Posts by kepler

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

kepler

Village Idiot,

Thanks for bringing up Luke chapter 23. That verse ended a former relationship when the wheels of the organization and its conditioning started to kick in. It brings back memories and I recounted them at length on this forum over the past five years. I lost a lot on that one, but yet Thank God for Luke and his testimony.

------

Also, there is mention of Christ referring to the Book of Moses in Matthew. Well, he did it in Mark as well, chapter 10. Prior to that, when discussing the proposition of a widow who had once married sequentially seven husbands and who would she be married to at the Resurrection, Christ's answer practically sets the stage for Aquila's topic:

"Surely the reason why you are wrong is that you understand neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For when they rise from the dead, men and women do not marry, no. They are like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him and said, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.' He is God not of the dead but of the living. You are very much mistaken."

Like most people reading the Bible, I am left with impressions that are probably contradictory when examined. Judgment at death and at the end of time would be an example. But there is also the resurrection of the body and what Jesus just said above. The latter, however, seems to make more sense to me in as much as our limited and inconclusive contacts with the beyond would suggest. Example, if you have a dream, a coma like experience in the hospital or communications you cannot explain.

Whether that sounds convincing or not, the alternative provided by JW literature ( and some others) is something like the Earth as a rental property in which the inhabitants are evicted and a second party comes back to own it much in the same manner as before without the problems - because they are somehow physically perfect - and eternal. And I guess they are given a deed. Meanwhile, an earth and universe that would appear eternal continues to exist as the creation it was. But these elements are not eternal even though they obey creation's laws. There are no provisions in the story to address such issues. The interchange in Mark stands as an illustration.

Another small note. From one Gospel account to the next there are also slight changes in the name of heaven and each of the writer's adhere to one or another: the kingdom of heaven, my father's kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, etc. Each of those convey a different impression In the aforementioned Luke passages, the thief speaks of "your kingdom" and Christ replies that "In truth I say to you that this day you will be with me in paradise". Strong 3857 - used only that one time in the Gospel. Only twice elsewhere in the NT: in 2 Corinthians (12:4) and Revelations ( 2:7).

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

kepler

The Deutero-Canonical book of Wisdom addresses immortality in 2:23

"For God created human being to be immortal , he made them as an image of his own nature.

...

"To the unenlightened ( 3:2) they appeared to die, their departure was regarded as a disaster,

their leaving us like an annihilation; but they are at peace..."

This is a book of late origin and in Greek, but long part of the Septuagint - and until the 19th century, part of the KJB.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

kepler

Caleb,

Your reference to the Latin roots for the word Gentile (above) inspired me to take at look at Jerome's Vulgate Latin translation of the same chapter some time in the 5th century present era. Jerome does not use any form o f "gens, gentes, gentilis... but the original Greek word. See below:

6:7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the HEATHENS. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ETHNICI putant enim quia in multiloquio suo exaudiantur

6:8 Be not you therefore like to them for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him.

Nolite ergo adsimilari eis scit enim Pater vester quibus opus sit vobis antequam petatis eum

Elsewhere, Jerome uses gentilis in John (once), frequently in the Acts and Maccabees.

Beside what you noted above, the Wikipedia discussion of Gentiles describes the term as follows:

The term is used by English translators for the Hebrew גוי (goy) and נכרי (nokhri) in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek word ἔθνη (éthnē) in the New Testament. The term "gentiles" is derived from Latin, used for contextual translation, and not an original Hebrew or Greek word from the Bible. The original words goy and ethnos refer to "peoples" or "nations". Latin and later English translators selectively used the term "gentiles" when the context for the base term "peoples" or "nations" referred to non-Israelite peoples or nations in English translations of the Bible.

Consequently, it seems that context was shaky here. And overall, the term was invented for English translation. for a conjecture.

This will probably one of the few times I will fall on the side of the New World Translation, which happened to observe the same thing.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

kepler

Just another note on Matt chapter 6. This is not so much a matter of distinctions between Jews and the Christian community but among Christians themselves. In the reform movements of the 16th and 17th centuries, great emphasis was placed on the value of "faith" over acts, especially by followers of Luther and Calvin. When I look at these passages in Matthew, I see holes in their arguments. And I have to wonder how they missed them as well.

Their arguments were based on the humans after Original Sin being all of a kind, a very low form of low life. Nothing that they could in acts could be seen as favorable in the eyes of the Lord. And granted that these passages show the ways in which alms and prayers would not be seen as worthy - and how they can result in rewards here on Earth rather than heaven. But there are also recommendations on how to make these ACTS of value.

As I have been reading this summer in a historical account of those times, it would be possible to lose your life circa 1560 or so for making the same argument in various parts of Europe (just as there was for upholding its counter in other parts).

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

kepler

Thanks, Caleb. What I see here in your replies are homilies about scriptural texts that we of other persuasions would not likely ever hear, but would find that there is much to contemplate.

Which is a matter that leads back to something you mentioned earlier: the term Gentiles in Matthew 6:7-9 where Jesus gives disciples guidelines on how to pray, followed by introduction of the Lord's Prayer.

I went back to look at the text - and it is as you said. Chapter 6 begins with a discussion of alms giving and objections to public displays which refer to local practices (e.g., in synagogues - verse 5), but in English, "Gentiles" are called out as the ones who think they will be heard because of their many words. Like many people who retain the scriptures as a composite, I had assumed that Christ was again attacking Pharisees - and perhaps I had even heard as much from the pulpit at one time or another. At the very least this verse is directed elsewhere. Yet it still seems odd, perhaps even anachronistic. Who were these audibly praying Gentiles of which Jesus spoke?

I referred to a Greek English New Testament with the Concordance - and the Greek word used in this case was ETHNIKOS. In the text by Paul Reynolds the Concordance ( Strong number 1482) defines the word as NATION, but in all its applications and in the majority of its variant ( ETHNOS - Nation), the translation is assumed to be Gentiles. Since there are 162 uses of the latter, the context probably decides which is more appropriate, I suspect the rules are not iron-clad. But there are patterns: In Matthew, the early chapters speak of Gentiles up to chapter 20:19 (" the rulers of the Gentiles"), and thereafter we start seeing phrases like 29:19 "make disciples of all nations." And Paul in Romans is translated in speaking of Abraham as "the father of many nations", significantly not "Gentiles". ...Yet it is still the interpretation of the same Greek word.

If I were a raccoon treating translation as a lump of sugar being washed in a stream, I think I could eliminate the use of "Gentiles" altogether. For unless I was there listening to the intonation of the speaker, I could hardly tell which version of the word its evocation is supposed to convey.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

kepler

Caleb,

Been interested in this subject for a while myself. When I was confronted by JW-beliefs as a non, I often found myself wondering what the early Hebrew or current Jewish perspective was on Scriptures. Even though I wasn't getting far in reading commentary, it was an eye opener.

The tip of the iceberg appeared to be the notion that there were such divisions as implied by the TaNaKh: law, prophets and writings, plus the pigeon-holing of the books therein. Ask various Christian which one is which (e.g., Daniel) and consider the implications.

But then considering the JW position is that a Scripture is inerrant, including I suppose Jeremiah 8:8 - while a Rabbinical or even Catholic position these days might be: "Some say, 'Yes', some say, 'No..."

I know that another topic has now been reserved for questions, but there seems to be a lot of cross fire on that channel right now. So, I'll ask you for your taken on what of the books in the Kethuvim, and that is Job.

Admittedly, Job is written in Hebrew, but is it originally a Hebrew story? Does it have any context? What does it mean to Jews? You said elsewhere that the purpose of life is to try to make the campsite better than when you arrived. Does Job address that? Saw the Coen brothers "A Serious Man" a few years ago. Maybe more than coincidental resemblances in the film, but the narrator didn't say at the end that protagonist got everything back in double. There was just a tornado warning.

1

Letter to Paul ( and to Augustine) from a "Roman" about 2 Cats

by kepler in

dear paul ( and if he is on the same cc-list, augustine, the one from hippo),.

i have read your epistles to the various cities and christian communities with understandable and overall interest, but while i was contemplating the behavior of our two household felines, i was brought back in particular to your comments in romans 5:11-21.. it is understood that you had written this piece to interpret the meaning of events described in the as yet unwritten accounts given in the gospels.

and also you had written these letters with a sense of urgency in as you sensed the end of this order was imminent, within a few years.

kepler

Dear Paul ( and if he is on the same cc-list, Augustine, the one from Hippo),

I have read your epistles to the various cities and Christian communities with understandable and overall interest, but while I was contemplating the behavior of our two household felines, I was brought back in particular to your comments in Romans 5:11-21.

It is understood that you had written this piece to interpret the meaning of events described in the as yet unwritten accounts given in the Gospels. And also you had written these letters with a sense of urgency in as you sensed the end of this order was imminent, within a few years. So beside the emphatic, I suspect there was also a need for haste...

But here I am writing two millennia later observing not only my own imperfect nature, and that of my friends, neighbors and people I read of in the papers, or thrust in my face when I sign on to my internet host, but also among the animals who were born without a scheme of salvation, namely our two household cats.

To protect their identities, I will refer to the two female felines of ten years difference in age as Cat A and Cat B with the first of the two arriving in the household the earlier. It (A) was born to a stray in a litter under the back deck and was the last of the four to come into the house from the wild. A neighbor tending the house while we were on travel had accidentally locked (A) in the garage, before it made a decision to join the other kittens, consequently it has had both a mix of feral and cautious characteristics ( coat of arms: Why take chances?). Subsequently, it ran off the other cats with jealousy, greed, suspicion, hectoring...

Fast forward ten years and Cat A is a sadder and wiser cat, now very gentle, tenaciously tied to the house and householders. Since we were short of memory, we thought that in its solitude it might be lonely and would appreciate the company of another feline, a friend. When my wife at work ran across a coworker at a new job who was trying to find homes for newly weened kittens, I got word to expect a tabby (B) to accompany our earlier stealth-like ebony (A).

When they met they hated each other and B has been as tenacious as A in asserting its stake in the house.

While the older cat was reluctant to play at anything, the younger cat was jealous of everything and is currently trying to cut off the older cat's food supply by elbowing it out of its own dinner bowls while simultaneous gorging at its own.

I could elaborate, but you get the idea. Any passion reflected in the early chapters of Genesis can be seen in the animal world, whether animals are thoroughly freed of human nurturing or not.

So what's my point?

In the 5:1-21 all the ills of the HUMAN condition are attributed to one man and his sin, which spread death throughout the world. "One man's offense brought condemnation to all humanity." (5:18). "It was by one man's offense that death came to reign over all."

Interesting. In the first sentence I would take the consequences as being restricted to human kind, but the second sentence would allow interpretation for all creation, right? But then later on the discussion about salvation is restricted to humanity. And then, of course, there is discussion of law which did not pre-exist before Adam, but came along by some sort of creative process as well - to an imperfect world, of course, but we will have to pick up on this aspect of your system of beliefs another time.

Now in the original story to which you refer, there seems to have been a talking snake which already had a reputation for guile. I don't see you referencing the snake directly. And it would seem that your legal argument is that once Eve had consumed the fruit, Adam had compounded the problem in the Lord's eyes by becoming an accessory to her crime. So elsewhere, you refer to this case here and elsewhere as a conflict between God and Adam; not including Eve, Satan or a talking snake.

But granted, like all things read in Genesis, the final argument about the details always seem to come to that that is just how much we are told. Yet still, considering the outcome, and what you and others (billions) have had riding on this story, would it not have been more straightforward if the warning described about forbidden fruit made some mention of a talking snake? And then again, how could a talking snake appeal to the vanity of perfect creations? It seems that the only act of Adam in chapter 3 that placed him above the other animals in the garden was response to the dilemma of what Eve had already done.

I can imagine these questions coming up in your days on the road as an evangelist, but I suspect you will not be replying directly to this inquiry.

Anyone else have any comments?

1

Summer Reading: "The Reformatin - A History", If you're busy, I can let you know how it ends.

by kepler in

there's something of a random walk in jumping from one used book to another.

the closest previous relations to the above were different media: the bbc/pbs series of broadcasts about thomas cromwell in henry viii's court, a fixer for introducing miss boleyn and then removing her from circulation.

and then what i expected to be a sentimental journey through the history of ireland ( the isle to the west of tudorland) by an emigre to america, malachy mccourt.

kepler

A missed typo. The title was supposed to be

Summer Reading " The Reformation - A History"...

1

Summer Reading: "The Reformatin - A History", If you're busy, I can let you know how it ends.

by kepler in

there's something of a random walk in jumping from one used book to another.

the closest previous relations to the above were different media: the bbc/pbs series of broadcasts about thomas cromwell in henry viii's court, a fixer for introducing miss boleyn and then removing her from circulation.

and then what i expected to be a sentimental journey through the history of ireland ( the isle to the west of tudorland) by an emigre to america, malachy mccourt.

kepler

There's something of a random walk in jumping from one used book to another. The closest previous relations to the above were different media: The BBC/PBS series of broadcasts about Thomas Cromwell in Henry VIII's court, a fixer for introducing Miss Boleyn and then removing her from circulation. And then what I expected to be a sentimental journey through the history of Ireland ( the isle to the West of Tudorland) by an emigre to America, Malachy McCourt.

I suppose Ireland was far from paradise prior to Tudor establishment, what with Vikings, Normans pulling their boats ashore and so forth, but it also seemed available to weather the Dark Ages, enough to restore some Northern European literacy via teachers and transcription of Scriptures at Derry monasteries contemporary to Charlemagne. Much the same service was provided to Anglo-terre. But when it came to reciprocity in Tudor times, Ireland should have heaved anchor and rowed a thousand miles away. For an example of what I'm talking about, consider Maynooth Castle or Silken Thomas. And those are just for starters. But was there any relief with New Thought and Parliament under the guise of Oliver Cromwell? And Oliver Plunkett? After the Battle of the Boyne, there were oaths and penal laws.

But as usual I digress. Irish history exposes much of the Reformation underbelly, but it was local and individual in character. Pelican books has a fairly recent history of the oveall Reformation by a Scot historian named Diarmaid MacCulloch. Other than his first name, which I have no idea how it should be pronounced, Mr. MacCulloch writes clearly and insightfully about a vast subject. That I should mention it at all here is, of course, because I think this past has bearing on our present state of affairs. In one way, the deliberations on the continent among speakers of Romance languages, German and Latin transmitted to the British Isles like a virus and then mutated in the English context. But much of what we believe about the Reformation is about as accurate as what we come to think about Columbus sailing off to the western hemisphere ( e.g., there was little question that the world was round or that his voyages demonstrated experimentally). Similarly, whether or not the western church was corrupt or not, it was clearly not without gift or vitality for measures other than religious civil war - and it was possible to be executed by either side for heresy or disloyalty - with the extreme prejudice innovations of the era.

The Reformation did not really start with a whistle when Luther nailed his 95 theses at Wittenburg in 1517 ( half a millennium mark coming up soon), but had roots in various reform movements in the Western Latin Church heir to Jerome and Vulgate. In that context it could be said that the fall and evacuation of Constantinople in 1454 injected much Greek text and philosophy into this environment - and fence sitting scholars such as Erasmus had as much to do with the onset. Luther was an Augustinian monk and hence a student of Augustine of Hippo, author of the City of God and the Confessions. This was not Greek culture or language, but the Latin view the recently compiled and translated combination of New and Old Testament Scripture.

In the light of increased Greek literature, it was the contention of McCullouch that the Reformati was society taking away from Augustine a revised vision, inherent in his works all along and the essence of Luther's faith.

Instead of concentration on a social City of God rising out of the ruins of Rome, Augustine was now to point to the worthlessness of the sinner in the sight of God. Nothing they could accomplish was of any worth and the sacramental system of the church did not change that. Only an unconditional faith in the redemptive act of Jesus.

I'll let others fill in the story on that, if there are any takers. But for Protesting groups, soon all issues in the church were on the table - and the strife among Protestants was near as intense as it was between them and Catholics. Take the Anabaptist movement, for example. But something that many of these groups seemed to have in common and reappears today.

Lutherans, Anabaptists, Zurich Reformers all thought they were living in the END TIMES! And they thought they had a direct line from God on how to deal with it.

They did have some evidence. Constantinople had been taken and converted to Islam much as the Crusader Jerusalem enclave had been taken centuries before - in a military campaign. Here were two instances were violence ( and poor defense) definitely settled something, perhaps forever. And currently,the Turkish Caliphate was just hundreds of miles away knocking off Budapest and the Kingdom of Hungary! The world of Christendom was shrinking to a couple of corrupt monarchies, right?

So once Protestantism consolidated throughout the Germanic speaking world, what did it do about this?

Nothing.

It was Charles V and subsequent Spanish monarchs that pulled the chestnuts out of the fire. Polish forces saved Austria. The Spanish fleet sank the Turkish at Lepanto (Turkey seeks to link itself to the European community by other means these days). I guess it took a lot of silver from the New World to finance all of that.

But as much as there is to mull in all this, I've got to go.

Mark 6, missions of 12, sent out 2 by 2.

by kepler in

this past sunday i was in a church where the gospel reading and sermon was on the above chapter.

it was noted that jesus was acknowledged as a carpenter from nazareth.

his relatives or genealogy was enumerated in a manner that, shall we say, was distinct from the manner in matthew and luke.

kepler

This past Sunday I was in a church where the Gospel reading and sermon was on the above chapter. It was noted that Jesus was acknowledged as a carpenter from Nazareth. His relatives or genealogy was enumerated in a manner that, shall we say, was distinct from the manner in Matthew and Luke. But in verses from 7 to 13, the instructions to the 12 disciples were related.

These instructions have been the gist of many discussions on this forum. For the two by two nature of the evangelism is imitated by the WTS in its door to door solicitations. Two pioneers appear at one's door with literature and inquiries. And two or more representatives from a KH will appear at one's home for instruction. I know this from being on the other end of the log. When someone I knew returned to the KH, she asked me to take instructions and I did. Short version of long story.

But as I look at the verses in Mark, I notice

"So they set off to proclaim repentance and they cast many devils, anointed many sick people with oil and cured them." ( 13).

I saw periodicals with spin on the scriptures, but I saw no oils or cures.

Any comments?