Leolaia

Joined

• started 148 topics
• posted 16,160 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Leolaia

• 
  18

  "Queen of Soul Food" Sylvia Woods dies.

  by ohiocowboy in

  1. social
  2. current

  the owner of sylvia's restaurant in harlem has died.

  she was very famous for her restaurant.

  the last time i was in new york, i had the treat of eating food from there through a recommendation of one of the locals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Leolaia

  I ate there in 1998. It was a very memorable meal.
• 
  2

  Non-Bible Believers: SAT style analysis of Bible Issues

  by simon17 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  for those that have dismissed the bible as god's word, but nonetheless sat through endless hours of jw analysis on certain major bible doctrines, i wanted to know, just based on reading comprehension, what you thought the bible was trying to say.

  now that you don't believe it, you are the most objective persons to give critical analysis of what the words say.... .

  1- hellfire:.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Leolaia

  The Bible doesn't present one single belief system or theological perspective; its an anthology of different books written at different times under different historical and social circumstances. One could choose (d) but it isn't that the Bible is confused; its that it is heterogeneous.

  4 - Individualism

  a) The Norton Anthology of American Literature teaches that individualism is a fundamental American right above all others.

  b) The Norton Anthology of American Literature teaches that individualism must be kept in balance with the needs of society as a whole.

  c) The Norton Anthology of American Literature teaches that individualism is egotistical and without moral grounding.

  d) The Norton Anthology of American Literature is confused.
• 
  13

  Did Jesus insult the Pharisees?

  by I_love_Jeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this question not only aplies to jehovah's witnesses but to christians as well.

  any one have a clear answer for me?

  did jesus revile?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Leolaia

  That is the big question, Band on the Run. And I don't think there is a clear answer. On the one hand, the gospels do reflect the situation and time from when they were written, and it is clear that conflict between Pharisees and early adherents of Christian Judaism (with early Christianity construed as a Jewish messianic movement) was particularly intense after AD 70 — much more so than in the earlier period. Some view the passage (and other statements in Matthew) as reflective of a deepening rift between the Matthean community and the Pharisees on one hand and the Pauline community on the other (who may have been targets of some of the criticism in ch. 5-7). That is what I recall is the viewpoint in David Sim's Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew. The arguments for this viewpoint also depend on what synoptic theory one holds. If one regards the parallel in Luke 11 as reflecting an underlying common source (Q) utilized by both Matthew and Luke, then one could cite that as evidence that much of the material in Matthew 23 is considerably early (and more likely to have been spoken by Jesus) which then was later redacted by the author of Matthew to reflect more current concerns. Or if one holds to the Farrer-Goodacre theory (which rejects Q as a source of both gospels), then there is less reason to consider that the material in ch. 23 (added to Mark, written in the 60s) is older than the gospel of Matthew. On the other hand, one could certainly also argue that the author of Matthew used an earlier source (M + Q material, added to Mark) for this material, with the sayings representing early Jesuine tradition. If Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet like John the Baptist, then it would not be unusual that he would criticize the religious leaders of the day in language as harsh as that attributed to the exilic prophets of the OT (such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel). Apocalyptic literature of the period was filled with harsh condemnations of religious leaders; the polemic against the "Seekers of Smooth Things" in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the apostate priests in the Testament of Levi come to mind. I think it is pretty clear that much of the content in the "woes" reflect older pre-Christian religious polemic. One can find parallels between the following and ch. 23 of Matthew:

  Damascus Document (CD 5:11-17, 6:11-19, 8:3-13): "They defile their holy spirit, for with blasphemous tongue they have opened their mouth against the statutes of God's covenant, saying 'They are unfounded.' They speak abomination against them. They are all igniters of fire, kindlers of blazes; webs of a spider are their webs, and their eggs are vipers' eggs. Whoever comes close to them will not be unpunished; they guiltier he shall be unless he has been compelled. For already in ancient times God visited their deeds, and his wrath flared up against their actions, for there is no intelligence in them....But all those who have been brought into the covenant shall not enter the temple to kindle his altar in vain. They will be the ones who close the door....They should take care to act in accordance with the exact interpretation of the Law for the age of wickedness: to keep apart from the sons of the Pit, to abstain from wicked wealth which defiles, either by promise or by vow, and from the wealth of the Temple and from stealing from the poor of the people, making widows their spoils and murdering orphans, to separate unclean from clean and differeniate between the holy and the common, to keep the sabbath day according to its exact interpretation, and the festivals and the day of fasting....The princes of Judah are those upon whom the rage will be vented, for they hope to be healed but the defect sticks to them; all are rebels because they have not left of path of traitors and have defiled themselves in paths of licentiousness, and with wicked wealth, avenging themselves, and each one bearing resentment against his brother, and each one hating his fellow. Each one became obscured by blood relatives and approached for debauchery and bragged about wealth and gain....Their wine is serpents' venom and cruel poison of asps. The serpents are the kings of the people and their wine is their paths....But the builders of the wall have not understood all these things, nor those who daub with whitewash, for one who weighs wind and preaches lies has preached to them, so that God's wrath has been kindled against his entire congregation".

  To answer your other question, anti-Pharisee sayings are found in ch. 11 of Luke in a somewhat different form, and there is a short parallel in Mark 12:38-40 with respect to the scribes. There are also parallels in the Gospel of Thomas (particularly, logion 39 and 102), as well as the Gospel of the Savior:

  Gospel of Thomas 39, 102: "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge and hidden them. They have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You however be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves....Woe to the Pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat".

  Gospel of the Savior (POxy 840), lines 31-45: "Woe to you blind men who do not see! You have bathed in only these natural waters in which dogs and pigs lay night and day. And having washed, you have wiped the outer skin, which also prostitutes and pipe-girls anoint and wash and wipe and beautify for the lust of men, but the inside of them is full of scorpions and all wickedness".
• 
  22

  Is this valid reasoning for Trinitarian Doctrine?

  by Flat_Accent in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i had been watching jwfairytale's videos recently, and he's been including snippets of this short film about a guy that becomes a jw and then changes to a born again, or so i think.

  you can watch it here.

  it's very dated, but quite enjoyable:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Leolaia

  Sorry, I was a little unclear in my wording....I wasn't referring to what is supposed to be the reference in the text but what the reference actually is the NWT. My point is that the quotation marks make the speaker in v. 12-15 (Jehovah, since the speaker cannot be Jesus) different from the speaker in v. 16 and 20 (clearly stated as Jesus). What is contrary to that scheme is the fact that the SAME THING is said about both...."I am coming quickly" is what Jehovah is made to say in v. 12-15 and what Jesus is made to say in v. 20. Of course, one could say that both Jesus and God are coming together, but in view of the fact that v. 20 is repeating what was just said in v. 12, the most parsimonius reading is that both statements are made by the same person.
• 
  13

  Did Jesus insult the Pharisees?

  by I_love_Jeff in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this question not only aplies to jehovah's witnesses but to christians as well.

  any one have a clear answer for me?

  did jesus revile?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Leolaia

  This is quite typical of inner-Jewish polemics between the different religious parties. The Qumran sect of Essenism also had some very choice words to say about the (Hasmonean) Sadducees and the Pharisees. Jesus is portrayed particularly by Matthew as a Torah-observant reformer critical of the practices of the Pharisees while recognizing their halakhic authority. This gospel represents a form of Christian Judaism that was open to Gentile inclusion but which insisted on Torah observance (in contrast to Paul) and which had tensions with the Pharisees, particularly following the collapse of the other religious parties after AD 70 and following the general adoption of the Birkat ha-Minim around AD 80 (which was around the time the gospel was written). It is anachronistic to characterize the tension as one between Christians and Jews.
• 
  49

  Batman Shooting

  by turtleturtle in

  1. social
  2. current

  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/20/several-reportedly-dead-injured-after-shooting-at-colorado-movie-theater/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Leolaia

  My god, how sad....this is the first I've heard of this.
• 
  33

  In the mood for sharing pictures...

  by coffee_black in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  sharin' the love.... here is my son, dave with bailey 4 and zoey (almost 2) at a drive in movie... and then bailey and zoey and then bailey.

  proud grandma here...... coffee .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Leolaia

  I *heart* the second photo.....soooo sweet.
• 
  22

  Is this valid reasoning for Trinitarian Doctrine?

  by Flat_Accent in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i had been watching jwfairytale's videos recently, and he's been including snippets of this short film about a guy that becomes a jw and then changes to a born again, or so i think.

  you can watch it here.

  it's very dated, but quite enjoyable:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Leolaia

  The New World Translation randomly inserts the name Jehovah into both these texts to make it appear as if it is referencing Jehovah here instead. This is inaccurate of course, and reads awkwardly, but I suspect you'd have to deal with this if you wanted to make this argument to a Jehovah's Witness.

  It isn't just a matter of inserting Jehovah into the text; the passage in ch. 22 also conveniently changes the speakers from Jehovah to Jesus by introducing a second series of quotation marks (note the end quotation-mark in red):

  8 Well, I John was the one hearing and seeing these things. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that had been showing me these things. 9 But he tells me: “ Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who are prophets and of those who are observing the words of this scroll. Worship God.” 10 He also tells me: “ Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, for the appointed time is near. 11 He that is doing unrighteousness, let him do unrighteousness still; and let the filthy one be made filthy still; but let the righteous one do righteousness still, and let the holy one be made holy still.
  
  12 “ ‘ Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. 13 I am the Al′pha and the O·me′ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. 14 Happy are those who wash their robes, that the authority [to go] to the trees of life may be theirs and that they may gain entrance into the city by its gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking and carrying on a lie. ’
  
  16 “ ‘ I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to YOU people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star. ’ ”
  
  17 And the spirit and the bride keep on saying: “ Come!” And let anyone hearing say: “ Come!” And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’s water free. 18 “ I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.
  
  20 “ He that bears witness of these things says, ‘ Yes; I am coming quickly.’ ” “ Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.” 21 [May] the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ [be] with the holy ones.

  Note that contrary to this scheme, the phrase "I am coming quickly" refers to Jehovah in v. 12 and Jesus in v. 20.
• 
  30

  Odd, isn't it? Genesis never mentions Satan; Job mentions a serpent or Adam maybe once or not at all - and Eve gets 4 refs in whole Bible

  by kepler in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my concordance searches indicate eve is mentioned twice in the ot and twice in the new.

  i guess elsewhere in genesis she must be the wife or the woman.

  interesting: since she was the only woman in the world and adam was the only man, i wonder how husband and wife as terminology were invented?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Leolaia

  so what is gen 49 about... why does jacob say all sorts of nonsense ? its a difficult chapter, ill grant that

  The chapter (The Blessing of Jacob) is a poetic tribal list similar in form and content to the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) and the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33), directing either praise or criticism to individual tribes. All three were originally written in the early pre-exilic period (dates ranging between the eleventh and the eighth centuries BC), much earlier than the narratives into which they were embedded, but the latter two were redacted in the seventh or sixth centuries BC (whereas the Song of Deborah was left intact as possibly the oldest surviving text in the OT). The content largely delivers commentary on the sociopolitical circumstances involving the tribes (the Song of Deborah for instance concerns the participation of the tribes in a particular conflict) and thus the three lists furnish crucial information about the early history of Israel. The original version of the Blessing of Jacob strictly discussed the tribes as geographical/ethnic entities but when it was redacted for inclusion into the Pentateuchal materials, it was revised both to incorporate biographical themes from the patriarchical narratives as well as to the changed political circumstances of the later period. Literary criticism reveals that the Blessing of Moses and the Blessing of Jacob both were originally ten-tribe lists of Northern provenance (just like the Song of Deborah, which only listed ten tribes) that subsequently were expanded to include a total of twelve tribes. The number twelve was thus not part of the original plan of the list (as presumed by your "zodiacal" interpretation) but represents a late stage of development when twelve became the idealized number of tribes in Israel (attested in sixth-century BC tribal lists in Ezekiel 48 and P). In the case of the Blessing of Jacob, the original ten-tribe list likely did not include Simeon and Levi (v. 5-7 has clear redactional features, including dependence on the patriarchical narratives and avoidance of the metaphorical style characteristic of the other tribes). This is in accord with the absence of these tribes in the Song of Deborah and the putative original form of the Blessing of Moses (with the reference to Levi being redactional and Simeon absent even in the final form of the poem), as well as the historical evidence that the Simeon and Levi were reckoned as tribes only towards the end of the pre-exilic period (Levi, as mentioned earlier, was originally a professional priestly class and not a tribe, but later became reckoned as a dispersed tribe following the Fall of Samaria and the reforms of Josiah). The older Israelite form of the poem gave precedence to Joseph (reflecting the text's northern provenance, with the two capitals of Israel, Shechem and Samaria, being located in Manasseh), with the later Judean redaction giving priority to Judah (with the insertion of v. 10).

  The content of the poem draws largely on geographical and sociopolitical characteristics of the tribes, which motivate many of the metaphors. The lion was the preeminent royal symbol in the ANE and was depicted on royal bullae (cf. the seal of Shema servant of Jeroboam II found at Megiddo), so it was likely used by the Davidides as a symbol (cf. the leonine motifs on the royal throne in 1 Kings 10:19-20, 2 Chronicles 9:18-19 as well as the likening of the king with a lion in Proverbs 19:12, 20:2). The donkey representing Issachar, on the other hand, symbolizes the tribe's subordinate status and possibly Canaanite origins (cf. Genesis 9:26, Joshua 16:10, 17:13); "he bent his back to the burden and submitted to forced labor". This possibly refers to the labor provided by the poorer people of the Valley of Jezreel to the prosperous cities of Beth-shean, Megiddo, or Tanaach nearby. The sheep-pens mentioned in the same verse is a geographical reference as the parallel in the Song of Deborah shows (Judges 5:15-16). The comment on Zebulon is entirely a geographical reference, "Zebulon dwells at the shore of the sea, he shall be a haven for ships, his flank is upon Sidon" (v. 13). The reference to Asher in v. 20 concerns its agricultural production, especially with respect to oil; the Blessing of Moses similarly mentions oil in connection with Asher (Deuteronomy 33:24). The passages about Dan, Gad, Joseph, and Benjamin all mention the tribes' military prowess; the ravenousness of Benjamin (v. 27) reflects the tribe's conquest of Moabite territory (Judges 3:15-30) and war against the Israelites (ch. 20). As for the long passage about Joseph, this is clearly an old traditional poem that draws considerably on early Canaanite motifs associated with the god El and other deities; a less archaic version of the poem appears in the Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 33:13-17. As for the mention of animal names in connection with tribes, this does not necessarily have anything to do with astrology but rather has straightforward links to ANE totemism: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14460-totemism.

  im not sure why you focus on greek astrology, the book of genesis was supposed to have been finalized before the spread of greek culture particylarly w/ alexanders empire.

  Hellenistic Greek culture spread after the accession of the Macedonians, but Mycenaean Greek culture spread way, way before that, around the same time Israel began to take shape in the highlands. The Peleshet (= Philistines), Ekwesh (= the Achaeans), the Danuna (= the Danaeans, and possibly associated with the tribe of Dan) were among the Sea Peoples that were settled along the Levantine coast in the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BC, diffusing Greek culture to Palestine and also Semitic culture was transmitted back to Greece, likely for some time even before this. As I mentioned in another thread a few weeks ago, the Boeotians had a very high concentration of West Semitic mythological names, place names, and so forth. And as far as the zodiac is concerned, the Mycenaean Greeks are thought to have acquired it indirectly from the Babylonians (who invented it), possibly through a Hittite medium, and the Egyptians were influenced by the Greeks, reproducing a zodiac very similar to the Greek one in the 18th Dynasty. And since the Egyptians ruled over the Levant in the 18th and 19th Dynasties, one would expect diffusion of Egyptian culture there as well by the forebears of the Israelites.
• 
  30

  Odd, isn't it? Genesis never mentions Satan; Job mentions a serpent or Adam maybe once or not at all - and Eve gets 4 refs in whole Bible

  by kepler in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my concordance searches indicate eve is mentioned twice in the ot and twice in the new.

  i guess elsewhere in genesis she must be the wife or the woman.

  interesting: since she was the only woman in the world and adam was the only man, i wonder how husband and wife as terminology were invented?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Leolaia

  The issue here isn't whether ancient Jews practiced a form of astrology; there is no doubt that they did, as can be witnessed through such sources as the Trestise of Shem (first century BC) and 4Q186 (first century BC). The issue also isn't whether the twelve tribes of Israel (as a group) could have been understood in zodiacal terms; we know that in the first century AD this was in fact the case (cf. Philo of Alexandria, Quaestiones in Exodum 2.112-114, Josephus, Bellum Judaicum 5.217). So the bulk of what you posted does not address my criticism. What I am pointing out is that your zodaical interpretation of the Blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49), mapping specific signs to specific tribes, is not supported by the text. Since writers many centuries later (even a millennium later if the Blessing of Jacob dates to the end of the second millennium BC, as some scholars believe) took the tribes as having zodiacal representations, it is certainly legitimate to hypothesize that there could be a relationship but that alone does not mean that there is one. My last post demonstrated that such a relationship is not tenable. Only through an arbitrary series of contrivances could one make such a claim; it is hardly one arising naturally from the text.

  I cannot discuss the details of all the signs as I did in my last post (much too time consuming), so I will focus on just one representative example: Taurus. I pointed out that your identification of Taurus with Issachar is a MISS because a bull is not a donkey. You claim that it was a HIT because both bulls and donkeys are beasts of burden, and I criticized this as a contrived generalizing between donkeys and cattle in order to get a match with Issachar's donkey. In response, you said, "I am not generalising," when in fact that is exactly what you are doing. You claim a HIT because both bulls and donkeys are beasts of burden: that's generalizing to some abstract commonality between them, despite the fact that the text neither specifies bulls nor beasts of burden in general. You say "given T[aurus] is a bull which is all about plowing in spring time its not unfair to assert a donkey is a reasonable match", which makes my point about how arbitrary this is. And further you say "I don't know the animal that represented Taurus in the Hebrew system". I notice that you have said similar things about the other signs: other apparent mismatches could result from the Hebrew system being different, having different animals. But the Hebrew system, or the other ANE systems (such as the Egyptian and Babylonian zodiacs) for that matter, are not shrouded in mystery where we could blindly attribute to them any mismatch; your own post even pastes a table from Wikipedia delineating the Hebrew zodiac, which states that the Hebrew equivalent of the sign of Taurus was Shor; that's the Hebrew word for "bull". The Babylonian zodiac was the same: the sign corresponding to Taurus was called Alû, the Bull of Heaven, in Akkadian. And indeed it was the same thing again in the Egyptian zodiac: from its earliest representation in the tomb of Senemnut (18th Dynasty) to the Ptolemaic era, it was always represented as a bull. And Shor was indeed the ancient Jewish name for Taurus; for instance we read in 4Q186 that a person who is born with his "sign" (mwlk) "in the foot of Taurus" (b-rgl h-shwr) would be poor and "his animal would be the bull (bhmtw shwr)" (1.2:8-9). And universally Taurus is represented as a bull in Hellenistic Jewish synagogue iconography. So in short there is not a sliver of evidence that Taurus could be represented by a donkey instead of a bull. Similarly you cannot resolve the difficulties with the other signs (such as the deer and wolf) by stating "not all cultures have the same zodiac". None of the zodiacs attested in the ANE have anything corresponding to what is given in the text; they do not supply the parallels missing in the familiar Greek zodiac (which is derivative of that of the Egyptians and Babylonians). To overlook this to maintain that the mismatches are in fact matches (a crab is reeeealy a wolf, honest!) is to basically save the hypothesis from any falsifying facts....and if it cannot be falsified, it is worthless as an explanation.

  Also, interestingly, your post reposts a table by F. Graham Millar as "more proof". This is not proof of anything about ancient Judaism, as it is simply a modern claim by a writer who is not even a scholar in ANE religion or archaeology (he appears to have been a meteorologist professionally, who was a hobbyist in biblical matters). But what is interesting here is that you quote this as further proof of your identifications of the twelve tribes in Genesis 49 without noticing that Millar's identifications are dramatically different from your own.

  Sign: Millar | mP
  Scorpio: Manasseh |Dan
  Sagittarius: Benjamin | Joseph
  Capricorn: Dan | Naphtali
  Aquarius: Asher | Reuben
  Pisces: Naphtali | Zebulon
  Aries: Judah | Gad
  Taurus: Issachar | Issachar
  Gemini: Zebulon | Simeon and Levi
  Cancer: Reuben | Benjamin
  Leo: Simeon | Judah
  Virgo: Gad | Dinah
  Libra: Ephraim | Asher

  The only commonality is found in Taurus; 11 out of 12 of the signs do not agree. What does this show? It shows just how arbitrary and contrived this whole zodiac mapping business is.