Posts by Leolaia

15

The Major Prophets! Were they crazy?

by smmcroberts in

were the major prophets out of their freakin' minds, or what?!.

see why i would ask such a question in my latest blog: http://smmcroberts.net/blog/the-major-prophets/.

Leolaia

They lived in a different culture and time. It is wrong to think of them (as some do) simply as foretellers of the future or even as men in a purely religious profession. These guys were political activists. If the regime in power found them credible, then they were appointed as political advisors. Otherwise they were anti-government activists. The attention-grabbing stuff that Ezekiel and Jeremiah did reminds me of some of the antics sixties' anti-war protestors did in demonstrations against the Vietnam War.

In October 1967, David Dellinger of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam asked Jerry Rubin to help mobilize and direct a March on the Pentagon. [ 4 ] The protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial as Dellinger and Dr. Benjamin Spock gave speeches to the mass of people. [ 5 ] From there, the group marched towards the Pentagon. As the protesters neared the Pentagon, they were met by soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division [ 5 ] who formed a human barricade blocking the Pentagon steps. [ 4 ] Not to be dissuaded, Hoffman vowed to levitate the Pentagon [ 5 ] claiming he would attempt to use psychic energy to levitate the Pentagon until it would turn orange and begin to vibrate, at which time the war in Vietnam would end. [ 6 ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbie_Hoffman

Jeremiah was convinced that the king's foreign policy was extremely dangerous and going to lead to the destruction of the nation. He was on the right side of history, even if he really didn't have divine foresight of the future, he correctly understood the ramifications of a rebellious course against Babylon.

52

So, Jesus had a wife.....

by oldlightnewshite in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Leolaia

Here is a synoptic comparison I made. Credit goes to Francis Watson for discovering the fact that the GJW (Gospel of Jesus' Wife, as King has dubbed the fragment) is a modern pastiche of phrases lifted from the GThom (Gospel of Thomas). My analysis improves on Watson's study by adding several other parallels from GThom, showing that in fact everything in the fragment comes from GThom.

52

So, Jesus had a wife.....

by oldlightnewshite in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Leolaia

Okay, I'm convinced the fragment is a fake. The whole thing is a pastiche of Coptic phrases lifted from the gospel of Thomas.

398

Jwfacts, Why Do You Equate Miracles With Magic?

by Recovery in

i have a question for the author of the website jwfacts.

as i was reading the sparlock article, i couldn't help but notice something seriously wrong:.

"the bible abounds in vivid fantasy, such as its many celestial descriptions, or the portrayal of warring kingdoms with imaginary beasts.. the sparlock message is confusing, as much for an adult as for a child, as the bible shows that god's followers practice magic, even if they are usually referred to as miracles.

Leolaia

Daniel, chapter 1.

Daniel and his companions were described as educated and trained in the literature of the Babylonians, specifically, that pertaining to the magical arts. Now the story does not specifically say that Daniel practiced magic per se; it does say that he obtained his (miraculous) abilities from God. So he was better than all the magicians, but it doesn't say that he was a magician himself. But the point is that Daniel did not refuse an education in pagan mantic literature. He didn't throw his magical books into the garbage. He did refuse the royal food. So he could have also refused the learning of magic on the same grounds (that it was defiling). Daniel and his companions similarly accepted pagan names that included names of Babylonian gods. But they refused to compromise on idolatry, to the point of death.

10

Do you believe in hell?

by schnare in

i can't personally say that i do believe or the even the bible for that matter, but i can't see how someone could believe this.

you don't live the way you are supposed to live and believe in jesus, etc for like 70-80 years, but you have to suffer forever and ever for stuff you did during one short lifetime.i was doing some looking on google and one guy made a bunch of good points against the idea of hell and one being why would god resurrect the righteous from heaven and especiall hell then just throw them back in?

what do you guys think?.

Leolaia

I don't have any belief about a real-life existence of a place or state that the term "hell" conventionally refers to, or anything specific pertaining to faith.

I do believe that the Bible incorporates a range of eschatologies that includes an understanding of post-mortem punishment that the term "hell" conventionally refers to, and that this was common in Second Temple Judaism.

56

Rutherford's love letter to Hitler

by irondork in

has anyone ever thought to send a copy of rutherford's letter to hitler & declaration of facts to the holocaust museum in washington, d.c.?

they have and entire section dedicated to the jehovah's witness in that museum.

i would hate for tourists to visit the museum and not get the whole story.. i would also assume there are jw displays at other holocaust museums around the world.

Leolaia

The shift to more overt antisemitic views seems to have started in the latter 1920s and was became prominent during the Great Depression. I think it was driven by a larger cultural economic antisemitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism), and Rutherford's castigation of "Big Business" frequently had Jews in view. Rutherford in particular may well have been influenced by Rep. Louis T. McFadden (R-Pennsylvania), who proposed a bill in Congress (H.R. 7986) in support of Jehovah's Witnesses and whose testimony in the hearings closely paralleled Rutherford's own views about Big Business. McFadden was a populist Jew-baiter and Clayton Woodworth, editor of the Golden Age, believed that McFadden was used by God to accomplish his divine purposes (GA, 16 January 1935, p. 237).

In my opinion, the most egregious statement was in Balzareit's German edition of the Declaration of Facts, which condemned the American boycott of German businesses in response to the Nazi policy then launched against Jewish businesses in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_boycott_of_1933). The German harassment of Jewish businesses (which included a threat of annihilation for German Jewry) reflects the statement in Section 24 in the Nazi Platform quoted in the Hitler Letter that the Party "opposes the Jewish materialist spirit (bekampft den judisch-materialistischen Geist) domestically and abroad". Although the section was quoted to support the freedom of religion for JWs, the Letter declares that this statement embodies "just principles", and the other statement about the boycott in the Declaration would indicate solidarity with this particular principle.

23

Where has the the society changed the bible to reflect their teachings?

by loosie in

i am having a discussion with a jw who has contacted me on facebook.

we are discussing the changed the wt society made to hte bible.

in short he says he has a hebrew friend and that friend says the nwt is correct and no changes have been made.

Leolaia

The Watchtower of April 15th, 1970, p.255:
"In considering this matter it is well to note that Bible writers often took for granted that certain things would be understood, just as writers in our day do. For example, the apostle Paul states, as we read at Colossians 1:16, that by means of Jesus Christ all things were created in the heavens and on earth. But since we know from Revelation 3:14 that Jesus himself was also created, the New World Translation adds the word "other," which clearly is what the apostle had in mind. But even here, it might be added, that, were it not for the prevalence of the trinitarian teaching that Jesus was not created, it would not have been necessary for us to add the word "other."

I would have to disagree with this statement....(1) It is not a "trinitarian" teaching per se that Jesus was begotten rather than created....this is an idea that antedates (and does not depend upon) trinitarian thinking, (2) It is not the prevelance of "trinitarian teaching" that leads one to to read the text in a way contrary to inserting "[other]", it is the grammar of the immediate context that conflicts with this rendering, (3) The immediate context takes precedence in exegetical reading, postulated outside parallels (such as the passage from Revelation cited here) are of secondary importance.

Some contextual arguments against the NWT rendering:

(1) The chief problem is the presence of hoti "because" at the beginning of v. 16. A clause marked with causal hoti "because, for the reason that" semantically explains the preceding clause, i.e. John 5:27 "He gave authority to him to render judgment because (hoti) he is the Son of Man." X has AUTHORITY because HE IS THE SON OF MAN. X is FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION because ALL THINGS WERE CREATED IN HIM. It is Jesus' role in creation that makes him the "firstborn of all creation". The NWT interpretation is rather nonsensical: Jesus was the first creature because all other things were created in him?? (He would still be the first creature if he had no role in the creation of others) (2) The second problem is the scope of the quantifier pas "all". In v. 15 of the NWT pasès (gen. sing.) includes Jesus within the set of "all creation" but panta (nom. pl.) excludes him from that same set (individuated via the pl.) in v. 16-18. It is certainly more parsimonious that pas has the same scope throughout v. 15-18. (3) The insertion of "[other]" is justified in the NWT by pointing to examples like Luke 11:42: "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue, and all [other] garden herbs (pan lakhanon) but you neglect justice and the love of God". But this is not a parallel to Colossians 1:15 because here mint and rue are included in the set of garden herbs and pas occurs to complete the set, whereas in Colossians 1:16-18 where the NWT adds "[other]" in brackets, pas "all" does not complete a set that includes the Son but rather excludes him from that set.

23

Where has the the society changed the bible to reflect their teachings?

by loosie in

i am having a discussion with a jw who has contacted me on facebook.

we are discussing the changed the wt society made to hte bible.

in short he says he has a hebrew friend and that friend says the nwt is correct and no changes have been made.

Leolaia

Putting "Samuel" in scare-quotes in the Saul En-Dor narrative is a pretty clear example.

22

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in their own doctrine?

by God_Delusion in

hi guys,.

do you think the majority of jehovah's witnesses actually believe in their own doctrine?

do they honestly believe that the end is nigh?.

Leolaia

Some think they do, some don't really care.

49

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

by smmcroberts in

i think the answer is largely yes.

please read my latest blog and see if you agree.. the witnesses had better stock up on goats and stones to make up for lost time!.

Leolaia

I would say, yes and no. It would depend on where you draw the line. I think a really good analogy can be found in JW history. Who started the JW religion? Was it Charles Russell or was it J. F. Rutherford? Most JWs think it was Russell. He started the original Bible Student movement, he founded the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, he is the charismatic personality associated with such core teachings as the 1914 doctrine. But Rutherford (and those who came after him) really was responsible for the most of what JWs believe, he was the one who actually named the group "Jehovah's Witnesses", and the many Bible Student groups more faithful to Russell's teachings are regarded as "apostates" for not following the lead of the organization that was helmed by Rutherford. At the same time, Russell himself was part of a broader Adventist movement, and much of what he taught was not invented by him but was already found in earlier Adventist groups which all originated ultimately in the movement that William Miller founded back in the 1840s. And Miller, in turn, was influenced by earlier American Protestant movements.

Rutherford was analogous to Paul. There was already a Jesus movement when he came on the scene, but he developed his own elaborate theology and founded many churches that followed his gospel. The Jewish Christians who came before him tended to be Torah-observant (such as James the Just), and there was a good deal of friction between Paul and others over such issues as circumcision, table fellowship, etc. The bulk of Paul's gospel was about the cross and the legal implications of Jesus' death (from a Pharisaical point of view), whereas the early Jesus followers focused more on the teachings of Jesus (such as what is found in the synoptic gospels). Afterward, the more conservative Jewish-Christian groups were regarded as heretical by the largely Gentile church that followed Paul's teachings. (One small difference here is that orthodox Christianity did not just draw on Paul but also other early apostles who contributed to the conceptual character of the Church). The early Jesus movement, meanwhile, was situated in a larger Judaism; the NT shows that it drew on an earlier movement started by John the Baptist, who himself seems to have been situated in Essene thought.