"Questions for Jehovah Witnesses"

[Hiroshi]

That is a nice addendum.. but we clearly see from above that different honorific titles were bestowed upon different messengers.

all the best

Well, if other "anointed ones" could be kings or priests, why can't Jesus?

 

[جوري]

Well, if other "anointed ones" could be kings or priests, why can't Jesus?

Jesus anointment marks his prophet-hood indeed.

all the best

 

[Hiroshi]

Jesus anointment marks his prophet-hood indeed.

all the best

Any thoughts as to when and how Jesus was anointed?

 

[Hiroshi]

True

But if we know the identity of the person who received the revelation, we have a better chance of evaluating our reason to believe it to be true or false.

While "Ned, the neighborhood wino" may have a gift for beautiful writing I would hesitate in accepting what He writes as being the Words of God(swt) or even near truth. I think I would be more inclined to believe it if I knew the source was Abraham (PBUH) or Moses(PBUH).

Hey Woodrow, on quite a different subject, why was the thread on "Free will and an all knowing God" closed down? Did I do something wrong again?

 

[Woodrow]

Any thoughts as to when and how Jesus was anointed?

Just my own thought. I believe he would have been already anointed at the time of, or before the first miracle Allaah(awt) performed through him. Besides his miraculous birth the earliest miracle I can find is:

Quran Surah 19. Mary

27. At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!

28. "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"

29. But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"

30. He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;

31. "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;

32. "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

33. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!

34. Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

 

[جوري]

Any thoughts as to when and how Jesus was anointed?

My understanding is that he was anointed by John the baptist!

all the best

 

[Hiroshi]

My understanding is that he was anointed by John the baptist!

all the best

It looks like you and Woodrow disagree on this then. Anyway thanks for sharing your view.

 

[Woodrow]

It looks like you and Woodrow disagree on this then. Anyway thanks for sharing your view.

Far from a disagreement. We both agree he was anointed. I admit I do not know what it would specifically take as an action to show when he was. It just seems to me that if he was saying he was a Prophet(PBUH) he was already one. My sister is mentioning what would be the physical ceremony. I just think he was already anointed before there was any visible ceremony

 

[جوري]

It looks like you and Woodrow disagree on this then. Anyway thanks for sharing your view.

Far from a disagreement. We both agree he was anointed. I admit I do not know what it would specifically take as an action to show when he was. It just seems to me that if he was saying he was a Prophet(PBUH) he was already one. My sister is mentioning what would be the physical ceremony. I just think he was already anointed before there was any visible ceremony

exactly.. no disagreement.. I wouldn't go so far as call it a ceremony personally these alleged 'baptismal' ceremonies are a modern invent, but what occurred is akin to that and marks his prophethood as the king of the Jews, their awaited Messiah.. Not a god for mankind ..


all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hiroshi, from a JW point of view, when do you see Jesus anointed as "the Christ"?

Is he born as God's anointed?
Has it happend by the time he is found in the temple at the age of twelve and tells his mother that he had to be "in my Father's house"?
Is in at the moment of his baptism when the voice from heaven declares: "This is my beloved Son"?
Is it only when he takes humanities sin upone himself on the cross?
Is it when God confirms his role in the resurrection?
or
Is it not until later when he is ascended and glorified, and only when his the true nature of Jesus as the Christ becomes revealed to his disciples that he actually becomes the Christ?

Or maybe you have yet some other time in mind. If so, when?

 

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, from a JW point of view, when do you see Jesus anointed as "the Christ"?

Is he born as God's anointed?
Has it happend by the time he is found in the temple at the age of twelve and tells his mother that he had to be "in my Father's house"?
Is in at the moment of his baptism when the voice from heaven declares: "This is my beloved Son"?
Is it only when he takes humanities sin upone himself on the cross?
Is it when God confirms his role in the resurrection?
or
Is it not until later when he is ascended and glorified, and only when his the true nature of Jesus as the Christ becomes revealed to his disciples that he actually becomes the Christ?

Or maybe you have yet some other time in mind. If so, when?

I believe that Jesus was anointed, not with oil, but with God's holy spirit (which John saw descending like a dove) at the time of his baptism. His followers likewise were anointed at Pentecost when tongues of fire appeared upon their heads as evidence of God's spirit. These ones will also reign as kings with Jesus Christ over the earth (Revelation 20:6).

 

[Hiroshi]

Far from a disagreement. We both agree he was anointed. I admit I do not know what it would specifically take as an action to show when he was. It just seems to me that if he was saying he was a Prophet(PBUH) he was already one. My sister is mentioning what would be the physical ceremony. I just think he was already anointed before there was any visible ceremony

Just to show a few facts and figures, Daniel 9:25 foretold that the Messiah would appear 69 weeks (the prophecy says: "7 weeks, also 62 weeks"; 7 + 62 = 69) after "the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem". This took place as recorded at Nehemiah 2:7-8 at the time of the month Nisan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes the king of Persia (Nehemiah 2:1). That would have been in the year 455 BCE.

The 69 weeks are understood to mean weeks of years. So the time counting from the year 455 BCE until the Messiah would be 69 x 7 = 483 years. That brings us to the year 29 CE (there was no year zero). Jesus was born about 2 BCE or 1 BCE and was "about 30 years old" (Luke 3:23) at his baptism. This indicates that the year of his baptism was also 29 CE.

Hence it is reasonable to see Jesus as becoming the Messiah or Christ at the time of his baptism. He was not anointed with oil but with God's spirit which John saw descending upon Jesus from heaven (Luke 3:22).

 

[Woodrow]

Just to show a few facts and figures, Daniel 9:25 foretold that the Messiah would appear 69 weeks (the prophecy says: "7 weeks, also 62 weeks"; 7 + 62 = 69) after "the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem". This took place as recorded at Nehemiah 2:7-8 at the time of the month Nisan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes the king of Persia (Nehemiah 2:1). That would have been in the year 455 BCE.

The 69 weeks are understood to mean weeks of years. So the time counting from the year 455 BCE until the Messiah would be 69 x 7 = 483 years. That brings us to the year 29 CE (there was no year zero). Jesus was born about 2 BCE or 1 BCE and was "about 30 years old" (Luke 3:23) at his baptism. This indicates that the year of his baptism was also 29 CE.

Hence it is reasonable to see Jesus as becoming the Messiah or Christ at the time of his baptism. He was not anointed with oil but with God's spirit which John saw descending upon Jesus from heaven (Luke 3:22).

I see that as the work of somebody very skilled at reverse engineering. Who came up with the idea of weeks of years? Also the establishment of Jesus(as) birth as 1 or 2 BC takes a little playing with the Death of Herod. We do know Jesus(as) was born during the reign of Herod and if memory serves me right Jesus(as) was born in the 35 year of his reign and Herod died in his 37 year. It is well established Herod died in 4 BC Placing the birth of Jesus(as) at 6 BC.

 

[Grace Seeker]

It is well established Herod died in 4 BC Placing the birth of Jesus(as) at 6 BC.

Though I don't believe Quinirius was not governor of Judea in 6 BC. I have yet to see a truly solid date established for Jesus' birth and find the range of 6-4 BC most common.

 

[Woodrow]

Though I don't believe Quinirius was not governor of Judea in 6 BC. I have yet to see a truly solid date established for Jesus' birth and find the range of 6-4 BC most common.

I am willing to agree with the range. Quininius does put a bit of a crimp in finding the exact Date as it is difficult to place Quininius as Governor of Judea and ordering the Census before the Death of Herod. But I do concede that however we base our claim on the birth of Jesus(as) it is pretty much a certainty it had to be in the range of 6-4 BC.

 

[Hiroshi]

I see that as the work of somebody very skilled at reverse engineering. Who came up with the idea of weeks of years?

Part of Daniel's prophecy shows that the Messiah would be put to death "at the half of the week" (Daniel 9:27). But Jesus preached for three and a half years, not three and a half days. This shows that each week represented seven years. Also, at the time of Jesus' baptism the Jews were already "in expectation" that the Christ would appear. That is why they asked if John the Baptist might be the Christ (Luke 3:15). The Jews must have already worked out that the weeks must stand for weeks of years. In a number of other prophecies a day stands for a year (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6).

Also the establishment of Jesus(as) birth as 1 or 2 BC takes a little playing with the Death of Herod. We do know Jesus(as) was born during the reign of Herod and if memory serves me right Jesus(as) was born in the 35 year of his reign and Herod died in his 37 year. It is well established Herod died in 4 BC Placing the birth of Jesus(as) at 6 BC.

This is a good point. In answer, I would like to quote "Insight on the Scriptures" Volume 1, pages 1093-1095, published by Jehovah's Witnesses:

Date of His Death. A problem arises with regard to the time of Herod’s death. Some chronologers hold that he died in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. Their chronology is based to a large extent on Josephus’ history. In dating the time that Herod was appointed king by Rome, Josephus uses a “consular dating,” that is, he locates the event as occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this, Herod’s appointment as king would be in 40 B.C.E., but the data of another historian, Appianos, would place the event in 39 B.C.E. By the same method Josephus places Herod’s capture of Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E., but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey (which was in 63 B.C.E.). (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) His reference to that latter event would make the date of Herod’s taking the city of Jerusalem 36 B.C.E. Now, Josephus says that Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) This might indicate that the date of his death was 2 or perhaps 1 B.C.E.
It may be that the Jewish historian Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession-year method, as had been done with the kings of the line of David. If Herod was appointed king by Rome in 40 B.C.E., his first regnal year could run from Nisan of 39 to Nisan of 38 B.C.E.; similarly, if counted from his capture of Jerusalem in 37 (or 36) B.C.E., his first regnal year could start in Nisan 36 (or 35) B.C.E. So if, as Josephus says, Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem, and if those years are counted in each case according to the regnal year, his death could have been in 1 B.C.E. Presenting an argument to this effect in The Journal of Theological Studies, W. E. Filmer writes that evidence from Jewish tradition indicates that Herod’s death occurred on Shebat 2 (the month of Shebat falls in January-February of our calendar).—Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284.
According to Josephus, Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]) Since there was an eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian), some have concluded that this was the eclipse referred to by Josephus.
On the other hand, there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E., about three months before Passover, while the one in 4 B.C.E. was only partial. The total eclipse in 1 B.C.E. was on January 8 (January 10, Julian), 18 days before Shebat 2, the traditional day of Herod’s death. Another eclipse (partial) occurred on December 27 of 1 B.C.E. (December 29, Julian).—See CHRONOLOGY (Lunar eclipses).
Another line of calculation centers around the age of Herod at the time of his death. Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee (which is generally dated 47 B.C.E.), he was 15 years old; but this has been understood by scholars to be an error, 25 years evidently being intended. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Accordingly, Herod’s death occurred in 2 or 1 B.C.E. We must bear in mind, however, that Josephus has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and is therefore not the most reliable source. For the most reliable evidence, we must look to the Bible.
The available evidence indicates that Herod died likely in the year 1 B.C.E. The Bible historian Luke tells us that John came baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Lu 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. The Romans did not use the accession-year system; consequently, the 15th year would run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E. John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry (evidently in the spring of the year) ahead of Jesus as Jesus’ forerunner, preparing the way. (Lu 1:35, 36) Jesus, whom the Bible indicates was born in the fall of the year, was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized. (Lu 3:21-23) Therefore he was baptized, most likely, in the fall, about October of 29 C.E. Counting back 30 years would bring us to the fall of 2 B.C.E. as the time of the human birth of the Son of God. (Compare Lu 3:1, 23 with Daniel’s prophecy of the “seventy weeks” at Da 9:24-27.)—See SEVENTY WEEKS.
The astrologers who visited Jesus. The apostle Matthew tells us that after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem “in the days of Herod the king,” astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem, saying that they saw his star when they were in the east. Herod’s fears and suspicions were immediately aroused, and he determined from the chief priests and scribes that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem. Then he called in the astrologers and ascertained from them the time of the star’s appearing.—Mt 2:1-7.
We note that this was sometime after Jesus’ birth, for he was now not in the manger but with his parents in a house. (Mt 2:11; compare Lu 2:4-7.) After the astrologers failed to return to Herod with news of the young child’s whereabouts, the king ordered the slaughter of all the children two years of age and under throughout Bethlehem and its districts. Jesus, in the meantime, was taken to Egypt by his parents because of God’s warning. (Mt 2:12-18) The death of Herod could hardly have taken place before 1 B.C.E., for, in that case, Jesus (born about October 1, 2 B.C.E.) would have been less than three months old.
On the other hand, it would not be necessary for Jesus to be two years old when the killing of the children occurred; he could even have been less than a year old, for Herod calculated from the time that the star appeared to the astrologers while they were in the east. (Mt 2:1, 2, 7-9) This may well have been a period of some months, for if the astrologers came from the age-old center of astrology, Babylon or Mesopotamia, as is likely the case, it was a very long journey. It had taken the Israelites at least four months to make the trip when they were repatriated from Babylon in 537 B.C.E. Herod evidently concluded that by killing all babies up to two years of age he would be sure to get this one who was born “king of the Jews.” (Mt 2:2) That Herod died not long after these things took place is indicated by the fact that Jesus apparently did not stay in Egypt very long.—Mt 2:19-21.
We may conclude, therefore, that Bible chronology, astronomical data, and available historical records seem to point to the time of Herod’s death as 1 B.C.E., or possibly even early in 1 C.E.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hiroshi, thanks for your views thus far. How about a new question (or set of questions)...
Do JWs believe that there is a single specific interpretation of scripture that is correct implying that all other understandings but that one accepted way of interpreting a text would be wrong? Or do they allow that there might be many different levels of understanding and teaching that are revealed in the scripture (at least some portions of it) and thus it is more important to learn how to apply the scripture so that it fits one's individual and personal life than it is to create a one-size-fits-all understanding of the passage that all believers must adopt and apply the same way?

 

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, thanks for your views thus far. How about a new question (or set of questions)...
Do JWs believe that there is a single specific interpretation of scripture that is correct implying that all other understandings but that one accepted way of interpreting a text would be wrong? Or do they allow that there might be many different levels of understanding and teaching that are revealed in the scripture (at least some portions of it) and thus it is more important to learn how to apply the scripture so that it fits one's individual and personal life than it is to create a one-size-fits-all understanding of the passage that all believers must adopt and apply the same way?

Some scriptures in the Bible have more than one meaning. Hosea 11:1 says: "out of Egypt I called my son". This is a reference to the Israelites being freed from bondage in slavery to the Egyptians in Moses' time. But it is also a prophecy about Jesus being brought back from Egypt after his family had fled there to escape Herod.

But at the same time, many widely accepted notions about certain passages are completely wrong, based on a clear misunderstanding of scripture. For example Matthew 16:18 records Jesus speaking to Peter saying: "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church". Catholics wrongly interpret this to mean that the church of Christ would be built upon Peter and that Peter would be the first Pope. But other scriptures show that the "rock" was Christ, not Peter. Jesus was making reference to himself.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Some scriptures in the Bible have more than one meaning. Hosea 11:1 says: "out of Egypt I called my son".

I never cease to find it funny just how very many biblical "prophecies" are in the past tense.

 

[Hiroshi]

I never cease to find it funny just how very many biblical "prophecies" are in the past tense.

God's purpose is so sure to be fulfilled that in many cases events are spoken about as if they have already happened. For example, Revelation 20:9-10 says "They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown." All in the past tense. And yet these things are due to happen a thousand years in the future (Revelation 20:7).