Posts by PetrW

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

na28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .

nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

PetrW

@EP

Fun must be had, one must not take oneself so seriously! ✌️😁

On the other hand: I try to think about Revelation rationally and biblically. Perhaps the question of the identity of Babylon the Great is interesting, or the question of the chronology of events in Revelation in view of the fact that there are verbs in the future or past tense... one more proof that I don't mean this just as a joke: I'm writing something for a theological, peer-reviewed journal on the subject of 666, which obviously may not involve any gematria or symbolism of the number 6, but neither, of course, do vaccines, chips, binary codes, etc.

One of the hardest questions I find is the connection between the book of Daniel and Revelation...etc. etc. These questions are many and many.

You can start with an opinion or a question...but you don't have too, of course!✌️😎

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

na28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .

nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

PetrW

@EasyPrompt

*off topic*

A very interesting take on Revelation! My interpretation of chapter 9 is very similar to yours, only the identity of the people who "die" is a bit different in my understanding...

My point is that if you start a discussion thread dealing with Revelation and put your views out there, I'd be happy to join. From my point of view, it is not necessary to deal primarily with JW-exegesis of the book of Revelation, rather only peripherally...

Also, if one leaves out the various conspiracy theories such as "the one true religion", vaccines, chips, barcodes, digital currency, digital gulag, Freemasons, America, Russia, China, Vatican, Jews, UN, NATO, EU, pyramidology, Bill Gates or Ukraine... then nothing bad will happen ✌️😁😎

36

My defense speech before the judicial committee

by Disfellowshipped-Brother in

dear brothers!.

we have gathered here because, according to your claims, i have apostatized, and as elders, it is your duty to maintain the purity of the flock.

it seems now that someone has contaminated it, apparently.

PetrW

The story which the brother has described to us has all the typical features: as can be seen from the actions of the "judges" and also from the brother's feelings and consequences.

There is always a presumption of guilt. The accused/defendant is obliged to prove his "innocence". The "judges" are not concerned with the content of his heresy, or more accurately: only to the extent that they find a contradiction between the JW-doctrine and the accused/defendant's opinion. Judges judge fundamentally, and sooner or later in the "process", what relationship the heretic has to GB. Does he acknowledge the "leading role" of the GB - yes or no? And if he formally claims to recognize the authority of the GB, then why does he not submit to that authority and still assert his ideas? By questioning the authority of the GB, he questions the authority of the "judges", so unless the heretic brings sufficient arguments in favor of his innocence, the initial charge of heresy remains on him...

So the procedural rules are clear, all the advantages are on the side of the accusers, who are often also your judges, and the "logic" of the JW-procedural rules cannot be challenged.

Either you accept GB, then you have no other views than those of GB, or, you have your own view, but incompatible with GB, and thus, you cannot be a JW. If you are not a GB yourself, then you cannot a priori be the source of the "new light", or even be the one to correct the light source... it is safe to say, even necessary to admit that "they" know you have no aces and are just bluffing...

As the brother himself writes, he felt his head hit the wall. The question may be, how to avoid it? If I leave out the situation of spontaneous decision: enough is enough!, then it should be a well thought out decision in order to gain time for yourself (your family). To buy time for what? Not only to get more arguments for criticizing JW-doctrine, but e.g. to establish other contexts, to reflect more deeply on the historical role of churches, different doctrines and views of salvation.

I think the example of Jesus himself is a good one for this: he knew very well that there would soon be an open confrontation between him and the world. That's why he tried to be as unobtrusive as possible until the conflict escalated. That's why he went to lonely places, why he was always on the move.

In practice, I think that means the best thing to do is to move somewhere else (if you can) and not visit KH in the new place. Start a new life.

If moving is not an option - the most common case - then what is needed is "internal emigration". One withdraws into oneself: gradually(!) one stops participating in JW activities until 0. But how does he justify this? By a simple and true statement: I don't feel comfortable there. He will not reveal his theological or other motives, but will sum it all up in one sentence: I don't feel good there. This statement is unchallengeable, or rather, they will begin to ask why this is so, but here self-control is necessary and you must constantly repeat only what you feel. Otherwise you will "hit your head against the wall" and not have time. If you can stand it, you will leave (relatively) quietly...

Why do I prefer to leave quietly? My answer implies criticism of some former JWs. In the departure of some JW's, one can see and not overlook that there is a visible share of their personal narcissism, a certain exhibitionism or "messiah complex", no matter how bad the JW doctrines are. My point is that if someone is "against" it, they are not automatically right.

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

PetrW

@Blotty

I was very interested in your initial study of αιων. I have also been thinking lately about the concepts of time and especially in Revelation. Those terms like "fast", "near", "hour", "day", "month", "year" or "time" or "definite time" are pretty important.
***
So I focused on how "ordinary" people, understood the concept of αιων according to the NT. I found that in looking at the future, they understood it as some very long epoch, almost infinity: "we know from the Law that Christ abides forever" (John 12:34). A slightly different meaning can be found in looking at the past: 'since the beginning of time it has not been heard that, since the birth of the blind, anyone has opened his eyes' (John 9:32) - here we could say poetically: 'as far back as the memory of mankind goes, it has not been heard that, since the birth of the blind, anyone has opened his eyes'.

Therefore, unless it is clear from the context that αιων is limited (see e.g. "will not see death for ever "John 8:51 = "will not taste death for ever" John 8:52 => which actually means that the person will not be eternally dead, but his state of death will be changed: by resurrection to life. That is why Martha, in her dialogue with Jesus, says of her brother Lazarus that he will be resurrected on the last day, and Jesus confirms it: 'everyone who lives and believes in me will certainly not remain eternally dead' John 11:26; which, again in other words: the αιων of death will end 'on the last day'), it is necessary to add that the αιων somehow (does not) end => ".. will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will have no end" (Luke 1:33).

Theologically interesting is the passage in John 14:16 in which Jesus promises that the "parakletos" will be with us "for ever", which in terms of Revelation means that this period too will one day come to an end.

The apostles' question about when the end of the ages would come (Matt. 24:3), which again assumes that the ages are limited, so this question, I believe, was inspired by the same concept Jesus used in his parable (Matt. 13:39, 40, 49) about destroying the "tares" Satan had planted among the sons of God. And if this age is to have any end, there must be a future age, an idea we find confirmed in Mat 12:32.

Paul's position is interesting: he uses the term αιων also in the sense of a long age, an epoch, (Paul says in a slight exaggeration that for the sake of a brother weak in the faith he will not eat "meat forever," 1 Cor 8:13) but the idea appears there that this age, this epoch, which will also end, has some content. Hence, it is not surprising to hear his appeal that we should "not have the same scheme" as this αιων (Rom 12:2), but that there should be a continual renewal of our transformation...
The Αιων, then, has a scheme, a content, and that is the κοσμος (1 Cor 1:20), or the reverse: the κοσμος has its αιων, its age begun.
When? This is suggested by another writer: by Peter (2 Peter 2:5), when he speaks of the "old κοσμος" which was destroyed by the flood (2 Peter 3:6), by which we may say that the "age" of this "world," this κοσμος, has begun.
Returning to Paul, the close connection between κοσμος and αιων is demonstrated by Paul in yet another statement, "lest we walk (under the influence of) the age (αιων) of this world (κοσμος)" Eph. 2:2. Why? Because the "scheme" of this κοσμος is changing (1 Cor 7:31). The circle has come full circle.

Jesus' bodily coming to earth and His death is part of the (slow) end of the age (Heb 9:26 cf. 1 Cor 10:11), but the important point is that the "end" is gradually coming to pass, which is why Paul speaks several times of His "present" age (1 Tim 6:17; 2 Tim 4:10; Tit 2:12) If the Jewish αιων ends in 70 AD, then it is not the eschatological end of the ages, this eschatological age is ongoing (Eph. 1:21) and therefore there must be a future age yet to come. The eschatological αιων endures to its eschatological end, because Satan, the god (θεος with definite article! ) of this age (2 Cor. 4:4), acts upon men, the αιων has its chief ruler (Eph. 2:2) and its, shall we say, subsidiary rulers (1 Cor. 2:6-8).
***
The question then is how do I view Heb 1:2 with this finding? If John says in Rev 15:3 that God Almighty, is the (de facto) king of the ages. And if, God, the King of the Ages, made the ages through Jesus, then what are the ages (plural) in Heb 1:2?
As I wrote above, I believe there is a close connection between αιων and κοσμος in the case of Heb 1:2. According to the Septuagint and the translation of Gen 2:1, God created κοσμος. He began αιων, which ends with the flood and the destruction of the then world. In righteous Noah and his descendants, in Abraham and others, another αιων continues. And we await the beginning of the end of the eschatological age with the general resurrection and final judgment after the 1000 years of Christ's reign.

So we can calculate and contemplate various epochs, for example, from Creation to the Flood, from the Flood to Christ, from Christ including the 1000 years of his kingdom to the final judgment and descent, the New Jerusalem of the new heavens and new earth.
Paul hints a little about these ages in 2 Cor 12:2 and 4 , where he identifies the "third heaven" with "paradise" (v. 4) - see the promise of a symbolic Paradise in Rev 2:7 for all co-regents with Christ.
My understanding is that there must therefore be three heavens, for Rev 21:1 speaks of a "new heaven", saying that the "first" heaven (and earth) has passed away. At the same time, Rev. 21:2 says that the new Jerusalem came down out of heaven from God. So how can the "new" descend from something that already is? My understanding is that the heavens are cleansed at the latest by the victorious battle of Rev 12:8-12, but at the time, the symbolic earth is still experiencing woe. However, if the first heaven left after the 1000 year reign, then a new, de facto, third "heaven" must descend from the "second" heaven, from God.

Conclusion: Heb. 1:2 would suggest to me, then, that God has made all the ages and worlds to date through Jesus, and though they have been alienated by Satan, who has taken over the world and its age for the time being (he is the false "heir"), yet the foundation for a new world and a new age has already been laid by the death of Christ... which is why Heb. 1:2 can be written by Paul in the plural of age.

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

na28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .

nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

PetrW

@aqwsed12345

Interesting explanation. However, it seems too complicated to me, and especially in the part of salvation where Christ has to go specifically to preach to still dead people(!) from the past...if I connect your view to the death of Lazarus, for example, then it would be easier to have him preach to him in sheol than to have him crucify the dead...

I find that very complicated.

The simpler explanation offered by the text of the Bible, and the grammar that supports it, is that Christ, after dying and being in sheol, was resurrected in the flesh. His body was not found, but he, as a spirit, was given the opportunity (again) to take the material body he had after his death - see the case of Thomas who put his fingers into Jesus... in this spiritual (body) as 1 Peter 3:19 says he then preached to the spirits in prison.

It was fundamental to the early Christians that Jesus died in the flesh and in an absolutely identical body, was resurrected. Paul clearly translates this idea even to the philosophers of his day in Athens. But Jesus was not a fleshly being - he was the firstborn from the dead in a sense that JWs misunderstood - the firstborn in a spiritual body. That is exactly the kind of body, let's say "second" body, that those who participate in the first resurrection will receive. As Jesus says: they will be like the angels who do not marry or give in marriage...

The question remains, why did he do all this? Jesus' sacrifice is so great that he didn't need to preach to dead people in sheol. They too will be resurrected. Jesus - went to preach to ghosts in prison - repeat: in prison. That is, it was/is the "living" spirits who thus got a "second" chance at their salvation. Only the living, can respond to the living. The dead do nothing...

Clearly stated:

1. angels are spirits => 1 Peter 3:18 and 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 identify "spirits" as "angels" before the flood, awaiting judgment

2. the angels who are to be judged are part of the world (κοσμος), and this world, where the angels belong, will be judged by the saints along with Christ according to 1. Cor 6:2

3. Jesus gave his life not only for the good ones, but for the whole world (κοσμος) 1 John 2:2

Conclusion: the sacrifice of Jesus for the whole world, refers to the angels = demons from before the flood, and others, according to Luke 8:31, who are imprisoned in "prison" (abyssos), where in a spiritual body, after His death, and resurrection, Jesus went to preach.

***

To also respond to the topic of the sheol/hades, then I assume you know the literature or have access to it. I don't think we need to address that.

However, I have recently been intrigued by the topic of the sheol/hades because of the image in Revelation where the last horseman is said sheol to follow death. However, the so called "second death", has no Hades, even Hades is thrown symbolically into the second death.

I've been wondering, especially in light of the first occurrences of the word sheol in the OT (Gen 37:35 and 44:29-31), where did this idea come from in Jacob? That Jacob "studied" Egyptian ideas about the afterlife is less likely when Josephus reports that the Egyptians avoided contact with the Hebrews... Nor does Jacob himself come across as some ancient sage: he had 4 women on his hands and a bunch of kids with them, who were not exactly the elite of the youth of the day... this is certainly not the climate for academic contemplation✌️😁

I believe that behind the idea of the sheol, is a pretty simple idea, and perhaps already inherited... based on the belief(!) that although man dies, if Almighty God was able to create man, and with him the whole world, there is no problem to bring the dead back to life, and even in the form they had before.

The result of such considerations has resulted - in my opinion - in the form of an abstract concept of sheol, as a fictitious place where the individual in question waits (hopes) for revival, or his friends or friends are "carriers" of such an idea that the individual in question will return one day "from the eternal hunting grounds".

The idea of sheol/hades was not in any way negative, but rather motivated, in my opinion, by the idea of the hope that the one in sheol will - if Yahweh wills - be resurrected.

If I test this reasoning on another important text - Jesus' statement that the gates of sheol will not prevail against the church - then what Jesus meant, I think, was that even if sheol is filled with the church, sheol/hades will be emptied. Or, to put it another way, whoever is in sheol is only a temporary prisoner of death. Therefore, the sheol/hades has no power over the church. For Christ, according to Rev. 1:18, has "entry codes" from death and sheol...✌️😁

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

na28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .

nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

PetrW

@aqwsed 12345 (1. Peter 3,18-20)

(My comment below on 1 Peter 3:18-20 was written recently, a few months ago, in a debate with Adventists for whom it is important that Jesus was not raised in the Spirit. I didn't understand exactly why this was so important to them, I don't know their theology, but all I understood was that according to them - their interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-19 - Jesus was supposed to have preached in the time before the flood... I don't want to rewrite Jesus' history, whether he really preached before the flood or not ✌️😁, but my goal was more modest: if a simple reading of the text, almost by itself, can make sense of it...)

***

According to 1. Peter 3:18-20, Jesus is said to have died in the flesh (σαρξ), that is, in that in which he was as a man (John 1:14), thus Peter clearly emphasizes Jesus' "humanity".

He was σαρξ ("flesh and bone"), which is constitutive of σωμα, which can also be spiritual, in terms of biblical anthropology. Peter's description is thus the ultimate statement concerning the death of a material man - which in turn is fundamental to the further claim that he was resurrected. Peter says that he was made alive (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22) in the spirit, and in this (spiritual body) he went to preach to the spirits in prison.

The events are linked together and therefore the preaching in prison must have occurred after the resurrection.

What is "prison" for the spirits? According to Rev. 20:3 and 20:7, "prison" is a figurative place: αβυσσος - (see Luke 8:31 and the plea of the legion of demons).

According to Rev. 9:1, the key of the abyss is obtained by an angel (perhaps already the one of Rev. 8:10-11), who is then mentioned with a name, as King Abaddon (Rev. 9:11), and releases the apocalyptic locusts from there. Since then, the abyssos is open. After the fall of Satan to the earth, the seven-headed beast also comes out of it (Rev. 11:7).Only in Rev. 20:3 does the abyssos come under the power of Jesus again, and Satan is imprisoned there.

Simply put: Jesus would be resurrected into a spirit body, at some point - time undetermined - but no later than the writing of 1 Peter 3:18, He would go into the abyss/prison for spirits, and preach there. We do not know the outcome. But since it is clear from Revelation that the abyssos will not be empty, it is clear that some spirits did not respond to Jesus...

***

1 Peter 3:19: "in which...to those spirits...he preached" refers to Jesus' post-resurrection state (πνευματι), i.e., in a spiritual body.

This is confirmed both by the foundational literature (e.g. Rienecker) and also if you look at the conjunction (εν ω = in which). It is used e.g. by the Septuagint in Num 35:17 (the stone from the hand "in which" someone was killed) or in Gen 7:5 (all flesh "in which" is the spirit of life).

The NT uses the phrase in the sense of evidence of something abstract in someone (Nathanael, a true Israelite "in whom" there is no guile; John 1:47) or a physical place where someone is (Jesus remains two days in the place "in which" he was; John 11:6; also temporally: at that time (Acts 10:12)).

Theologically significant, for example, is the statement: there is no (other) name under heaven given among men "in which" we (at all) can be saved (Acts 4:12).

The εν ω conjunction in 1 Peter 3:19 occurs directly in this form in 1 Peter, apart from 3:19, also in 1:16; 2:12; 3:16, and 4:4.

The grammatical interpretation seems to be that in πνευματι (in the spirit) Jesus preached as confirmed, and since Peter places it as a resurrection event, so that it can be inferred with a high degree of probability, according to the grammar, that it occurred after Jesus' resurrection and before the writing of 1 Peter 3:18-19.

Also, theologically, there is nothing to prevent Jesus, after His resurrection, from going into the abyss to preach to the spirits who were imprisoned there. The place (abyssos) exists, Jesus as a spirit, may among spirits, justice and second chances for sinners, all part of God's - I would say - plan to save - if possible - all repentant sinners, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, social origin, age, religion...✌️😁

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

na28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .

nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

PetrW

@aqwsed12345

I understand the text in Rev 1:11, where κυριος ο θεος, is designated παντοκρατωρ, as supplementary to the preceding Rev 1:4, where two distinct beings are evidently involved.

But that does not preclude Jesus from taking upon himself some attributes of the Father's deity, only to the extent that he identifies himself as "the beginning of the Father's creation" (Rev 3:14) ...yes, I'm being provocative with the αρχη της κτισεως του θεου, but I just couldn't get it. Rev 3:14 has been, since the Renaissance non-Trinitarians, one of the most popular texts against the Trinity, despite attempts to challenge the meaning of αρχη in Rev 3:14, so you can understand that I had to as well...✌️😁

More seriously: regarding Rev 22:13,16 I think we agree again.

For me personally, one thing is true: I consider the Trinity to be an (interesting) theological construct, but I don't need it for my faith.

I know there are billions of Christians who do, have, or will profess it, but, I am not one of them.

I address the uselessness of this theological construct not only by the Bible, but also by a simpler method - Ockham's Razor. For me, the Trinity is about "not necessary mutilation of entities". For me, it is preferable to add nothing to the text of the Bible but not subtract anything.

Yahweh God created His Son at some time, unknown when, before the creation of everything else, as the first "work of His hands", therefore He is God. And "through him", everything else was created. The Son became flesh, was killed, was resurrected in the flesh, but became spirit (cf. 1 Peter 3:18), and in this spirit body he now dwells. He has been seated on the throne of God, awaiting the time God determines to break the seals...

So, to me, as I understand the Bible, Jesus was the perfect "embodiment" (both before and after His life on earth) of His Father, Almighty God. If the Son is the perfect image of God, then I will not - after all, who am I😎😁 - deny Christ from speaking of Himself as the Alpha and Omega. But that doesn't cover the fact that Jesus is παντοκρατωρ.

In Revelation, παντοκρατωρ is always inextricably linked to God (see the concordance to the Greek NT), and Revelation actually ends there: Rev 21:22 is Almighty God together with Christ, the new temple. Two distinct beings, forming a new, symbolic temple.

To put it another way: if I were to accept the dogma of the Trinity, it would mean unresolvable consequences for me - it's not just the dogma itself (I could somehow handle that), but the consequences of the dogma, especially the conflict with the death of the Triune God, i.e. the Son of God, the Father of God, and the Spirit of God, who are not three Gods but one God, would mean that I would have to declare the Holy Spirit dead, for example. And dead altogether, because the apparent death, or even the frequent death of God, is a grave heresy...

The Catholic confessors have it easier in that the dogma of the Trinity is defined for them by the Magisterium of the Church as, among other things, an absolute mystery which, even after frequent revelation, cannot be rationally grasped. Therefore, the consequences of the dogma of the Trinity are not so exacerbated for them...

But I'm not Catholic, so I don't have to believe in the Trinity... Important to conclude: at the same time, I don't think that belief in the Trinity is a ticket to hell, or vice versa, those who don't believe in it are assured of Paradise...

But the question of salvation, churches and doctrine is another topic.

26

Jeffrey Jackson: Too much excitement got in the way for the ''false dates''

by RULES & REGULATIONS in

annual meeting 2019—talks and 2020 year textthe governing body members are nothing but a bunch of weasels.

here is a talk by jeffrey jackson on how the governing body ''the slave class'' has remained spiritually awake over 100 years and alerted its members.. he looks back on the ''faithful and discreet slaves'' false dates over the 100 years: '' but at times, we look back over 100 years, and there were times they got excited about a certain year or time, and the end didn't come at that time.''.

he makes the comparison between the ''slave class ( who disappointed others when the end didn't come ) to a barking watchdog ( who in his enthusiasm barks at nothing in the middle of the night and wakes up the owner).

PetrW

@Phizzy

Well, good for you! You've had your satisfaction for a year! I was probably sometime around 2003 having conversations with my brother-in-law on the subject of the 1914 calculation. It wasn't just about the classic doubts surrounding 608 BC or 539 BC, but it was about the history of chronological speculation in general, especially starting with J.A. Bengel (1687-1752), who greatly popularized this "fashion" and gave it a scientific edge... he was already having trouble figuring out how long a year actually is and how to accurately measure it. The question of the length of the Sidereal or Tropical year and its effect on calendrical science (we still have to consider their 2520 highly obscure "years"!!!) is not a concern to JWs, much less the question of which of these methods of measuring the length of the year Christ would follow - if he were to respect Mr. Russell's calculation😁✌️

Nor is the conversion of the 1260 days in Revelation into years theologically warranted.

This is indeed an old tradition, attested as early as Hyppolytus of Rome in connection with his interpretation of 70 weeks as 490 years in Daniel, but nowhere does the obligation(!) to convert days into years arise. If this is consistently done in Revelation, then absurd situations arise, such as that of the day of the Lord lasting a year...and this, in the context of the 1260 days of the same Revelation, already contradicts itself here...

Likewise, it is very doubtful whether "time and times and half a time", is really 3 1/2 times. Just because this time corresponds to 1260 days or 42 months does not define that "time" (καιρος) is "year". Strictly speaking, it only states that it is "time" and the plural "times" and half of "time", this could also indicate a much shorter unit of time, for example 3 months: then the interpretation could be that this phrase could also read "3 months and 3x-months and 1.5 months". But, as I will point out, the uniform length is not fixed in terms of years, months or weeks.

Equally interesting is that the Jews, according to the testimony of Justin Martyr, understood "times and times and half a time" in Daniel to be a period of 350 years...

In the NT text, the καιρος is associated at least with the length of Elizabeth's pregnancy (Luke 1:20), but also only with the "time of the harvest" (e.g., Matt 13:30), but against this also with the eschatological "time" (cf. Rev 1:3), an unknown length, all of which prevents us from knowing how long the καιρος lasts.*

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that we do not know - we only suspect, and at least since the Greek translators of the OT - which translation is correct when they translated the 7 times in the Aramaic section of Dan 4:13 (22, 29), since we have a documented translation of the Aramaic "iddan", at one time as a year and at another time as a time (καιρος).

How long did it take Nebuchadnezzar to grow his hair like feathers and his nails like claws, according to Dan 4:30? According to his own words, it took "days" (Dan 4:31), so the 7 "times" were 7 weeks or 7 months or 7 risings or settings of some star...we don't know...but that it was 7 years is even less certain.

Either way, in every step of the calculation of the chronological speculation for 1914 one can find a problem and evaluate it as very risky, which if proven to be true, then the whole construct collapses. And there are a number of those places...

I described all this to him in detail about 20 years ago. He didn't hesitate to turn me in to the national JW office. Without listening to me, they wrote him a reply saying that they would not go into an analysis of what I had told him, and based on what he had written to them (and I don't know what he wrote to them, I only have their reply), they told him that I was "deep in apostasy". 😁😁😁 Yes, yes, he's deep into apostasy.

So, I give JW another 20, maybe 30 years or so, when they will definitely abandon the chronological speculation on 1914 and also like me, fallen into apostasy😁😁😁

Of course it is clear to all and sundry that even then, if I live to see it, I will be pulling the shorter string, because even if it were the case that by abandoning the dogma of 1914, they would become apostates like me, I was not waiting for Jehovah's chariot, I was getting ahead of myself and all, being disobedient to a faithful and discreet slave who needs decades to do this and not a few days in the library. Which already says the famous Murphy's Law: a few years in the lab, saves us a few hours in the library.

The JW-system is, in my opinion, unbeatable by human power!😁😁😁

* καιρος -see any of the explanatory dictionaries for NT Greek. That aside, I did a little research on the meaning of this word according to extant papyrological texts. The word is used there in the sense of some appropriate period of time, a suitable period for e.g. ship repair. It is typical of the meaning of καιρος that it begins with some change, lasts for some time, and ends with some change. So when the ancient writer used καιρος and applied it to, for example, ship repair, he added that there was nothing to do on the docks at the moment, so it was good to use this καιρος. The meaning of καιρος as a definite, bounded time, as I have found it in papyrological monuments, then corresponds to NT Greek. Both the "silence" of John the Baptist's father and this καιρος were initiated by some change, lasted throughout the pregnancy, and ended with the birth of John. Καιρος, as a time of harvest, has the same meaning: the grain or figs ripen, καιρος begins, lasts through the harvest, and ends after the harvest. The eschatological significance is also subject to the same description, but I need not elaborate on that... it is obvious.

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

na28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .

nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

PetrW

@slimboyfat

In response to you, slimboyfat, I would like to clarify this on my part: I am not opposed to whether someone prays or otherwise communicates exclusively with God the Father, or whether they speak only to Christ, or whether they add that they do so in the name of Christ whenever they speak to God.

Rather, my point was to delineate against the "prohibition" of praying exclusively to Christ, as JW's do and justify it with antitrinitarianism (which I think greatly damages the doctrine...).

My position is formulated - I will give an example - according to Rev 5:13, where Christ is included in worship (this blessing, this ευλογια, here in Rev 5:13, is also explained by Rom 9:5...), which therefore, in my opinion, opens the way for the possibility of approaching only Jesus. In my opinion, nowhere in the NT is the JW-ritual strictly brought to an end: as if John, in Rev 20:20, in response to Christ, had to write: Amen, come Jehovah and take the Lord Jesus with you. No, it was enough for him to write: Come Lord Jesus, because it is clear, almost "notorious", that with Christ the Father will come...

I think whether we turn only to Christ or to the Father (through Christ) is influenced by the position of the one who does so. If someone feels like a slave (for example, the Revelation is addressed to them), then they will probably be glad to be heard by the Lord and not try to go around the Lord - after all, they are merely a slave. If someone feels like a brother of Christ, on a par with a fleshly brother (see e.g. James 1:1-2), then he does not need to go to the elder, firstborn brother, but goes straight to the Father.

As I understand e.g. Revelation, there are among Christians, simply small, but also great (Rev 19:5), some are like a little grass, others are like a tree (Rev 9:4), therefore there is, in my opinion, a freedom of access preserved, both to the Father and (only) to the Son, which is based on what kind of relationship we (currently) have with God and what we could have...

In terms of salvation, I think this is a marginal matter. It is clear that we are to strive for the best possible attainable knowledge, or to put it another way: the little grass, is not meant to be grass all the time, it is meant to be a tree (like the proverbial mustard seed), but on the other hand, the fact that someone is a bush, and is better off than the grass, probably doesn't mean much...😁✌️

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

na28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .

nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

PetrW

@aqwsed12345

Interesting study. (But it doesn't even attempt to prove that Jesus is παντοκρατωρ?)

Of course there are more such texts - typically John 1:1 or John 20:28 or the less cited but all the more interesting 1 John 5:20 where the grammar would suggest that ουτος εστιν...θεος refers to Christ, which of course is problematic and uncertain...

From my perspective, attempts to argue in favor of the Trinity from the Bible suffer from the fact that they usually only prove polytheism. Most of those who cite various texts from the Bible in support of the Trinity a priori assume, e.g. by arguing "I and the Father are one", that the Trinity of God (almost) follows from this union of two "entities"... Few of them make it to the stage where they prove that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Spirit is God, but they are not three Gods, but one God. And for any of them to apply the theological construct of the Trinity in its implications, almost no one does (e.g., the death of the Triune God on the cross and the subsequent three-day "sojourn" of the Triune God in sheol...).

However, the JWs also deserve criticism. They may have popularized antitrinitarianism, but only one of its many streams. From a religionist point of view, one could speak of JWs as non-adorative antitrinitarianism, which had already appeared once in the modern period (see Ferenc David, c. 1520-1579).

The greatest error of JWs in their antitrinitarianism is their rejection of worship and prayer exclusively to Christ. Christ received everything from the Father, even his throne and his power. Therefore Christ could say: I and the Father are one. But even though the Father was already in the body of Christ (cf. e.g., how it cannot be rationally explained by "chance" that Jesus, as a mere man, would know that if he told someone to go to the lake and cast a net that he would catch a fish that just happened to have a gold coin in its mouth - it cannot be explained except by saying that he is (almost) God, or it is mere literary fiction....), then Christ himself "presses on": the Father is greater than I, therefore expect even greater works than those which I have done in the flesh, as Christ, among you...

Christ becomes for us "our Lord and our God" (cf. John 20:28). Therefore we are to pray to him, to turn to him. If we do not do this, then we "bypass" the demand of God the Father that until everything is subject to the Son, we are truly subject to Him, as to God, because the Son will also eventually be subject to God and God will be with us.

Disrespect for the Son, in short, is the weakest point of JW-antitrinitarianism, out of the historical development of modern non-trinitarianism, JWs have chosen the weakest, least suitable variant... in JW-speak, I would expect a "new light" here, sometime in 50 or 80 years 😁✌️

Touching only lightly on the topic of κυριος in the NT text, which is related, the JWs assume that YHWH has been removed. Of course, in doing so they only demonstrate a misunderstanding of the excellent position of Christ as κυριος. Christ in the NT is the fulfillment and "extension" of what has already been communicated in Ex 23:20-21. Christians have Christ as Lord and need "nothing" and "no one" else. God the Father has not "disappeared" by this, He is still, He was and He is coming, the Father is the alpha and omega, but for a set time, Christ is the Lord.

That is why I think the removal of YHWH did not happen, or else: Christ as κυριος corresponded to the New Testament concept.

That the Trinity was later constituted is more indicative of choosing the worst possible option - much like the JWs did with their antitrinitarianism.

Just going back to JW's claim about κυριος in the NT, JW are unwittingly(?) treading on very thin ice: if I claim that the integrity of the NT text has been violated by someone changing something in it - although I have no direct textual evidence for this at present - then I am in fact questioning hypothetically every place in the NT. I can argue that there, instead of this and that term, should be this or that. By questioning one, I am questioning everything...

JW's may have a (theo)logical argument for YHWH in the NT, but that is simply not enough. I also think Ιαω is the most likely Greek form for YHWH (it's the form of the divine name mentioned by e.g. Irenaeus of Lyons, even if only in connection with the Gnostics) and which also appears on a fraction of the LXX description, but that's just not enough.

K. Aland and B. Aland in their book Der Text des Neuen Testaments, I think, convincingly demonstrate the "rigidity" and "stubbornness" shown in the NT-text copies. It is indeed a reconstructed text, but very probably in the form that the first readers had, almost 2000 years ago...