditional Luke figure, the "divine physician," the Gentile traveling companion of Paul, I don't have that data from the writing.

As for Mark, the latest theory is that it may indeed be "Petrine tradition" as attested to since Q source theory is fading--leaving it later than a primative pre-redacted Matthew (but who was "Mark," I don't know).

I wasn't off topic. Your brain was reading off topic--again.

21

Christians Encouraged to Read 'Pagan' Works

by peacefulpete in

clement of alexandria.

the stromata, or miscellanies.

book vi.

PioneerSchmioneer

Thanks, Peacefulpete. I appreciate your comments very much as well.

The stories in the New Testament are full of Jewish tropes, having been written by Jews, including Luke. So the stories of the 12 Apostles fits the idea of the Messiah establishing the Davidic monarchy due to the belief that during the Messianic Age the 12 tribes that were dispersed and lost would return and be restored to Israel--but now under Christ's leaders.--Matthew 19:28; Acts 1:6.

Whether or not there were a literal 12 Apostles is hard to say. The narratives in the gospels are hard to reconcile with historical reality. The authors were trying to teach religion like Gamaliel or Hillel, not write like Josephus. This is true even of Luke who composed the Acts of the Apostles.

Luke himself seems to be more of a Jewish convert than a "Gentile," as often claimed by the Watchtower. While it is clear that he was of Gentile birth, it is also clear he knows a lot about Jewish religion--a little too much for a mere Gentile. The first two chapters of his gospel are dripping with Judaism and details about the Temple, even what the inside of it looked like and liturgical details that most non-Jews today don't catch when reading it, such as prayer times during the day and how long preistly service lasted, etc. (Luke 1:8-11, 21, 23) And in Acts he talks about how Peter still keeps kosher and how all the Christians in Jerusalem are doing the same, following the Mosaic Law, even how Paul does this--though Paul keeps some of these details out of his own letters.--Acts 10:13, 14; 18:18; 21:20-26.

Luke, like the other authors, is obviously a Jew, though a convert, and when he writes narrative, it is likely filled with religious overtones, folklore, and the like. Luke 2:1-2 is definitely the employment of the genre of Jewish mythology. Not only do the dates not work for any of the rulers mentioned, nor the events, the Roman government never had a census at this time nor did it have a census where it would make people return to their own hometown to register. Could you imagine the chaos of having the population of the Roman Empire do this? It's a narrative device to set up the story of the "birth of Jesus" so he, a Nazarite, could be born in Bethlehem--an origin story genre similar to the types used in Genesis.

So the same author writing about the Apostles in Acts cannot be leaned upon for modern historical accuracy about what really happened in the first days of the Christian community.

19

I have some questions about the Org.!

by KerryKing in

are any or all of the gb from jewish descent?.

why are they so fascinated with following ancient jewish 'principles' ?.

isa 43:10, 44:8 ' you are my witnesses ' which they based their religious identity on, jehovah's witnesses, yet those verses address the jews, not christians, which they profess to be.. jesus said in ac 1:8 'you will be witnesses of me ', .

PioneerSchmioneer

Diogenesister:

I don't know where most people get their wrong ideas from. I think Watchtower gets it from where most other people generally do, namely from not getting a formal education and thinking they don't need one. The "you're Jewish if your mother is Jewish" thing is very old. Either lack of exposure or outright fraud is the only thing I can say here. The Jews have always been here to ask. If you didn't ask a Jew, then you made up the answer. And if you made up the answer, then you should be ashamed.

Joseph is supposed to be the father of Jesus, even though Mary is fully Jewish. Both, according to Scriptural tradition, are of the line of David.

But this is not the teaching in the earliest gospel, namely Mark, which according to Church Tradition is supposed to be Petrine in origin. This would suggest that as time went on, people began to question Jesus' origin as it was not originally established in Mark's gospel. If it had been, especially if it was supernatural and this was important to the Gospel (and I mean, the Good News that "saves"), it would have been included by Peter in the account he had given. Oddly, there is nothing about this in Mark (no virgin birth, no pre-existence, zip).

As for the two geneologies in Matthew and Luke, neither are historical in nature. So it is hard to establish why this data would be missing from Mark if this was to be a salvific teaching.

While it is not hard to fathom that Jesus of Nazareth could be of the line of David, I am not sure why the argument is made so late and in the fashion that it is in the New Testament. It is curious to me, but not impossible.

6

Trinity n latest ideas actually fit in more with JWs ideas?

by Mikejw in

there is a new trinity teaching that says jesus is a separate person but at the same time all three are one.. https://youtu.be/jdok0gedjau?si=bbdwoprdpzvzwkfz.

this is basically the same as watchtower teach that jesus is so much like his father in every way that you could almost call them the same.. things have changed from when i was pioneering with the old trinity brochure.

PioneerSchmioneer

Rattigan350:

You are doing something JWs commonly do, which is mix up two very old Christian doctrines, namely the Protoevangelium, and the other which is actually the Catholic and Greek Orthodox interpretation/devotion involving St. Michael the Archangel--which Watchtower leans on when trying to defend its "Jesus=Michael" doctrine.

The idea that Genesis 3:15 is some type of prediction of Jesus' coming is a teaching stretching back to the late Church Fathers called the Protoevangelium or the "First Gospel." The doctrine is that Mary is the "woman," Jesus is the "seed," and the Devil is the "serpent." It is not a Jewish teaching as there is no belief in Satan the Devil in Judaism.

Revelation 12:7 deals with an entirely different serpent, namely Leviathan, as Revelation is using Jewish tropes, not Christian ones. The Protoevangelium was first established in 180 CE, the late 2nd century, by Irenaeus, and Revelation was written around 95-96 CE, the late 1st century. So the "original serpent" could not have been the idea of Irenaeus' Protoevangelium as it had not yet been invented when Revelation was written. The author had to have something else in mind as this was a doctrine to come later after the book came about.

So before this Christian doctrine was created, the only other "original serpent" there could be (since the Jews did not believe that Genesis chapter 3 was Satan the Devil") was "leviathan" of Isaiah 27:1. Of this scholars are in agreement. Just do an Internet search and you will see that academics agree that this is the actual connection:

We know that Revelation is not recalling the snake in Eden because the source of John’s language isn’t Genesis, it’s Isaiah. Along with calling the devil a “serpent” (ophis; ὄφις), Revelation 12:9 describes Satan as a “dragon” (drakon; δράκων) three times. The only other verse in all of Scripture that describes a creature as both a “dragon” and a “serpent” in this way is Isaiah 27:1, and the creature is the primordial sea-monster known as Leviathan. The Isaiah verse appears in the context of God's eschatological battle against evil, which is the very same context that readers encounter in Revelation when Michael and his angels confront Satan (see Rev 12:7-9). According to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 27:1 states, “In that day God shall bring a holy and great and strong sword against the dragon (drakon; δράκων), the serpent (ophis; ὄφις) that flees, upon the dragon (drakon; δράκων), the twisting serpent (ophis; ὄφις): [God] shall destroy the dragon (drakon; δράκων).” Revelation 12:9 contains the same threefold repetition of "dragon" that appears in Isaiah 27:1, and both verses repeat the word alongside "serpent" in the context of divine battle. Therefore, we can be confident that Isaiah 27:1 is the verse to which Revelation refers in its description of heavenly war against Satan.--Which "Serpent" Is Satan? Israel Bible Center.

Watchtower leans upon Catholic views of Michael as a warrior against the Devil, usually with a sword and the main leader of God's forces against Satan popular in the main public's view, to play on the religiously uneducated to suggest that only Jesus Christ could play this part in God's plan.

The famous prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is quite unknown to Jehovah's Witnesses, but it sounds like actions that only Jesus Christ would play as one conquering the Devil:

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Watchtower doctrine is "mushed-up" beliefs of Christology, mistaken identities, and uneducated Bible look-ups with a little popular mythology added in since no one seems to know any better.

(IMHO, JWs are often too afraid to purchase or read one of Christendom's or Judaism's Bibles for fear "evil" or academia might "rub off" on them--but they would just learn the above if they did. This isn't something you would learn in a college course, just from a sidebar or a footnote in your average Bible.)

21

Christians Encouraged to Read 'Pagan' Works

by peacefulpete in

clement of alexandria.

the stromata, or miscellanies.

book vi.

PioneerSchmioneer

You are reading too much into what I write.

I am not a Christian. But I taught religion for some years after leaving the Watchtower.

As I would tell my students before I retired, an instructor isn't hired to subscribe to the facts they teach, merely to get the facts across--even if nobody likes how they feel.

21

Christians Encouraged to Read 'Pagan' Works

by peacefulpete in

clement of alexandria.

the stromata, or miscellanies.

book vi.

PioneerSchmioneer

The 27 books of the Christian New Testament canon were not finalized until 367 CE.

Clement and Justin Martyr lived about 200 years before then.

The books of Revelation and 2 Peter were unheard of in their time, while the Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas were read almost universally before then.

The idea of a Biblical canon was unknown in the time of Justin. It was a new invention of a contemporary heretic of his, Marcion of Sinope, a bishop that was excommunicated for his suggesting that the church should limit itself to doctrine based on a closed canon of texts and that the texts could produce salvific knowledge.

Due to the rise of the Marcionist threat, the church had to counter with its own canon. But prior to this, Christianity was based on the teachings from a "college" that passed down tradition learned from the Apostles. At one time the college was made up of Clement and Justin, who are known as the Church Fathers.

This is why Western schools of higher learning are called a "college" as opposed to a "yeshiva." Colleges are higher schools of learning once set up by Christians where you learned from the Elders or Fathers as opposed to yeshivas which are academies where Jews learn from rabbis.

This is why Jehovah's Witnesses are against sending their children to schools of higher learning. The foundation of such institutions are religious in nature, even though today one tends to associate then with the secular.

Oxford, Nortre Dame, Stanford, Yale--all these and more are all founded as religious universities. The Apostolic College, as it is known, passed its Tradition to the Church Fathers like Clement and Justin Martyr. Only later did they add a closed canon of Scriptures to Apostolic Tradition, but only by the authority already present in bishops passed down from and by the Fathers.

48

Is Jesus God?

by Sea Breeze in

i know that a lot of historical names have claimed to be a god.

but, jesus arguably claimed to be god.

scripture says he's the creator.

PioneerSchmioneer

Sea Breeze:

To "worship" in Koine Greek (and in ancient times) means to "offer an act of obeisance" in modern American and UK usage.

The word at Hebrews 1:6 is the Greek verb PROSKUNEO, and it means to "perform an act of reverence before" another person, usually one of higher rank or someone you honor.

It occurs, for instance, at Matthew 20:20:

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling [proskynousa] before him, she asked a favor of him.

According to Josephus, this was the way people would greet the high priest--he actually uses the same Greek word--since they were the representative (though not the incarnation of) God, during the days the Second Temple was standing.

This likely explains why Cornelius is spoken of greeting Peter at Acts 10:25, with the use of the word PROSKUNEO and Peter rejects it.

To show that the word has only reference to the act and not to creed (which is often the case in Judaism), it is used in John 4:22) as the word for "worship":

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.

One can "worship" what they "do not know." In other words, one can "bow before" something they have no real knowledge of.

If the word meant to "worship" as in "belief and adore and creed," then that would be different, but PROSKUNEO does not. It refers to homage, kneeling, prostration.

Jehovah's Witnesses do tend to bend the rules a lot with the New World Translation. But in some cases they are just different, in the minority--and people find it irksome.

In the end, it is a play on words. Obeisance is something you give to a king or a deity anyway, and a king almost always represents a god on earth. Again just like the high priest of the Temple was a representative of God (though not an incarnation). So it doesn't matter what word you use. The context still states in Hebrews that Jesus is greater than the angels because he is like God to them.

And thus the problem with whatever words the NWT tries to choose. You can only go so far.

48

Is Jesus God?

by Sea Breeze in

i know that a lot of historical names have claimed to be a god.

but, jesus arguably claimed to be god.

scripture says he's the creator.

PioneerSchmioneer

If there were any clear claims by Jesus or his apostles that he was God there would never have been

Docetism: the claim that Jesus was God in an apparent or "phantom" body
Separationism: that divinity only dwelt in Jesus of Nazareth from his baptism until his death
Modalism: that God exists under there "modes" of activity instead of three persons, namely the modes of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Separationism--a time when Jesus was not God? How could God not be God for 30 years--and your followers decide when you became God and stopped being God?

Modalism? Trinitarianism? How do your followers decide how much of you is God and how many of "you" make up God?

Modalism was the favored view of Christians during the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd centuries.

Why all these debates and heresies in the early church about Jesus among the Christians if it's all supposed to be so clear to begin with--if Jesus made it crystal clear that he is God?