Posts by shepherdless

77

Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

by towerwatchman in

interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

shepherdless

How can we verify that what Jesus said about the afterlife is true? By the resurrection.
We have numerous lines of historical evidence, proof that the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of His women followers.
We have several lines of historical evidence established that on numerous occasions and at different places various individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

and

Thereafter, Jesus appeared from the dead to the disciples,, including Peter, who then became proclaimers of the message of His resurrection. Also appeared to His brothers James and Jude, and to Saul. All four Gospels testify to these facts. Many more details can be supplied by adding facts that are attested by three out of four. So minor discrepancy should not affect our case.

What are these "numerous lines of historical evidence" and "several lines of historical evidence"? Outside of the bible, the only mention of a resurrection I am aware of , is a brief reference in the Testimonium Flavianum (by Josephus), which when translated reads something like:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

However, there are very good arguments to the effect that prior to the 4th century (or at least at around the time Oreigen read and commented on it), the relevant passage read something like:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

So the reference to a resurrection seems to be an addition by Chritian apologists in around the 4th century. Therefore the only written evidence of a resurrection is in the bible alone.

I should point out:

a missing body doesn't necessarily mean a resurrection;
Mary Magdeline seeing Jesus on the Sunday morning but not recognising him raises serious credibility issues right there (same issue applies to the "appearance" on the road to Emmaus);
of the 11 to 13 mentioned appearances, all but one was an appearance to a small private group (often the same group) or just an individual;
the only public appearance mentioned (see 1 Cor 15:6) is not referred to in the 4 gospels or Acts. Further, if such a public appearance occurred, why are some apostles still doubting the resurrection afterwards (see eg Matthew 28:17) ;
Saul/Paul wouldn't have known what Jesus looked like.

There have been many more documented sightings of Elvis, leprechauns etc. Even accepting the bible as accurate, apart from the supposed appearance to Paul, it is all second-hand accounts.

And why didn't Jesus just walk into Jerusalem on the Sunday morning and just yell: "Ha ha, I am back!" I think I know why.

21

TIL - 537 BC is in the Bible - and more

by berrygerry in

from an apologist site:.

http://thirdwitness.com/607_bce/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/realissue.html.

hence, counting back from 537 bce (the year the bible says the jews returned home) for a full seventy years, we arrive at the year 607 bce.. .

shepherdless

I should add that even though my posts concentrate on the academic issues, I broadly agree with Tor that this is not what drives most dubs to stay or leave.

21

TIL - 537 BC is in the Bible - and more

by berrygerry in

from an apologist site:.

http://thirdwitness.com/607_bce/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/realissue.html.

hence, counting back from 537 bce (the year the bible says the jews returned home) for a full seventy years, we arrive at the year 607 bce.. .

shepherdless

As I understand it, the end of the last remnant of the Assyrian empire was in 609 BC, which seems to fit fit very nicely with 539 BC as the end of the Babylonian empire. Is that correct?

The collapse of the Assyrian empire certainly had a major role in the rise of Babylon as a regional superpower. However, if you are looking for a period to match the biblical 70 years, that is not a likely choice, because the beginning of the 70 years is bionically linked to Nebuchadnezzar. As I see it, there are 2 main alternatives for reconciling the biblical 70 year period with secular history:

(a) the 70 years is actually 68 years, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar commencing his domination of the region - a mainstream view held by religious scholars, at least back as far as Bishop James Ussher, writing in the 17th century; or

(b) the explanation given by Doug Mason, above.

21

TIL - 537 BC is in the Bible - and more

by berrygerry in

from an apologist site:.

http://thirdwitness.com/607_bce/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/realissue.html.

hence, counting back from 537 bce (the year the bible says the jews returned home) for a full seventy years, we arrive at the year 607 bce.. .

shepherdless

Just to reinforce the point others above have made about this apologist piece. I went through the lot, trying to find on what basis the author supports the dates of 539 BC and 537 BC. The only thing I could find, was the following, on about page 12:

Of course, there is abundant secular evidence to show that 539 BCE is the date of Babylon’s defeat, and most importantly, such evidence is accepted by us because it does not contradict the scriptures.

So the whole piece rests on that. Accept the secular 539 BC datum and reject the secular 587 BC datum. No explanation as to how one can be accepted and the other rejected.

On another thread, I reported that I went back through the old literature for where 537 BC came from. The history is lengthy. I will try to very briefly summarise.

Russell assumed the dates of 536 BC and 606 BC. Back then, historians had already known for centuries (from Ptolemy's canon) that the date Cyrus conquered Babylon in around 538 or 539 BC (and that Jerusalem fell in about 587 BC), but the date of 536 BC had a special numerical allure for the Millerites. Millerites assumed Ptolomy's calendar was out by 2 years, not understanding that that was impossible, because the timing of the eclipses in Ptolomy's canon could not be out that far. Russell just copied the 536 date as fact, from around the 1890's onwards, without checking.

48

My Old Kingdom Hall being merged with TWO other congregations!

by pale.emperor in

this can only be a good sign.. my old congregation in liverpool has had a lot of money in it's bank account for years.

for a long, long time (almost 8 years) they've been looking for land to build a new hall.

the one they're in now is literally falling to bits.

shepherdless

Wow!

Of course it is not just the £200k gone, it is the proceeds of the sale of 2 more Kingdom Halls, as well. Where is all the money going?

19

Is ignorance an excuse?

by stuckinarut2 in

i have always maintained that i hold nothing personally against individual witnesses, even those that have actively slandered our name and reputation based on the actions of some individuals.. i have often said that all these ones, (even the ones spreading gossip), are victims of the culture of the organization, and the directions of the gb.. but recently i have been rethinking this, and wonder if ignorance is really an acceptable excuse?.

i mean, with so much information now readily available about the society, its origins, its scandals, issues and conduct, is it simply ok for a witness to remain wilfully ignorant about the organization that dictates every aspect of their lives?.

is ignorance an excuse?.

shepherdless

Ignorance may not quite be the right word. It seems to be more a mental refusal to deal with something unpleasant.

Someone I know used to be fond of saying that most of the world's problems are caused by weak people, not evil people. (Weak in this context meaning lack of strength of character, compromising principles, hedonistic, unwilling to stand up to bullies, etc.)

I think that this religion would have died out long ago, if people within it and outside it had the courage and conviction to call it for what it is, more often.

So in my opinion, "ignorance" is not an excuse. Worse, it is a fundamental part of the cause.

11

Scriptures that now have such a different meaning?!

by stuckinarut2 in

it struck me that so many of the scriptures that the society uses to condemn others, can actually apply to them!.

when we read them without the application that the society enforces, they can make you have that "ah-ha!

" moment.... for instance, how about:.

shepherdless

2 Corinthians 2:7:

"for we are not peddlers of the word of God as many men are"

(a footnote states that "not peddlers" means not commercializing, or not making profit from)

For most of Watchtower history, it was the quintessential "peddler for profit" of the word of God.

9

Christianity (Including JWs) Debunked

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

1 cor.

15: 21,22 rnwt: for since death came through a man,+ resurrection of the dead also comes through a man.+ 22 for just as in adam all are dying,+ so also in the christ all will be made alive.. .

so according to the nt jesus makes alive those that die in adam.. given the overwhelming evidence that adam as a man did not exist jws lose the battle on this verse.. however foolish christians like pentecostals and catholics like to call adam figurative.. okay... read it again^^^^^^... .

shepherdless

Good thinking. However, I don't think your point would bother too many other Christians, such as Catholics.

I was brought up a Catholic (never a JW). Most Catholics know there are numerous inconsistencies in the bible, but it does not cause a major issue. Not only do they not believe in a literal Adam, they have the view that if you try to read the bible literally as a book of history (or a book of science) you are reading it the wrong way.

If I wanted to "stumble" a Catholic, I would focus on the resurrection. If Jesus was resurrected, he could have walked the streets of Jerusalem, yelling "Ha Ha, you can't kill me!". Instead, all we have is a few partially conflicting accounts of people claiming to see Jesus resurrected, a couple of whom didn't even recognise him until after he left. (This is the issue that bothered me most, as a teenager.) Even if the biblical resurrection accounts are broadly true, they are second hand accounts with about as much credibility as Elvis sightings. And without the resurrection, there is no Christianity.

24

Crop circles

by Chook in

what causes them ?.

shepherdless

I vaguely remember when crop circles first appeared and made news, there were journalists saying they couldn't possibly be done by people. Then a year or so later, I saw a news item or documentary where some people revealed that they were doing it, and gave a demonstration of the boards and surveying technique used.

It should have all died down there, but I guess it is much more fun to believe aliens were involved, than a few geezers from the local pub.

I suppose there is a parallel to the early days of Watchtower. It was probably more fun to believe Russell's amateurish numerology and pyramidology (complete with obvious mistakes such as the date for the fall of Jerusalem, no zero AD etc) than see him as some guy making money selling a book series.

221

Judge sanctions WTS - $4k per day penalty for not producing sex abuse documents

by Simon in

judge sanctions jehovah's witnesses.

imposes $4000-a-day penalty for not producing documents in sex-abuse case.

by dorian hargrove, june 24, 2016. a san diego superior court judge has ordered the church of jehovah's witnesses, also known as the watchtower bible and tract society of pennsylvania, to pay $4000 a day for every day that it fails to produce documents requested in a civil lawsuit brought by former parishioner, osbaldo padron, who claims a church elder sexually abused him when he was seven years old.. in a june 23 ruling, expected to be made final today, judge richard strauss admonished the church for willfully ignoring a court order to produce all documents associated with a 1997 body of elders letter that church leaders sent to parishes around the world in a quest to learn about sexual abuse of children by church leaders.. over the course of the past year, the watchtower society and its lawyers have fought hard to keep the letter confidential, claiming that turning over the documents would infringe on the privacy of those mentioned in the letter that were not associated with the case.. in march 2015, the church turned over a heavily redacted version of the letter.

shepherdless

I went onto the court website myself, and it does appear Watchtower did not submit a brief. I can't confirm the other info Richard Oliver states without paying a small amount of money. (Or perhaps there is another way, but the website is unwieldy.)

Another possible reason Watchtower may not have submitted a brief is that there has been a settlement in the last week or so, pending payment of an amount. What may happen is that the parties settle, but the Court isn't notified until the amount of the settlement is paid across.