Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I really didn't put together that this was rapture related. I always that it was a "keeping them from being corrupted by the world" issue.
Technically it is not rapture related because JWs don't really call it that ... it is the ushering in of god's kingdom on earth (for the common JW) and in heaven / the New Jerusalem (for the 144,000 chosen ones). But it motivates the same nihilism ... why bother with unimportant things like an education or profession when it's all going to pass away Any Day Now. It is the imminent nature of it that makes them disparate things like higher education.
My own background in fundamentalism was that it was somewhere in between. Jesus is coming "soon" but there's also an awareness that he's been coming soon for 2,000 years so they are pragmatic enough to want their children to have good jobs. Their compromise is generally that you send your children to a church-backed institution of higher learning, preferably with a concept of in loco parentis, to give your children an education while hopefully not having them be enticed away from the faith or sucked into unsavory modes of living (premarital sex, etc). So the problem for those kids is that they have a generally lower quality education that's always tap dancing around things that must be taught in a compartmentalized way so that you can, say, be a doctor or scientist deploying principles of evolutionary biology which are true, or at least work, in that realm, while still respecting the creation myths, etc. Also they are at a social disadvantage because they tend to be socially naive and even stunted.
Technically it is not rapture related because JWs don't really call it that ... it is the ushering in of god's kingdom on earth (for the common JW) and in heaven / the New Jerusalem (for the 144,000 chosen ones).
It's propaganda and disinformation at its finest. They cherry-pick verses then string them together to prove a preconceived conclusion.
And they do that all the while ignoring the fact that Revelation is an unsealed prophecy meaning start to finish is 1 to 2 generations and it failed.
The best way to deal with JWs is to ask if they're Jews.
Because the 144,000 are exclusively Jews and if you're not Jewish you suck pond water.
Even if you are Jewish you have to be one of the 11 tribes, and it is 11 tribes and not 12 tribes that are listed.
The list is suspect because it starts with Judah. Ephraim is the true heir of Israel and not Judah.
Jeremiah and Hilkiah only want you to believe that Judah is the true heir because if you don't then they're out of a job.
That's why they forged Deuteronomy and then edited Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers to conform to their lies in Deuteronomy.
John of Patmos lists the tribes of Joseph and Joseph's first-born son Manasseh but not the second-born son and heir Ephraim.
Joseph doesn't have a tribe because he forfeited his inheritance to Ephraim.
Note that including the tribe of Joseph may be a very clever way of saying the tribe of Ephraim without actually saying the tribe of Ephraim.
Why would John do that? Because to include Ephraim would be offensive to members of the tribe of Judah and it would also cast aspersions on Jesus and be offensive to x-tians.
Remember, the so-called prophecies claim the messiah must come from the tribe of Judah and if Judah the pretender isn't the true heir then the prophecies are worthless which is why Matthew and Luke jump through hoops to prove Jesus is descended except both lied because the genealogies are through two different sons of Solomon.
The list of tribes also includes Reuben, Simeon and Levi and their mothers were concubines and it cuts out 3 of Leah's sons.
Since no gods ever existed, there was no god to explain Sumerian-Akkadian inheritance laws to Jeremiah and Hilkiah which why they totally freak out when 2nd-born Ephraim gets the inheritance and not Manasseh and why they freak out when 12th-born Joseph gets the inheritance and not Reuben or Simeon or Levi or Judah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That's a common and close to 'official' Bible skeptic view - that Jesus was some kind of reforming Rabbi, or (less often heard) that the Jesus-figure is entirely made up from mythical archetypes.
It's well established there were a number of Essene sects, some docile, some very radical based on their writings.
Jesus is likely to come from one of the radical sects and he faked his death and "came back to life." There's no way the Pharisees or Sadducees could compete against that so they'd lose face and lose power and control.
The best way to deal with JWs is to ask if they're Jews.
Because the 144,000 are exclusively Jews and if you're not Jewish you suck pond water.
Well as I mentioned in another thread somewhere around here today, Christians in general are happy to appropriate Jewish culture and tradition for themselves, and many fall all over themselves to figure out how the 144,000 for example applies to them given that Israel so far as they're concerned is no longer the chosen people, but rather Christians -- or at least their sect or those who agree with their personal interpretations.
The JWs are no different, they implicitly if not always explicitly consider themselves the heirs of god's largesse now that he has, in their understanding of things, disinherited the Jews.
I worked for a year in a small town in Arizona at the local hospital. The CEO of the little hospital was a JW. As a result, there were a bunch of JW folks that worked there in all kinds of capacities... except for the professional ones. The janitors, cafeteria folks, some of the secretaries, and several of the aides that worked there were JW. None of the nurses, doctors or other professional people were.
In a discussion with a few other professional types that worked there they mentioned that JWs "discouraged" higher education. But I really didn't put together that this was rapture related. I always that it was a "keeping them from being corrupted by the world" issue.
The last comments are an interesting concept, for both JWs and fundamentalist Christians.
It’s pretty well known that JWs are discouraged from further education, due to the imminence of 2nd coming etc.
The home education or home-schooled upbringing is part of it too - especially seen in some fundies.
Rachael Slick was a classic example.
But she then went to college, where the secular world challenged her beliefs.
That’s the thing, you can’t keep people isolated from the secular and outside world forever.
I knew Catholics who went to a Catholic school, then a Catholic University etc, when their marks and grades suggested they could have done better, but their conservative backgrounds kept them from venturing out.
To me it’s a form of being institutionalized, as my late father put it after going to Catholic boarding schools.
Conservative Catholicism is only a low level control, certainly compared to these other groups, but it still exists.
It's propaganda and disinformation at its finest. They cherry-pick verses then string them together to prove a preconceived conclusion.
And they do that all the while ignoring the fact that Revelation is an unsealed prophecy meaning start to finish is 1 to 2 generations and it failed.
The best way to deal with JWs is to ask if they're Jews.
Because the 144,000 are exclusively Jews and if you're not Jewish you suck pond water.
Even if you are Jewish you have to be one of the 11 tribes, and it is 11 tribes and not 12 tribes that are listed.
The list is suspect because it starts with Judah. Ephraim is the true heir of Israel and not Judah.
Jeremiah and Hilkiah only want you to believe that Judah is the true heir because if you don't then they're out of a job.
That's why they forged Deuteronomy and then edited Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers to conform to their lies in Deuteronomy.
John of Patmos lists the tribes of Joseph and Joseph's first-born son Manasseh but not the second-born son and heir Ephraim.
Joseph doesn't have a tribe because he forfeited his inheritance to Ephraim.
Note that including the tribe of Joseph may be a very clever way of saying the tribe of Ephraim without actually saying the tribe of Ephraim.
Why would John do that? Because to include Ephraim would be offensive to members of the tribe of Judah and it would also cast aspersions on Jesus and be offensive to x-tians.
Remember, the so-called prophecies claim the messiah must come from the tribe of Judah and if Judah the pretender isn't the true heir then the prophecies are worthless which is why Matthew and Luke jump through hoops to prove Jesus is descended except both lied because the genealogies are through two different sons of Solomon.
The list of tribes also includes Reuben, Simeon and Levi and their mothers were concubines and it cuts out 3 of Leah's sons.
Since no gods ever existed, there was no god to explain Sumerian-Akkadian inheritance laws to Jeremiah and Hilkiah which why they totally freak out when 2nd-born Ephraim gets the inheritance and not Manasseh and why they freak out when 12th-born Joseph gets the inheritance and not Reuben or Simeon or Levi or Judah.
It's well established there were a number of Essene sects, some docile, some very radical based on their writings.
Jesus is likely to come from one of the radical sects and he faked his death and "came back to life." There's no way the Pharisees or Sadducees could compete against that so they'd lose face and lose power and control.
There are various 'Real Jesus' hypotheses. Mine is that he was a zealot and so were his followers (the zealot underpainting keeps peeping through the Christian overpainting) and the death might not be an actual death but if so was not faked by him to start a new cult but improvised (using the lazarus fake) to save him. Just the way I read the clues in the Gospels, though I now doubt much of the record (e.g IF Lazarus was a real even evidence is a set up fake miracle, BUT that it is not in the synoptics suggests it was invented by John).
I have long had an itching doubt about the Essenes. Or rather that the Qumran community was Essene at all, or the Qumran scrolls were an Essene Library. Rather I see it as a zealot outpost (and note, in the locality of the Baptist's rousing orf followers which Antipas saw as subversive) and the writings were zealot not Essene. The final assault is shrugged off as the Essenes lest and the zealots occupied it. Or maybe the zealots were there all the time.
Just my theory folks, just my theory. But what is supported by the internal evidence is that Gospel Jesus is Not the Real Jesus.
There are various 'Real Jesus' hypotheses. Mine is that he was a zealot and so were his followers (the zealot underpainting keeps peeping through the Christian overpainting) and the death might not be an actual death but if so was not faked by him to start a new cult but improvised (using the lazarus fake) to save him. Just the way I read the clues in the Gospels, though I now doubt much of the record (e.g IF Lazarus was a real even evidence is a set up fake miracle, BUT that it is not in the synoptics suggests it was invented by John).
I have long had an itching doubt about the Essenes. Or rather that the Qumran community was Essene at all, or the Qumran scrolls were an Essene Library. Rather I see it as a zealot outpost (and note, in the locality of the Baptist's rousing orf followers which Antipas saw as subversive) and the writings were zealot not Essene. The final assault is shrugged off as the Essenes lest and the zealots occupied it. Or maybe the zealots were there all the time.
Just my theory folks, just my theory. But what is supported by the internal evidence is that Gospel Jesus is Not the Real Jesus.
This is interesting because so many scholars say that the new testament gospels were written in such a way as not to defend Rome. Revealing that Jesus was a zealot would probably have led the Romans to take some action against those writings.
This is interesting because so many scholars say that the new testament gospels were written in such a way as not to defend Rome. Revealing that Jesus was a zealot would probably have led the Romans to take some action against those writings.
It is for that reason (quote apart from not suiting Christian doctrine) that the zealot connection is covered up.
This is what I think. and..
"You can call me mad, but you must not say my book is mad" (Jimmy Cagney)
I start with the supposition that ever since the maccabean revolt, rule that the Zealots did not like threw up unrest and revolts. These were Pharisee -zealot, though not all Pharisees were zealots, the zealots were in that group, and the revolts started with Jannaeus through the Herods to Rome. And these rebels (bandits 'lestes' or 'Robbers') who did revolts came from. It might not be too far to say that a 'Galilean' was considered a zealot.
Thus, when the Baptist started baptising for repentance in Peraea near the Nabatean border, Antipas saw that as a zealot rebellion brewing and I suspect he was right. And Jesus came from Galilee to join him. The Baptist grovelling to Jesus is a Christian invention. John was the messianic leader and only after he was executed did Jesus take over.
I suspect he worked out a different plan where subterfuge was needed. Now this gets a bit like conspiracy theory as it has little history to draw on, but the idea was to start a riot in the Temple, defeat the Roman garrison and even grab the priestly robes so that Jesus could be king and High priest at the one time. This relied on God's help, but a practical start - eliminate Pilate and his Romans.
But he'd have 1,000 armoured grunts at festival time. Ok Jesus would have 5,000. So he went to Bethsaida to get them (I read somewhere that Bethsaida was a zealot nest that has to be initially eliminated in the Jewish war). This explains why John doesn't have a Transfiguration, but says the people wanting to make Jesus a king. Plus the messianioc recognition. Succinctly, the Bethsaidans supported Jesus' messianic mission 5,000 men strong. Covered up by the writers in different and contradictory ways.
I'll leave the idea that the miracles if true were faked to awe his followers, but it is sure to me that Jesus deliberately fulfilled one prophecy only. The one about the king entering Jerusalem. The procession looks like a Hoshanah procession relating to Tabernacles, not Passover, and Passover was only introduced when Christians made the death a sacrifice, not a failed messianic rebellion.
Whatever form the fracas took (and this is watered down in the Synoptics and JHohn removes it entirely) Jesus was grabbed, either on the spot or perhaps later on the mount of Olives. The armed resistance is again watered down and Jesus protesteth too much
"Have you come out with swords and clubs like I was some kind of rebel?"
"Yep, that's exactly right, now,will you come quietly, or do we need to gag you?".
And forget the Sanhedrin trial and the silly Blasphemy charge. Pilate already knew the charge and Jesus got nailed up for that - rebellion. For which crucifixion was the prescribed punishment.
Now this supposed trial relates back to the Temple bust up, not only because that was charge studiously avoided at the trial, but because of this Passover exchange custom, which is never mentioned in Jewish records and as I said, it wasn't Passover anyway, which is why they can't make up their minds whether it fell on the Saturday or the Thursday.
Point is, this Passover release serves one purpose - to give the Jews a choice - Jesus the son of God as a Christian type or Jesus Bar - Abba (son of the father) as a zealot. The Jews choose the zealot, take the blame for the execution and pay the price in the Jewish war.
That said, look back at the Temple fracas going on and think of Jesus as Barabbas the insurrectionist who did murder and two 'robbers' (rebels) crucified on each side. I'm not getting into the possible plan to save Jesus alive by drugging him and getting him off the cross double quick, but I am intrigued by Luke (who referred to history a lot) referring to a remarkable event which ought to be in Josephus, but isn't. Luke 13.
13 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
This is supposedly told to Jesus as he approaches Jerusalem. Well,the first thing one thinks of is the Barrabbas insurrection in the city. And if Jesus is Barrabbas - there you are. But there's more. Although attempts have been made to link this with Pilate sending thugs to club a protesting crowd, I think this is specific: In Pilate's governorship he spilled Galilean Blood where there were sacrifices. That is, in the Temple. So why is that event apparently not in Josephus? My suspicion is that it has been removed from history and I also suspect that it was replaced by the known forgery of the Flavian Testament.
I may be wrong, mistaken or deluded. I'm just saying, it fits like a glove, touches all bases and explains everything - all the problems, errors and contradictions. Everything.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-27-2023 at 03:39 PM..
I am curious about former believers who are now non believers and what brought them to change their minds. I suppose for many it was a gradual process and it happened for many reasons.
However I am specifically interested in what Biblical story/tenet/doctrine that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
There were so many reasons. Mainly because we are taught that this Yahweh (though for Christians he's called Jehovah) is a good god, the wellspring of morality, that everything he does is good.
And yet the Bible was filled to the rim with horrible atrocities committed directly by God (never mind the ones he commanded) that there was just no way to juxtapose his actions with the idea that he is, in any way, good.
But for me, the "no going back" Biblical dealbreaker for me was the concept of Hell.
And this was a New Testament concept, too! No one could shout at me that, "Hell is Old Testament stuff. We're operating under a new covenant now!"
Oh no we're not ...
Christianity took a horribly dark turn when Hell was introduced into the doctrine. Given the pluralistic nature of American society -- especially for those who live in more urban environments -- Christians would no doubt meet and befriend non-Christians. I don't just mean atheists, but also people who worship other religions.
Of course, the right-wing Christian dogma now is to claim that all other gods are evil and/or Satanic. This includes literally every other god still worshiped or revered: Allah, Ganesh, Krishna, Kali and all Hindu gods, as well as Buddha, Confuscious, all the tribal gods, and all forms of spirits. Since these people worship Satan in all of these forms, they are all slated for an eternity in Hell. Which, of course, includes all of the non-believers regardless of whether you're quiet about it -- or whether you're an activist trying to break people from the grip of superstition.
Christians meet these people -- and often befriend them. In some cases, they even marry each other. In other words Christians may fall in love with these "other" people. They might become best friends. They laugh togther, cry together, tell each other their deepest secrets. They share their lives together and even come to rely and depend on each other.
But -- aside from how liberal your Christian denomination is, aside from perhaps the Universalists, your religion demands that you believe that ... not only will your spouse, your best friend, your helpful neighbor, your in-law non-believers go straight to hell -- but they DESERVE to burn for all eternity.
And that was the deal breaker for me. Knowing that, as a Christian, I must believe that - no matter HOW much I might love a non-believer, no matter HOW good and wonderful and selfless and altruistic and charitable and kind and ... Christian ... this non-Christian is, he/she DESERVES to be tortured for all eternity.
And not for being a bad person. Oh no. We've already ascertained that these are good people. No, you burn forever simply because you didn't get down on your knees and put this petty, egotistical, monstrosity of a god in front of everything and everyone else. Because you didn't see yourself as a piece of filth who deserved eternal torment all because a woman made from a rib was seduced by a talking snake into eating a magical fruit from a forbidden tree -- because I didn't believe such an absurd story and then throw myself at the mercy of a god for which there is absolutely no evidence -- I deserve eternal torture.
I knew the first time I truly grasped the significance of Hell, that there was no way I could believe this immoral trash.
It's propaganda and disinformation at its finest. They cherry-pick verses then string them together to prove a preconceived conclusion.
And they do that all the while ignoring the fact that Revelation is an unsealed prophecy meaning start to finish is 1 to 2 generations and it failed.
The best way to deal with JWs is to ask if they're Jews.
Because the 144,000 are exclusively Jews and if you're not Jewish you suck pond water.
Even if you are Jewish you have to be one of the 11 tribes, and it is 11 tribes and not 12 tribes that are listed.
The list is suspect because it starts with Judah. Ephraim is the true heir of Israel and not Judah.
Jeremiah and Hilkiah only want you to believe that Judah is the true heir because if you don't then they're out of a job.
That's why they forged Deuteronomy and then edited Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers to conform to their lies in Deuteronomy.
John of Patmos lists the tribes of Joseph and Joseph's first-born son Manasseh but not the second-born son and heir Ephraim.
Joseph doesn't have a tribe because he forfeited his inheritance to Ephraim.
Note that including the tribe of Joseph may be a very clever way of saying the tribe of Ephraim without actually saying the tribe of Ephraim.
Why would John do that? Because to include Ephraim would be offensive to members of the tribe of Judah and it would also cast aspersions on Jesus and be offensive to x-tians.
Remember, the so-called prophecies claim the messiah must come from the tribe of Judah and if Judah the pretender isn't the true heir then the prophecies are worthless which is why Matthew and Luke jump through hoops to prove Jesus is descended except both lied because the genealogies are through two different sons of Solomon.
The list of tribes also includes Reuben, Simeon and Levi and their mothers were concubines and it cuts out 3 of Leah's sons.
Since no gods ever existed, there was no god to explain Sumerian-Akkadian inheritance laws to Jeremiah and Hilkiah which why they totally freak out when 2nd-born Ephraim gets the inheritance and not Manasseh and why they freak out when 12th-born Joseph gets the inheritance and not Reuben or Simeon or Levi or Judah.
It's well established there were a number of Essene sects, some docile, some very radical based on their writings.
Jesus is likely to come from one of the radical sects and he faked his death and "came back to life." There's no way the Pharisees or Sadducees could compete against that so they'd lose face and lose power and control.
Ah now which are the 'Radical' Essene writings? I guess Qumran. Now they MAY be Essene and Qumran MAY be an Essene community taken over by zealots before the attack (attested by arrowheads on the site) But I have a theory... ....that it was a Zealot nest all the time, and not far from where John the Baptist was calling his crowd together much to the alarm of Antipas, and I think he had good reason for his suspicions. Did John attack Antipas' fitness to rule (Josephus, and the synoptic gospels) for religious reform or for political reasons?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-03-2023 at 10:04 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
now which are the 'Radical' Essene writings? I guess Qumran. Now they MAY be Essene and Qumran MAY be an Essene community taken over by zealots before the attack (attested by arrowheads on the site) But I have a theory...
....that it was a Zealot nest all the time, and not far from where John the Baptist was calling his crowd together much to the alarm of Antipas, and I think he had good reason for his suspicions. Did John attack Antipas' fitness to rule (Josephus, and the synoptic gospels) for religious reform or for political reasons?
