Posts by PetrW

28

The pushing berween the K of N and K of S

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

the brics summit was big this year.

new member states were added.

interesting that they call themselves the global south.

PetrW

@EP

when Daniel recorded the angel's words, for instance that one beast stood for the king of Greece or that another one stood for a certain king, Daniel wasn't making historicized interpretations that lead to nowhere. The angel certainly wasn't manifesting exegetical arbitrariness.

PW: I think that's the biggest problem: Daniel received this information from an angel, or, it was communicated to him "in the language of angels" (1 Cor. 13:1). Technically, it was Hebrew or Aramaic, but the main problem is the method of communication. The angelic language is, in my opinion, highly symbolic speech and without "translation" into "human language", the information remains almost incomprehensible.

My explanation is as I have already written to you: Daniel's texts do not contain any precise time points, any time milestones, just the beginning of the narrative and the information that it refers to the end. So if the angel explains, for example, in Dan 8:20-21 what the ram (Medes and Persians) and the goat (Greek) mean, he also states that the vision refers to the end of time (Dan 8:19).

So I am faced with the problem of how to connect the events of the time of Alexander of Macedon and the year 2023...

I see the solution to this problem in trying to put myself in the position of the angel and his understanding of time. If it is also true for him that a day is like 1000 years and 1000 years like a day, then I also assume that he can talk about the Persians or Alexander of Macedon and link the two together. No past or present in human understanding plays much of a role there. If a Persian was swinging a sword in antiquity, then a "Persian" at the end of time will be swinging, say, a laser sword. From the position of an angel, time, motive, and the fact that Satan owns the world is most likely a completely identical situation.

Abstract and timeless thought operations with symbols that must correspond to God's intention, which we have difficulty reconstructing, exclude, in my opinion, the possibility of learning the language of angels*. The book of Daniel will remain sealed without God's help.

*In my opinion, for example, John the Baptist (in modern terms one would say: he had a genius ability) interpreted the Scriptures in exactly this way. How else would he have thought of "washing" people with water? That the Law is a shadow of things to come... he got the symbolism of the Law exactly right.

28

The pushing berween the K of N and K of S

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

the brics summit was big this year.

new member states were added.

interesting that they call themselves the global south.

PetrW

@Ray Frantz

I agree with you that this is a very difficult chapter. I see the main problem there is that no time frames are given. It is possible to infer length from the fact that one king succeeds another, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that changes could have taken place very quickly. Or: some events could have lasted longer, others shorter.

The only clue in most of Daniel's visions, is in the resemblance to a definite end. This would then mean that, for example, chapter 11 does not take up, say, 2500 years, but perhaps only a few decades, because it is supposed to end before a generation passes. If it were to take 2500 years, as EasyPrompt suggests, it would be such a super-overlapping generation 😎... But, these are just my thoughts, I'm not making it dogma.

More on Revelation: I think only an interpretation of Revelation that allows for general, timeless validity is correct. That interpretation must apply to either the 5th or 23rd century.

Example: if I argue that the two-horned beast, are - I'm deliberately overstating this now - the Berlin Philharmonic, then they didn't exist in the 5th century, and no one knows if they will in the 23rd century. The two-horned animal could be, for example, the Paris Philharmonic..😊😎

To me, the answer is hidden/revealed in the text of Revelation and especially in the New Testament. Staying with the two-horned animal, if it is identified as a false prophet, then it is good to look at who and under what circumstances was identified as a false prophet, false witness or antichrist (see for example Matt 7:15 or 2 Peter 2:1)

This leads to looking for the equivalent in the NT. I assume that the two horned animal is a symbol for the two high priests who form the horns and who condemned Christ, that the "body" is the Sanhedrin, that the eyes and ears of the animal, were the Pharisees who were constantly watching what the tribe was doing on the Sabbath or listening to Jesus speak. They were also the "feet" of the animal because they were constantly following him.

Knowing how such a two-horned animal treated Christ and the apostles, and the warning that false prophets would also come out of Christians, it is easy to understand that it doesn't matter what denomination, it will take the "flesh" of the two-horned animal. If in the 5th century, it was Catholics, then in the 23rd century it may be JWs. Who knows? 😁

The bottom line is that it's not names that are being sought, but roles and relationships. After all, as in the Sanhedrin they weren't all bad (see Joseph of Arimathea), it's not for us to make judgements. By what judgment do you judge...😎

That's how I think of it.

28

The pushing berween the K of N and K of S

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

the brics summit was big this year.

new member states were added.

interesting that they call themselves the global south.

PetrW

@SB

I haven't studied the consensus/difference between you and Hyppolite in detail. Only: when I read what all those Antiochus, Ptolemaic, or various Cleopatras were doing, I knew where the wind was blowing from.

I think there's still a lot of Hyppolite in you.

55

Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sea Breeze in

dr. ken johnson has identified several statements in the dead sea scrolls that predict that god would visit the earth as a man... as the messiah.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrfvytjhve&ab_channel=kenjohnson%28biblefacts%29 .

PetrW

@SB

I am in no way disputing that Trinitarian doctrine is very well thought out. Medieval scholasticism and especially Thomism - what I have had the opportunity to read of Thomas Aquinas - represents the pinnacle of reflection on Trinitarian dogma. But.

To me, it is a theological construct. Same as 1914 and therefore, unnecessary.

The anti-Trinitarianism of the JWs is historically adopted and in its least correct form - they do not worship Christ.

Classical antitrinitarianism of the 16th and 17th centuries, which began in Italy, tried to rationally approximate the Bible and therefore worshipped Christ. So I'm just repeating that. Most of them, at that time, were deeply religious (although Catholics/Protestants often labeled them as atheists or agnostics) and sought to know everything that could be known rationally about God, also by reason. You can't discover by reason how Jesus walked on water or how he turned water into wine. But, it is possible to argue against 3 in 1...

25

Were any congregation '' special privileges'' ever taken away from you?

by RULES & REGULATIONS in

if you don't measure up to the watchtower society ''high standards''... you might lose some ''special privileges'' .

miss meetings...lose ''privileges''.

don't meet the monthly 10 hour ''field service'' ...lose ''privileges''.

PetrW

Rattigan350: I got counselled

God is a God of order, brother!

55

Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sea Breeze in

dr. ken johnson has identified several statements in the dead sea scrolls that predict that god would visit the earth as a man... as the messiah.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrfvytjhve&ab_channel=kenjohnson%28biblefacts%29 .

PetrW

@SB

My attitude is perhaps best expressed by the text: He who has seen me has seen the Father* (Jn 14:9) because by this I am looking at the texts, "I and the Father are one" or "The Father is greater than I". Jesus is Lord, and in that name is salvation. Nothing more is needed. No need for Trinitarian metaphysics, but no need for the magical incantations of JWs-theology regarding the name Jehovah 😊

SB: Jesus is not Jehovah. They are constituted differently. Jesus is body soul and spirit. That means he fits the biblical definition of a man. But, Jehovah is Spirit ONLY. He doesn't have a body or soul. But since he and Jesus share the SAME ESSENCE, there is only ONE God here, not two.

PW: interesting reasoning, but I see a major, almost insurmountable obstacle that if I claim that Jesus and the Father are one God, then there is a risk that I am claiming that Jesus did not die for us. God, or more accurately: part of God, would have died too. So here we have a one-third (the body died) dead God and a two-thirds living God. But there is no such doctrine in the NT. It works with the simple concept that Jesus, the Son of God and therefore God by origin, died and was resurrected by God, the Father, who has no beginning and no end. He is for ever and ever...

SB: Jesus has a name above EVERY name ..... that includes Jehovah. Jehovah isn't slighted by the fact that the name of Jesus is higher than the name of Jehovah, because it's still him. And because of this, it is at the name of JESUS that every knee in earth AND heaven will bend.

PW: In my opinion, the OT already offers a simple and reliable interpretation: Ex 23:20-21 20 "Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21 "Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him."

*I have never seen Jesus yet, I only know he is in a place I can't go yet 😊

55

Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sea Breeze in

dr. ken johnson has identified several statements in the dead sea scrolls that predict that god would visit the earth as a man... as the messiah.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrfvytjhve&ab_channel=kenjohnson%28biblefacts%29 .

PetrW

Sea Breeze: This explains why he at times spoke as a man and at other times spoke as God..... because he was both, not just one of the other.

J 8:17-18: 17Even in your Law it has been written that the testimony of two people is true. 18I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me.”

***

My comment: here Jesus even compares God to a human witness. But the point is that he is expressing the idea that they are two and at the same time two distinct beings...

28

The pushing berween the K of N and K of S

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

the brics summit was big this year.

new member states were added.

interesting that they call themselves the global south.

PetrW

@EP to Daniel 11

*

Hippolytus of Rome: Commentary on Daniel (S. 167, pdf)

https://www.pergrazia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/0205_hippolytus_commentary-on-daniel_2010.pdf

47.6. But Scripture says, “And the kings shall speak lies to one another at one table.” 6 For Ptolemy desired the kingdom of Alexander and ate with him at his table, but he thought evil and did not have agreement with him. And so Scripture was fulfilled. 47.7. And at this point Ptolemy, having come to Egypt and having levied a great army, came to the country when Alexander had gone to Cilicia. For it happened at that time that Tarsus and Mallus 7 were thrown into confusion. He wished to repress them and came against them in haste, having left his own wife Cleopatra there.

EP:

“As regards these two kings, their heart will be inclined to do what is bad, and they will sit at one table speaking lies to each other. But nothing will succeed, because the end is yet for the time appointed."

(The two major Roman empire-descended/Christendom kingdoms today who oppose each other are both UN member nations (US/UK and Russia) "sitting at the table speaking lies to each other".)

*

The problem with modern variants, historicizing interpretations of Daniel and chapter 11 in the 21st century is that from a certain point in the narrative they have to begin to "fast-forward" to today's times, rather than the documented Hyppolytus at the beginning of the 3rd century.

If Jesus comes at the end of the 23rd century, the role of the UN, or Russia, for example, can be left out in the interpretation of Daniel. But again, this will have to be "pushed" deeper into the text of chapter 11 and the rest updated to the circumstances of the past 21st, 22nd and part of the 23rd century...

What am I saying? I mean to suggest that historicizing interpretations lead nowhere - they are more a manifestation of exegetical arbitrariness, often unwittingly taken in large part from Hyppolytus of Rome in particular. They are very popular, and I have encountered virtually no text in which anyone has expressed - from the beginning - their own biblical reasoning without having to draw on Hyppolytus of Rome or its subvarieties. So far, everyone has needed those Antiochians, Ptolemies, Cleopatra, or Romans.

Okay, the critique has been made. So, who's the king of the north and the king of the south?

Since the "bar" of claims for interpretation of Daniel is set very low by Hyppolytus, I'm not trying to make a big deal. So just briefly:

I count 10 kings of the North and only two kings of the South. Therefore, I see the main thrust of the interpretation in those passages in Daniel and Revelation where it talks about the 10 fingers or 10 horns and the final battles between the 10 horns (Dan 7:24 ff).

All geographical remarks and relationships are symbolic in nature, the meaning of which derives from biblical realities: e.g., Egypt - existed in biblical times, but in eschatology, this symbol plays the role of a competitor to God's people. It is a symbol for an organized, hostile, and murderous system, the same as Sodom (see Rev. 11:8).

Details later.

25

Were any congregation '' special privileges'' ever taken away from you?

by RULES & REGULATIONS in

if you don't measure up to the watchtower society ''high standards''... you might lose some ''special privileges'' .

miss meetings...lose ''privileges''.

don't meet the monthly 10 hour ''field service'' ...lose ''privileges''.

PetrW

I think the most serious problem in taking away "privileges" is the banning of teaching from women. It's a controversial topic in general, but with JWs, it takes on a sharper edge.

For a long time, I thought that the elders in the congregation who gave the Sunday lecture were making it up in its entirety. It wasn't until later that I found out they were getting the "skeleton" from the org and "wrapping" that with verbal "filler". Since most of them couldn't do that, even years later their intellectual ability hadn't improved, then instead of thoughts, they read long passages from the Bible. As if the listeners couldn't read it for themselves. The problem on the part of these "readers" was especially pronounced in those cases where, for example, a teacher of his children was among the listeners. A woman could teach his children, and even had a university degree to do so, but to read a written text filled with verbal "cotton wool" and boring recitations of long Bible passages, the woman was not cut out for it. Sarcastically, in retrospect, I would say that an elder in the JWs-congregation can be anyone who can pass driving school in that country and have a driver's license...

6

Acts 15

by peacefulpete in

acts 15. the pericope has been long interpreted by the catholic church as a proof text for a central authority.

churches like the wt repeat this claim.

however, reading the text without this coloring reveals something very different.. the story starts with paul and barnabas going to the antioch church and there they encounter pharisee christians from jerusalem (15:24) contradicting the doctrine held by the antioch church.

PetrW

@PP

I agree with you that the NT-text is reconstructed. Disputes over the verbiage of the NT-text, therefore, should be conducted with very moderate intensity. It even strikes me that the Christians of the time did not preserve any text carved in stone or engraved on some metal plate. We have, for example, a very interesting text from the time of Augustus (Res gestae divi Augusti) still extant, and even bilingual. There are very many Latin tomb inscriptions, various Greek votive texts. If any of you have visited Ephesus in Turkey as tourists, there is still something engraved on every stone there. And that's from before or at the time when there were demonstrably Christians there. And from Paul or others, nothing... The island of Patmos, nothing. And maybe, for Christianity, it's a more important place than Jerusalem.

On the other hand: it is claimed that Christians, instead of carving something in stone or digging into bronze slabs or pressing it into clay and then drying it or burning it, preferred other tactics. Speed. They used non-durable materials (see 2 Tim. 4:31 - Paul is probably writing from Rome to bring him a cloak, papyri and parchment from Troas, a place several hundred miles away. Wasn't there a coat and a few sheets of papyrus or a piece of leather for Paul in all of Rome? I suppose not. Then it shows the socio-economic status of one of the leaders of Christianity when it seemed more profitable for him to have his things brought to him than to beg from the locals... respect, Paul!) and spread the message quickly.

So John, writing on papyrus, sent Revelation to seven congregations. He made seven copies. Although he could have carved a few lines in the rock: I was here, your John. Or: In the reign of Caesar (text broken), I was here and saw the Revelation. John the Evangelist. And again, nothing. Or no one has found anything yet.

If I evaluate the evidence individually and in its overall context, I find that there is very little, almost imperceptible difference between your conclusion (very simplistically!) that there is a great risk that the NT text, is not what it was and not removing the risk that for centuries, people were being fooled and kept in ignorance.

Against this is the fact that late finds like Codex Sinaticus or the Dead Sea Scrolls, prove the "tenacity" of the text, that the differences are in grammar, and respecting this limitation, one can say without much concern that the text as it stands today, is very likely what was written, as the original.

So how do I decide? Since the evidence is almost equivalent, the difference that prevails is personal belief. And I lean in favor of what we have is 99.99% what the prophets or apostles wrote. I'm not ashamed of that. Yes, it's a risk. But the others are not without risk either.