User talk:Jeffro77

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Current   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016    

 

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

JWs and the Stake[edit]

Hello Jeffro77. I asked a question about this topic last year, but there wasn't a response from you. Given that you are the resident Jehovah's Witnesses expert, I want to ask you: why do the Jehovah's Witnesses continue to teach that Jesus was executed on an upright stake as opposed to a cross, even though early Christian writers (pre-Constantine even) at the very least write that Jesus was executed on something other than a crux simplex (i.e. he was executed on an instrument with a crossbeam of some kind), and certain Bible verses (notably one on Thomas wanting to see the nails on Jesus' hands, and another saying that Jesus will stretch out his arms when he dies) also suggest that Jesus was executed on a cross? Reading on material on the ex-JW subreddit on Reddit, there is a theory that this was part of the platform (for lack of a better word) of Joseph Rutherford in order to "stomp out paganism" in Christianity (apparently this is the same reason why don't celebrate birthdays or holidays), and to distinguish themselves from the various splinter Bible study groups which were common at the time, but is this really the case, or are there other reasons to the doctrine as well? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is that it makes them distinctive. This is, of course, an oversimplification. They do have a longer answer, which they feel justifies their position. See Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I have read that article and it does not specifically mention why they continue to defend the doctrine despite all the evidence to the contrary. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what kind of additional response you're expecting from me beyond what has already been provided. Basically, they believe it because it is what they are told to believe. The 'official' reason is that the 'cross' is regarded as 'pagan' (however, a great deal of even the core Christian 'story' has 'pagan' origins). As far as I'm aware, distinctiveness of the belief is the underlying motivation. I'm not interested in discussing it further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum, why do they continue to believe in the 607 B.C.E. doctrine even though this date has no support outside of Watchtower scholarship and is believed to be inaccurate by scholars? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's actually worse than the date merely not being supported by secular sources. Their doctrine about 607 BCE is based on their assertion that the Jews were exiled to Babylon for 70 years; however, the Bible never mentions an exile of 70 years, instead stating that all the nations would serve Babylon (Jeremiah 25:11), and that serving Babylon willingly was the way to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:8-11), and that after 70 years, Babylon's king would be called to account (Jeremiah 25:12; Daniel 5:26-31). Additionally, the Bible states that attention would be given to the Jews' return only after 70 years were fulfilled. The JW view is that 70 years ended only once Jews arrived in Judea. However, it would be quite nonsensical to turn attention to their return after 70 years if 70 years ended only once they were already home (Jeremiah 29:10). Further, not only is their starting point for the period incorrect, but the end year they assert (537 BCE) is also wrong, as that is the year temple reconstruction began, and the Jews arrived in Judea the previous year.
The real reason JWs continue to cling to this untenable year is that their eschatological beliefs are inextricably tied to it. They believe a special period of 2,520 years ran from 607 BCE until 1914. (This is based on their incorrect belief that the 'apponted times of the nations' at Luke 21:24 referred to that period, however the original of that verse indicates a period that had not yet begun in Jesus' time, and Revelation 11:2 associates the term with a period of 3.5 years, not 2520 years.) JWs are unable to abandon their usage of the incorrect dates unless/until they come up with a novel way to also abandon their central end-times beliefs involving 1914 whilst not triggering a signifcant reduction of membership.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware that their doctrines on Armageddon etc. are very much tied to 607 B.C.E., but what I don't get is why they don't simply adjust their doctrines to fit the scholarly 587 B.C.E. date (i.e. change 1914 to 1934 or something like that). Given that they change doctrines all the time as manifestation of their doctrine on "new light", I'm surprised they haven't done this, it would not be too difficult to do, and if anything it would cause less contradictions rather than more. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
They say that Charles Taze Russell made predictions about 1914. Although what Russell said about 1914 is not remotely similar to anything that actually happened in 1914, they are too invested in that year because they have for many years focussed on the fact that something significant happened in that year. Hence, it is not a simple matter to change their selection of that year.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Creation Museum[edit]

The Category:Creationist museums in the United States has been removed from Category:Pseudoscience. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct. As already stated, Category:Creationist museums in the United States is already a subcategory of Category:Creationist museums, which is a subcategory of Category:Creation science, which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)