It was the outer clothing Jesus took off. The towel was for drying the disciples feet. Jesus was (perhaps intentionally) making himself look like a servant to press his point about humble service.
Posts by Bobcat
-
14Jesus washing feet in underwear or naked?
by John_Mann injohn 13:4,5. got up from the evening meal and laid aside his outer garments.
and taking a towel, he wrapped it around his waist.. after that he put water into a basin and started to wash the feet of the disciples and to dry them off with the towel that was wrapped around him.. .
the wt "translates" himatia as outer garments but some other translations says just clothes.. if he were wearing just an underwear, why wrap a towel around the waist?
-
-
-
13
"No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly..." = Implications
by EdenOne inand they named him obed.
jesse was the father of david the king.
matthew 1:6, 7 - " and jesse the father of king david.
-
-
Bobcat
SAHS:
The three worship festivals held by the Jews every year under the Law were obligatory only for males. (Compare Exod 23:14-17) So in these cases the ancestry of one's wife was of little consequence. The two geneology lists in Matthew and Luke also focus on the father. I take it that as far as official descent was concerned, the Jews placed the importance on him rather than the mother.
I see your point about the particularness of the Law in other respects. Although, in the case of Ruth, I like the fact that her faith was rewarded rather than her ancestry (which she had nothing to do with) being held against her.
Take Care
-
24
The question of the crucifix.
by quellycatface inwhy do the jw's insist that jesus was crucified on a stake??
the practice by the romans back in that time was to use a cross.
i've even heard of some witnesses say it was due to "lack of wood.
-
-
Bobcat
Quelly:
I agree with you. The student said nothing in the demo about giving honor to the cross she had. Instead, it was a keepsake to remember her grandmother by. (She wasn't even using to 'remember Jesus' by!) And the sister, after having Acts 19:19 read, said nothing about the cross either. She simply had the student to read the verse and, after reading it, the student quickly figured out that she needed to get rid of her keepsake.
It was totally mindless. I have a bunch of reference books in my personal library that have cross cover art on them. It's meaningless.
Many JWs still use the argument that the cross was used in pagan worship. 'That is why Jesus couldn't have died on one.' By the same logic he couldn't have died on a stake either. (e.g. Exod 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3; numerous others) Curiously, "sacred poles" are mentioned numerous times in the NWT. But crosses, as objects of worship, never are.
NeverEnding:
I appreciated your comments. They pride themselves on being the smartest people on earth. But when you try to reason with them you are only left shaking your head in disbelief.
Take Care
-
24
The question of the crucifix.
by quellycatface inwhy do the jw's insist that jesus was crucified on a stake??
the practice by the romans back in that time was to use a cross.
i've even heard of some witnesses say it was due to "lack of wood.
-
-
Bobcat
At the 2 day Assembly this past week there was a demo involving a sister with her Bible student. The student had a cross which was a pricey heirloom from her grandma.
The demo consisted of two versions. One where the sister openly told her student to get rid of it. The other where the sister had Acts 19:19 read, and then asked her student what she should do with it.
As I watched it, I wondered how the demo would have looked if the student told the sister she had a pricey necklace with a watchtower symbol on it, given to her by her JW grandma.
-
13
"No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly..." = Implications
by EdenOne inand they named him obed.
jesse was the father of david the king.
matthew 1:6, 7 - " and jesse the father of king david.
-
-
Bobcat
Eden:
Regarding "forever," the NAC commentary was saying, in effect, that "to the tenth generation" shouldn't be taken in a numerically literal way. That it had an unending sense to it, or, at least as long as the covenant was in force. (The commentary actually said "basically forever.")
On the the Moabite & Ammonite question, The Bible Knowledge Commentary posits (Vol I, p. 303):
- The treatment of Ruth, however, by Boaz along with other Israelites of Bethlehem demonstrates that this law [Deut 23] was never meant to exclude one who said, "Your people will be my people and your God my God" (Ruth 1:16). Isaiah seemed to have held a similar interpretation (cf. Isa 56:3, 6-8) but perhaps those verses in Isaiah apply only to end times.
The accounts in Nehemiah and Ezra seem to focus on the fact that the "foreign wives" had taken no such stand towards Yahweh worship as Ruth had taken. And, as pagan worshipers, they and their foreign speaking children posed a threat to the future of the restored nation in connection with its standing with Yahweh. (Nehemiah compares them with Solomon taking foreign wives, which he did while they were, and remained, pagan worshipers.)
For the record (and so as not to distract the thread), I'm not commenting here on the morality of dismissing one's children and wife, as the accounts in Ezra and Nehemiah describe. But it should be noted that the law covenant made a distinction between foreigners who took up the worship of Yahweh (e.g. Ruth) and those who didn't. (Compare e.g. Exodus 12:43-49.)
One thing your thread might prompt me to do is get a copy of The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. I gained some interest in it after seeing it referred to in the WT study the other week. Reviews of it at bookseller websites seem to reccommend it as a great resource for the Jewish view of the Law.
Take Care, Eden
-
13
"No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly..." = Implications
by EdenOne inand they named him obed.
jesse was the father of david the king.
matthew 1:6, 7 - " and jesse the father of king david.
-
-
Bobcat
Eden:
The difference here is 'entering the assembly,' which is not the same as being part of the covenant community. From the NAC-Deuteronomy commentary (Eugene H. Merrill, p. 307):
- The "assembly" (qahal) refers here to the formal gathering of the Lord's people as a community at festival occasions and other times of public worship and not to the nation of Israel as such. This is clear from the occurrence of the verb "enter" (bo) throughout the passage (vv. 1- 3, 8), a verb that suggests participation with the assembly and not initial introduction or conversion to it.
With reference to "down (or "even") to the tenth generation," the NAC commentary takes that as meaning basically "forever." (In WT generational thinking it would certainly be a very long time, considering all the overlapping and so on. :)
With reference to Ruth, the commentary says:
- For this reason [the hatred they showed the Israelites] they [Moabites and Ammonites] could never enter the assembly of the Lord though there is no reason to think they were denied affiliation with Israel as such (cf. Deut 2:9, 19; Ruth 4:10; 1 Sam 22:3-4). They and any other peoples could qualify as proselytes to Yahwism (cf. Exod. 12:38) though this did not give them automatic access to the worshiping assembly.
I take it in David's case, his official ancestry was considerd to be through Boaz, not Ruth. Israelite kings had to be Israelite, not foreigners.
Edited to add:
I wonder if the addition of foreigners to the lineage of Jesus, even if only on the mother's side, presaged the fact that the Christian community (the Israel of God of Gal 6:16) would be of international makeup? I can't think of any text that presses that point, but it would certainly have been prophetically appropriate.
Take Care
-
26
Todays wt study, a query, no oxymoron jokes !!!!!!
by jonahstourguide ini wonder, is this a new doctrine and when did "reason and scripture" take place.. .
page 25 paragraph 10 dec 15 2013 study wt.
10 the bread that the apostles could see and would soon partake of meant jesus body.
-
-
Bobcat
Prologos:
- I did a thread last year on the 'breaking of the bread' aspect of the Lord's Evening Meal, asking for comments (here).
Jonahs:
- In the WT quote that you had in your post, notice the, "at one time God's servants felt . . ." In reality, the old belief was a decree from the WT staff. There was no, God's servants felt . . ." anything. You went along with the program or you were cast by the wayside. They always do this when they backtrack. I think people would have a lot more respect for them if they were more forthright. Correcting mistakes is no big deal. But when you start spinning it . . .
Leaving:
- When I get a chance later today, I'm going to post links here for lurkers supporting what you said.
Take Care
-
26
Todays wt study, a query, no oxymoron jokes !!!!!!
by jonahstourguide ini wonder, is this a new doctrine and when did "reason and scripture" take place.. .
page 25 paragraph 10 dec 15 2013 study wt.
10 the bread that the apostles could see and would soon partake of meant jesus body.
-
-
Bobcat
Leaving:
I think you picked the last WT reference to the idea that the loaf pictures "the Christian Congregation."
Here is the 1956 WT 1/15 p. 49 par. 18 “The Table of Demons” versus “The Table of Jehovah” ***
- 18 His body? Yes; his own body, his whole body, head and all, that he was to give for them. Jesus meant his own body, the body with which he next associates his own blood when speaking of the cup. For thirty-three and a half years that body had held the blood that was to be poured out on the torture stake at Calvary. The life of that fleshly body was its blood. When he came to John to have that body baptized Jesus quoted Psalm 40:6-8 and applied it to himself: “Hence when he comes into the world he says: “‘You did not desire sacrifice and offering [of beasts], but you prepared a body for me. You did not approve of whole burnt offerings and sin offering.” Then I said, “Look! I am come (in the roll of the book it is written about me) to do your will, O God.”’”—Heb. 10:5-7, NW.
(Bolding and underlining mine - Bobcat)
So somewhere between 1954 and 1956 this change in doctrine occurred. Confirming this is a few pages later. The article differentiates 1 Cor 10:17 from the loaf at the Lord's Evening meal (w56 1/15 pp. 55-56 par. 1 “One Body” of Partakers):
- Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking [eating] of that one loaf.” (1 Cor. 10:17, NW) To which body does Paul here refer by the words “one body”? Not to the personal, fleshly body of Jesus which is symbolized by the loaf of unleavened bread. No, but to the entire congregation of spiritual Israelites of which Jesus Christ is the spiritual Head.
That is interesting that such a basic thing, understood by probably all of churchdom, would be only so recently figured out by the 'enlightened' WT. I guess they were so busy condemning the churches for all their 'Satanic lies' that they didn't have time to get this right.
Oh, I couldn't pass up the language employed in the old understanding:
- . . . To which body was Jesus referring here? To his fleshly body? Hardly, (meaning: you must be stupid if you thought this!) for concerning it we read that not a bone was broken, whereas Jesus broke the loaf. (John 19:36) Rather, he was referring to his spiritual body, the Christian congregation, (yes, its obvious, unless your one of Christendom's hardheads!) which in the Scriptures is termed a body or Christ’s body more than forty-five times. That this is the correct conclusion is apparent from Paul’s words: (I wonder why this isn't the "correct conclusion anymore?) “The loaf which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of the Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf.” Clearly the loaf pictures not Jesus’ fleshly body but his body members, the Christian congregation.—1 Cor. 10:16, 17, NW.
Take Care
-
23
Every JW should pay attention to Steven Pinker's lecture: A History of Violence
by cognisonance incame across this lecutre (or alternatively you can read the transcript) in a class from yale on moralities of everyday life:.
a history of violence edge master class 2011some excepts:.
"believe it or notand i know most people do notviolence has been in decline over long stretches of time, and we may be living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.".
-
-
Bobcat
Linked to this thread. (See page three for link.)
-
54
1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?
by Bobcat inthe february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".
setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.
certainly wwi was a big war.
-
-
Bobcat
Statistics on violence given on this post (Thanks cognisonance) which features a comparison of the 20th century with, what many think, was a relatively peaceful 19th century.