worship of jesus was declared to be an act of idolatry!.
we are going to examine the cataclysmic changeover in christian teaching exploding inside the watchtower religion in the early 50’s by exploring a background of the history of jesus’ place in christianity.
jw teaching about the nature of jesus’ importance in the salvation of mankind will be compared with christian history.
Just an add on to the my above post. It appears that several paragraphs about dissenting communities distribution in time and space with respect to 325 AD simply vanished into cyber space. Also some remarks about how the exportation of English dissent to America gave that brand a higher representation than would have existed otherwise.
But I've got to get back to work on other things, so I let that go for now.
worship of jesus was declared to be an act of idolatry!.
we are going to examine the cataclysmic changeover in christian teaching exploding inside the watchtower religion in the early 50’s by exploring a background of the history of jesus’ place in christianity.
jw teaching about the nature of jesus’ importance in the salvation of mankind will be compared with christian history.
Terry,
All along have read your reflections avidly on the basis that you are on to something - whether I'm entirely in agreement or not. But this one is particularly good. As an outsider looking in on the phenomenon of JW, it appears to me quite often as a shape shifter. But your working thesis looks like a possible way to pin it to the wall. So take my comments below as explorations or a maybe a couple of refinements (e.g., dissent origins).
Had I been living 400 years ago and confronted on the question of the Trinity, I would have kept my head down. Today, looking at the controversy, I would rather say that I can sympathize with the debaters about how how difficult it is to sort out such a dilemma by studying what's recorded in scriptures. And then looking at established churches today, I sense that many behave much the same. Despite the importance of Jesus Christ in say the theology and day to day teachings of Baptists, to give one example, as near as I can tell they originated with the teachings of a certain Arminius in the Netherlands who it would be difficult to claim in the ranks of the Trinitarians. So, if they are confused or confusing, why shouldn't I be as well?
But Christianity is also a philosophy of life. There is a Pre and Post Christ measure of things - and we happen to live in the after period. Our conduct is measured in what would Christ say, do or think - and our society here did not form until after Augustine had written his City of God. A universal church and a city of God were much akin to establishment of a caliphate that followers of Muhammad would institute a few centuries later. It was an attempt to order life on earth until Christ's return, either as implied in Gospels, Epistles, Revelations or some combination thereof. Paul and Peter's interpretations were more administrative day to day. Something like Hebrews would be higher flying.
Now flash forward 1500 years and we find that in western Europe there was a pervasive feeling that the society was corrupt and erring - and democratization of the scriptures would engage more of the population in solving problems. It wasn't that the Bible was not read. It was read in special editions and distribution was limited. Moreover, what histories of the Renaissance subtly describe, western Europeans generally did not understand Greek. They often got their Greek classics after they were translated from Arabic to Latin via Andalusia. Who had time to write, much less approve vernacular translations even if the clerical and civil authorities had been well disposed toward them?
But it happened and the result was something like a vampire movie. The townsmen/reformers used the Book much like the vampire killers would use a crucifix to ward off a vampire; in this case it was the established church.
Everything was in the Old and New Testament. Every abuse of the present day could be fought with a Biblical citation. And consequently, everything that happened within the interval between the first and 16th century that was assumed a part of the City of God was now relegated to illegitimacy or to nothing. Who was more important? King David in Kings campaigning against Saul or Thomas Aquinas attempting to summarize the knowledge of God? To test this question, monitor fundamentalist radio broadcasts for a few hours.
And then, when you examine the editing of the original scriptures, you have to wonder if this did not happen before( circa 700 to 400 BC and onward) as well.
what do you make of this graph?.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=graph+population+of+earth.
.
A new type of Rorschach test?
The graph provided could mean a lot of things, but the further left you go, it's based more and more on conjecture.
Near the origin it is difficult to tell what the population is supposed to be on a log scale of millions: Nearly 1 million or below one million? How much below? And based on what? The End of Ice Age census respondents?
Who drew up the graph? Were they making estimates from historical extrapolations, archeological inferences?
A couple of leveling off points might be due to events such as the Bronze Age collapse around 1200 BC, the collapse of the Roman West and the Plague of Justinian around 500 - AD. World wide plague in the 14th century and "anti-urban programs" originating in Central Asia directed by the Chengis Khan & sons - you would figure they would reflect as well, if 14th century plague reduced populations by a third to a half.
...But that doesn't explain the abrupt stop that Slimboyfat noticed.
Oddly enough, during that period, in the MidEast there was some long term consolidation of Empires under Persian control - which shifted to a Hellenic "commonwealth. Amid all that, one of the observations of the Thucydides about the Peloponnesian (~430 to 410 BC) War was the outbreak of plague. It could be that the communications made available by land empires and sea-going vessels for contagions, levying of large armies taking farm workers from out of the fields, bad harvests and intense plagues spread from one end of Eurasia to another - were worse on population numbers than the continuous fighting preceding it in the Levantine and Mesopotamia.
Or that the leveling off is simply questionable.
It could have been done by a geography department student with a pencil and a guess.
i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.
he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .
then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!
A few sections earlier in Thucydides (Book 1, section or paragraph 13) :
"Subsequently, the Ionians attained to great naval strength in the reign of Cyrus, the first king of the Persians, and of his son Cambyses, and while they were at war with the former, commanded the sea around Ionia."
Then in Book 1, paragraph 14)
"In deed it was only shortly before the Persian war and the death of Darius the successor of Cambyses, that the Sicillian tyrants and Corcyraens aquired any large number of tiremes. For after these there were no navies of any account in Hellas till the expedition of Xerxes."
Some translations of Thucydides carefully avoid referring to Medes, but it is as clear as day in the Greek and occurs by my count at least 50 times. Maybe the translators just wanted to let sleeping dogs lie.
i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.
he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .
then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!
This is a topic I can't help but hail in. But I am having trouble with my e-mail link, so I'll have to be brief.
The material that Perry provides says that the issue of Darius the Mede is one of the more difficult to solve and then labors mightily at it. But there is an answer and it's crucial.
Look in Thucydides and Herodotus.
In the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides account of strife among his contemporary 5th century BC Greeks, he states in book 1 section 18.
"Not many years after the deposition of the tyrants, the battle of Marathon was fought between the Medes and Athenians."
Who was the king of Persia? Darius.
Who was his son who shows up ten years later? Xerxes.
Who described him as the King of the Medes? Herodotus, also cited by Perry's source.
morning visit by two pioneers who wanted to tell me about promise of bodily eternal life in revelations and then a quick cross reference to psalms.
i asked about the great leap between two texts, but all they could explain was that the two were written before and after the life of christ.
that was certainly not telling me anything i didn't already know, as i pointed out, and not a reason to call me away from my chores.
Doc,
Considering that there is a contemporaneous thread about how people who are mourning losses of family members are considered targets for these visits, I am vexed with myself for not pointing that out at that time. Years ago, I had taken some instruction due to a member of my family deciding to return to their JW roots. The study text was "What the Bible Really Teaches". That too seemed to emphasize early on the sadness of death and how a stop was going to be put to it. But the argument there too was flawed. If the matter is my making a choice for this faith, but the fate of those surrounding me depends on the same thing, then those that have already passed cannot be changed.
So, in effect ( to my unschooled mind anyway) the entry point about those who have been lost is a bait and switch. And what will follow will be a hop scotch through Bible passages with a skewed perspective, followed by an eternity of wandering among door knockers and door bells with similar, prepared entrapping texts.
morning visit by two pioneers who wanted to tell me about promise of bodily eternal life in revelations and then a quick cross reference to psalms.
i asked about the great leap between two texts, but all they could explain was that the two were written before and after the life of christ.
that was certainly not telling me anything i didn't already know, as i pointed out, and not a reason to call me away from my chores.
Morning visit by two pioneers who wanted to tell me about promise of bodily eternal life in Revelations and then a quick cross reference to Psalms. I asked about the Great Leap between two texts, but all they could explain was that the two were written before and after the life of Christ. That was certainly not telling me anything I didn't already know, as I pointed out, and not a reason to call me away from my chores. I found myself becoming quickly annoyed but only figured out why after they had left. Since they were searching to see if I had lost anyone and was in mourning, my subconscious had already connected the fact that any textual consolation they offered would not apply to those already lost (e.g., my deceased parents who had nothing to do with the Org - I don't see how they were offering any hope of resurrection for them - only condemnation to be revealed after fruitless further study). So when I asked why they leaped from one verse to the next, they said that it was all connected. How did they know? Because it was all inspired by God. Was that not circular reasoning, I asked. "Why, yes." the elder of the two conceded. And do you not "interpret" this text by such connections and skips? They could see I was annoyed and duly noted. In other words as far as they were concerned, I was rude. I said that I was feeling fine until they had arrived and had not invited them, especially since I was about to chauffer someone to their job and could not provide any illumination to their verses. They left in a huff.
also he never chastised the jews for not identifying themselves as jehovah`s witnesses following isaiah`s statement at ch.43 :10-12 , so many years before hand.. and he had ample opportunity to do so on numerous occasions .. jesus himself never used the divine name /jehovah or any other equivalent , in any of his sayings attributed to him by his contemporaries .. sure he acknowledged god as his father and that he did his fathers will , but he never acknowledged him by a personal name such as jehovah or anything like it.. and lets not forget acts 11:26 it was first in antioch that followers of jesus by divine providence were to be called christians , not jehovah`s witnesses,.
smiddy.
Need some identifying characteristics:
Did he go door to door distributing literature?
And with whom?
From which Kingdom Hall?
How did he get along with the Elders?
cars, plasma tvs, shopping malls...all come from satan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ivkrnxzzes.
How about watches?
Or they just come from Apple?
just read over the long thread about a letter to hq regarding noah's flood.
reminded of another literal litmus test.
within 7 years of beginning telescopic observations of the heavens, galileo was called to judgment by the inquisition in 1616. disputes in this case abound, but the biblical arguments for which galileo was tried and condemned "revolved" around i chronicles 16:30, psalms 93:1, 96:10, 104.5 and ecclesiastes 1:5, summarized by "the world is established; it shall never be moved.
Vidiot,
"Yes, like any other planet. See Astronomy 101."
But let's examine the vintage of that course. For much of the 17th century and most of the time before this was not so. Ptolemy's textbook explained how it was otherwise. And I don't recall any Biblical references within. He was arguing based on an elaborate geometry - which did not then have the good fortune of introducing the phases of Venus into the argument. Jupiter's satellites, the Moon's imperfections such as craters and mountains and Copernican theory pointed in the direction... my on-line namesake was publishing at about the same time...
But phases of Venus were key to the argument.
Subsequently, transits of Venus were observed carefully by Jesuit astronomers...
When you read histories of astronomy in the 1500s and 1600s, it becomes very much tied up with the Reformations Protestant and Catholic with Copernicans and their opponents on both sides. However, since the ball of Fundamentalist thread in religious thinking was carried by reformers such as Luther and Calvin, in present day terms it would seem ironic that the Papacy and its Inquisition would stand as the defenders of Biblical inerrancy. Protestant circles tend to be self congratulatory about Galileo. Really? Why?
It wasn't Galileo that got burned on this, but even centuries later not all schools of thought learned from this either.
