Posts by Leolaia

10

The Bible (2 scriptures in particular) and Literary Criticism

by CeriseRose in

okay i'm taking my first university level course (english lit) since leaving school almost 20 years ago.

i have had no exposure to the bible other than my own reading of revelation which scared the bejeebus out of me, and learning through the wts (obviously a skewed angle).

when i started this course, i was still going to meetings and a "jw.

Fascinating article re: Harmonic Concordance

by Sunnygal41 in

the beginning of the cycle in which this planet and all her life.

star.

planet earth.. .

Leolaia

you're right....it's really out ... there But then, the "truth" is supposed to be "out there", right? *shrug*

7

Studies in the Scriptures - Part 3

by Justin in

why did russell see the necessity for dividing up christians into "classes"?

the distinction between the heavenly and earthly classes is essential to dispensationalism, but beyond that, russell had three classes co-existing during the gospel age: justified believers, the great company, and the little flock.

it must be remembered that russell could not point to a previously existing church organization as possessing the "truth.

Leolaia

Wow, the internet is amazing. I recall when I got a photostat copy of the Three Worlds from Richard Rawe....'87 or '88, and I thought at the time how hard to find such info was....

19

YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN

by Larry in

jw
friends

by george carlin

i believe the money i make belongs to me and my family, not some mid level governmental functionary be it democratic or republican!

i'm in touch with my feelings and i like it that way, damn it!

Leolaia

It's a fake.

"There is a new bogus Carlin email circulating, which you can see here - it's utterly NOT Carlin's work. <snip> Here are 3 joke lists that were not written by George Carlin: this includes the "Bad American" email that has been making the rounds. We may repeat ourselves here a little in the name of truth..."

http://www.georgecarlin.com/georgecarlin/home/dontblame.html

111

The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

as jws we learned the utmost central watchtower doctrine that jesus returned "invisibly" in 1914 (well it was 1874, but then j. f. rutherford decided jesus really, really, really returned at a later date ... this is also known to jws as "jesus second presence" (greek: parousia = english: presence):.

ref.

related new thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/70098/1.ashx .

Leolaia

Euphemism....Ah, I didn't realize that was our AlanF. I checked for the date, but it seems that this last post in my compilation came from another parousia thread on BGreek. Maybe Alan might better recall the date?

s/c scholar....Why must you continue to confuse the issue? You just said: "posers such as Alan F and his ilk want to redefine this term solely with coming or arrival which is an intellectual fraud". Is that what Alan said? Is that what Amazing1914 said? Is that what I said?

AlanF: "Parousia can mean 'presence', 'coming' and 'arrival with subsequent presence'. The difference in focus can be subtle, and it's not always possible to determine, even from context, precisely what the writer means." "For example, it quoted Josephus' use of parousia five times where he used the word with the sense 'presence'. But Josephus used the word another 28 times in the senses of 'coming' and 'arrival with subsequent presence', as shown by the context. So the Watchtower article lied to readers by failing to give them full information. "parousia" is not perfectly translated by one English word, for it has connotations that combine features of "coming," "advent" and "presence."

Leolaia: First, there is the stative parousia, which means "presence". This is used in contexts where no change in state is implied.

Why do you distort what what we say, misrepresent our positions, if you are such a "scholar"? (Is your real name Gilderoy?)

111

The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

as jws we learned the utmost central watchtower doctrine that jesus returned "invisibly" in 1914 (well it was 1874, but then j. f. rutherford decided jesus really, really, really returned at a later date ... this is also known to jws as "jesus second presence" (greek: parousia = english: presence):.

ref.

related new thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/70098/1.ashx .

Leolaia

Furuli basically argues (I think) that parousia is a stative verb and does not necessarily express a dynamic change-of-state; he admits that it might be possible, and he also says he has not seen an example where the context "demands" an instantaneous sense of "coming". Although his discussion claims to distinguish aspect from lexical semantics, his use of old-style (i.e. AT Robertson) Aktionsart terminology confuses the issue because it encompasses both grammatical aspect and lexical aspect. Thus at times he seems to stray a little into discussing punctiliarity as it functions in the Greek tenses (technically, the tense/aspect system), which is inappropriate for discussing lexical semantics. He says, for instance, that:

durativity is a semantic property (it is not dependent on the context and cannot be canceled) punctuality is a pragmatic property (it must be construed by help of the context and can be canceled)

Considering that Furuli has defined the punctiliar in terms of "instantaneous" action, he is here mixing up lexical meaning with grammatical contextual meaning. According to Vendler and later semanticists, events can be catagorized into four categories (activities, accomplishments, achievements, states) according to three properties (telicity, duration, dynamicity). "Instantaneous" is simply [- duration], while the "durative" is [+ duration]. Both equal counterparts of a semantic feature at the lexical level, independent of grammatical or pragmatic context. Thus we find that:

activities are [- telic, + duration, + dynamic]
achievements are [+ telic, - duration, + dynamic]
accomplishments are [+ telic, + duration, + dynamic]
states are [- telic, + duration, - dynamic]

Other combinations of these features lead to ill-formed and nonsensical events (i.e. an instantaneous event that does not involve a change of state). To give some examples, "Peter was sad all day" is a state, "Mary swam for twenty minutes" is an activity, "Mary drew a circle" is an accomplishment, and "Peter arrived at 9 p.m." is an achievement. In terms of event structure, we can characterize these kinds of events in the following way:

activities: [x ACT <manner>]
achievements: [BECOME [ x <state>]]
accomplishments: [[ x ACT <manner> ] CAUSE [BECOME [y <state>]]]
states: [x <state>]

As I see it, the issue really boils down to whether the lexical meaning of parousia is only [+ duration], that is, only as a state, activity, or accomplishment, or whether as an achievement. A separate issue, which Furuli conflates with the duration question, is also whether parousia is dynamic and only expresses a state, or whether it can express a change of state as an accomplishment or achievement. Thus Furuli says ?the crux of the discussion about PAROUSIA is whether it in any passage of the NT signals anything but a state (presence)?, yet he also says that the main issue is whether there is any evidence that ?the context demands the instantaneous sense?. Two separate questions that are being treated together as the same. But both are relevant in the case of achievements (like the example above, ?Peter arrived at 9 p.m.?) which are both [- duration] and [+ dynamic], whereas states like "presence" are [+ duration] and [- dynamic]. So, though they are distinct issues, they are both relevant.

Now consider one of the examples that AlanF gave, from Josephus (Antiquities 20, 30-32):

Helena ? set up Monobazus, the eldest son, to be king ? and exhorted him to administer the affairs of the kingdom till his brother should come [parousias]; who came suddenly upon hearing that his father was dead, and succeeded his brother.

This is almost a classic example of an achievement. First, there is the change of state. Monobazus is first engaged in an ACTIVITY, that of administering the affairs of the kingdom. Activities are [- telic] and have no inherent goal; until things change, Monobazus continues engaged in the activity. This activity is also durative; it continues for some time. What ends this activity, as indicated by the aspectual adverb translated "till", is the "presence" of his brother. This is a new state that did not exist at the time Monobazus was administering the kingdom; otherwise he would not be engaged in the activity. Thus, regardless of how the word is translated, there is a semantic change-of-state that parousia indicates. So the event structure of parousia in this sentence is not [x <state>] but [BECOME [ x <state>]]. It cannot be an accomplishment because the event has only one participant, the one coming, and it also does not indicate a durative, non-instantaneous action. If the second instance of "come" (translated "came") in the sentence is also an instance of parousia, the punctual adverb translated "suddenly" would definitely discount this possibility. So would the fact that parousia halts the activity of "administering" at a single point in time. But even if the verb is not instantaneous and expresses both the act of coming and the presence, it is inescapable that parousia does indeed express "something other than a state".

The examples that AlanF provided might suggest a three-fold event structure of parousia, one could even think of them as three separate words that are used in different contexts. First, there is the stative parousia, which means "presence". This is used in contexts where no change in state is implied, and where the "presence" is an ongoing, nondynamic, durative event, i.e. "My uncle was present in the kitchen when I made dinner". There is also an activity parousia, one that indicates a dynamic action. This is the act of "coming", i.e. "It took a long time for me to come home". As I showed with the durative adverb "long time", this parousia would also be durative. Finally, there is an achievement parousia, one that indicates "arrival" and thus is telic, i.e. "Finally John arrived when we were eating dinner". Like the example from Josephus cited above, this parousia is not durative. The examples provided by both Furuli and AlanF seem to attest all three kinds of parousia. To determine which of these is involved in the case of Jesus' parousia, one needs to examine the pragmatic context to see which adverbs are being used, which grammatical constructions and tenses are being used, etc. to see whether changes of state and non-durativity is involved. A verb merely indicating the state of "being present" would not express dynamism and punctuality.

I hope this clarifies a few things. BTW, Furuli says that states are not cancellable. Of course, that may be true in relating grammatical aspect to lexical meaning (that is, if durativity is encoded lexically), but not at all true at the lexical level. For instance, in certain Austronesian languages, neuter verbs are statives that can be used to indicate achievements. Even a color term like "red" could be used as a verb to indicate a change in state, "to redden".

20

What Do You Really Know About The Bible?

by Gadget in

did you learn a lot about the bible while you were a jw?

try this bible quiz!.

http://ffrf.org/bquiz.html

Leolaia

I got 40/50 too. There are some rather trick questions, like the one about the Decalogue which hinges on whether the Decalogue is actually called the "ten commandments" in Exodus, and the one about the name of God, by which token Jesus would not be the name of the Christ in the Bible.

30

eating the emblems AFTER memorial...

by AuSet in

sorry this is a little late for a memorial post, but did any of ya'll eat the emblems like it was just ordinary food immediately after the memorial?

they always did this at my kh, even the elders would be handing it out and we always would fight over who got a piece of the "bread.

" this usually occured out in the parking lot after most of the new/interested people had already high tailed it outta there.

Leolaia

My, I nearly forgot that!! I barely recall, when I must've been 9 or 10 years old, the elders were passing out the unleavened bread after the Memorial and gave me a piece. I recall being really confused, it was verbotten to eat it during the service, it was so sacred, and just minutes later they were giving it away and tossing out the leftovers. It felt so.... wrong, so very wrong, to eat that bread....

2

I should take Sunday school classes

by Atilla in

tonight on the history channel i was watching a program about the book of revelation.

due to my wt backgrounds, i was told that the apostle john wrote this book, and had always assumed this to be true.

apparently there is great controversy in the scholary world as to who exactly wrote revelation with many thelogians saying point blank that some one, another john, but not the apostle who wrote the gospel account of john, wrote the book of revelation.

Leolaia

Apparently there is great controversy in the scholary world as to who exactly wrote Revelation with many thelogians saying point blank that some one, another John, but not the apostle who wrote the gospel account of John, wrote the book of Revelation.

The most likely candidate is John the Presbyter, an early church leader in Ephesus in the early second century A.D. In later tradition, he was confused with Apostle John (whom Paul mentions in Galatians 2:9), but Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis (a nearby city to Ephesus), who knew John personally, clearly distinguished the two Johns and noted that Apostle John had died with his brother James many years earlier. John the Presbyter is the likely author of 2 and 3 John, which are signed "the presbyter" (2 John 1; 3 John 1). There is also some controversial evidence that John the Presbyter edited the Gospel of John and added chapter 21, which is a second ending to the book. The letters in Revelation 2-3 were all addressed to churches in Asia Minor, all in the area where John the Presbyter had influence. And Papias, John's disciple, was deeply familiar with Revelation and was the first to write a commentary on some of its visions. Papias was also a chiliast, believing in a thousand-year restitution of Paradise as the Kingdom of God -- a view also shared by Revelation. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who in turn was also a disciple of John the Presbyter, also held similar beliefs. Phyrgia, the district in Asia Minor home to Hierapolis, Ephesus, Smyrna, and other cities mentioned in Revelation 2-3, was the epicenter of chiliast thinking and was also the home of the gnostic Cerinthus, the main opponent of John the Presbyter, who also believed in chiliasm. Polycarp told a story of how John entered a bathhouse in Ephesus and discovered Cerinthus therein, and ran out in a panic fearing the roof would cave in. The followers of Cerinthus, interestingly, believed that he was the author of the Gospel of John and Revelation, not John. What is more likely is that Cerinthus edited a gnostic precursor of the Gospel of John (which is itself dependent on gnostic sources) and also edited a percursor of Revelation, which most scholars believe is a composite document containing earlier material from a Jewish apocalypse. But you are right...there is very little that is known for certain.

If you are interested in more information on this issue, read my longer post on this issue:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/63037/970569/post.ashx#970569

27

Jesus and Satan are brothers.....says WTBTS

by gumby in

that's right.........god's "family" in heaven gave birth to two boys..........read for yourself.

*** w70 7/15 438 obedience the desired course *** .

21) not all children turn out the same way or for good.

Leolaia

hehe, that sure sounds a lot like a throwback to Canaanite and Israelite mythology, which designated Yahweh/Baal (who assumed divine kingship) as one of the sons of El, the father god, and his consort Asherah, the mother deity. Baal was actually adopted into El's family, being the son of Dagan, and his brother Yamm was the preferred and beloved son of Asherah, who represented the forces of chaos and disorder, who was defeated by Baal in a struggle for divine kingship. This story was later transformed in the book of Revelation into the battle between Michael the Archangel and the ancient dragon of Satan the Devil.