How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @Ucantnonme

  I believe everyone has the right to the free exercise of freedom of conscience in all things religious, including the rejection of religious notions.

  But I don't believe that people should condemn others because of their beliefs or lack thereof. I don't believe the JWs are worthy of condemnation in and of itself because of their theology. No one should be persecuted because of their convictions.

  Along with this, no one should be against open discussion and a little debate. It doesn't hurt to approach our beliefs with critical analysis.

  @little_Socrates

  Nope. I could never say the Deuterocanonicals were removed because they weren't written prior to the Hasmonean era, included in the Tanakh and then subjected to exclusion. They were written after the events that led to what we now call Chanukah, but the Tanakh only includes events of the prior era.

  Jews don't really have a canon, so we didn't have a time where some authoritative group started removing or accepting texts to include in the Tanakh (Old Testament). It just is. Remember the rule for the Tanakh: the books have to be written in Hebrew characters and composed prior to the Hasmonean dynasty.

  Now some of the Deuterocanonicals appear to have been originally composed in Hebrew, like the Book of Wisdom (which is my favorite of all these books). But it was written after the Hasmonean era began, so it doesn't qualify to be included in the Tanakh.

  But you are not far from the truth about these books being used by early Christians; for example, Wisdom chapters 13 and 14 are condensed by the apostle Paul in the opening chapter of the Letter to the Romans. So there is evidence that they were quoted in the New Testament and accepted by the early church. In fact the reason the Catholic Church views them as canon is because the first century Christians accepted the Alexandrian LXX roll of books as inspired, and these books were among them.

  However, Jesus did not quote the Septuagint. The Gospel writers did because they wrote in Koine Greek, but Jesus obviously did not because he spoke in Hebrew/Aramaic. Remember the Gospels are a Greek translation of what happened in a Hebrew-speaking society. The actual events happened in the Jewish tongue of the day which was a mishmash of Aramaic and Hebrew.

  @Phizzy

  Thanks! I appreciate your words and where you are coming from.
• 

  John Aquila

  They are not accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible because they were not composed in the Hebrew language. These are Jewish writings that were composed in Greek.You see Jews divide their sacred texts by different categories, and we also don't view "canonization" in the same light that Christians do. (In fact, the Scripture "canon" was invented by the Christian Gnostic heretic Marcion of Sinope, and even the word "canon" is Greek, not Hebrew.)

  Thanks Caleb, pretty good information
  
• 

  C0ntr013r

  The custom is not to expose something holy to the possibility of being mistreated if possible.

  Very interesting, never knew this. What about saying the words as you mentioned in your first answer?

  Since it is not pronouncing the Name, and in fact not writing it in Hebrew

  Or writing/saying it in Hebrew?

  Their babbling probably means their reciting a long list of divine names, hoping that one of them will force a response from the deity.

  Interesting, thank you for the insight!

  Do you think Psalm 118 is bad? It uses repetition. Should we avoid and maybe even remove this Psalm because of this?

  We probably see things quite differently when it comes to scriptures being "good" or "bad".

  NIV (Psalm 118:10-12)
  10All the nations surrounded me,
  but in the name of the Lord I cut them down.
  11They surrounded me on every side,
  but in the name of the Lord I cut them down.
  12They swarmed around me like bees,
  but they were consumed as quickly as burning thorns;
  in the name of the Lord I cut them down.

  I think killing nations in the name of God might be considered "bad".

  As for repetition in praying being good or bad, I think the problem with repetition of words or motions in worship is that it easily becomes mundane and "only another habit". If you repeat because you really mean it, that is one thing. But if you do so because you are used to it or because it is written that way in a psalm, that is when I think it could be considered "bad" because it is not from the heart anymore.

  I am agnostic so when I write this I am simply sharing my opinion of how I think worship should be conducted if there is a God.

  and tried to make the circumstances fit their preconception.

  I got the same feeling when I read the NT after waking up, which makes me question the validity of what is written.

  None of this makes them the Messiah in Jewish theology anymore than Jesus.

  But if you think Jesus was a prophet, that would mean what he said was from God? And when he told his apostles that he was the Messiah that must have been true. Or he lied but then he would have lost Gods blessing.

  NIV (Matthew 16:16-17)
  16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
  17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

  You are probably aware that the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and Gods only son where present among the church fathers and have been a core belief since then. The Idea that Jesus is part of the God head is not new either, no matter how much the JWs want it to be otherwise :P

  So how can you believe he might have been a prophet?

  If you want a really close view on practically what I think about the New Testament, read The Jewish Annotated New Testament.

  Is it available online? And is it a long read? :P

  (as well as wrong views about atheists, Catholics, Mormons, tuna fish, the paying of taxes, homosexuality and tight pants, etc.)

  Amen! xD

  even if my views may not be fully acceptable by some or may need adjustments themselves.

  With that attitude it wont matter what you believe, you are intellectually free and that is all that matters imo.

  The fact that this ushered in a 2000-year "Messianic Age " where Jews were persecuted, tortured, expelled from country after country, and then thrown into concentration camps by Christian nations in an attempt to wipe us off the face of the planet kinda makes it hard for me to accept the claims about Jesus in the New Testament...but that's just me.

  Do you attribute the holocaust to Christians? I have heard people say that since the German soldiers had: "Gott mit uns" on there belts it should be.

  However, if you look into their practices it was a lot like a cult.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism

  Historians, political scientists and philosophers have studied Nazism with a specific focus on its religious and pseudo-religious aspects.[1] It has been debated whether Nazism would constitute a political religion, and there has also been research on the millenarian, messianic, and occult or esoteric aspects of Nazism.

  I don't think it should be but that is my opinion, I can understand you have "problems" with Jesus if you think his followers did that to your people.
• 

  little_Socrates

  Cabinfloroda

  Thank you for your response... Yes I didn't use the best language to make my point but I thiink you understood me anyways. So the issue with the Septuagint has as much to do with when it was written as much as it did with what language it was written in?

  Yes I have no idea what words the historical person of Jesus might have used... however the literary character of Jesus does quote them. An interesting factoid.... I heard it explained that Matthew was a scribe. That being his job he knew short hand and was accustom to taking notes. Many scholars now believe that the book of Matthew might actually contain exact word for word quotes of Jesus.
  
• 

  Viviane

  What screws up any understanding of any scripture is allowing someone else to tell you what it means instead of using your brain and reading what it says.
• 

  Ucantnome

  But I don't believe that people should condemn others because of their beliefs or lack thereof.

  thanks. i think that christians are born again and faith is the assured expectation of the things hoped for so it would seem to me difficult to separate the faith from the person i understand anti-theism to be active opposition to theism.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @C0ntr013r

  To answer your questions:

  We usually say various words for G-d, using a combination of names and titles. Since our prayers are in Hebrew and all branches learn them that way or have the Hebrew available as a transliteration, it is easy to find a word, title or substitute for this or that. But to some degree you are going to use one word or name more than others. A lot of Jews say “HaShem” when referring to G-d. “HaShem” is Hebrew for “The Name.” That’s pretty easy.

  As for repetition in prayer, I have no more to offer. I only know that the repetition in Matthew is describe by Jesus as the type practiced by Gentiles, so regardless of our personal views it obviously meant something definitive that Jesus could point to. That is up to debate among Christians, for as I said I can only report what scholars say. I have no personal opinions about this, actually.

  And for what it is worth, the Jewish texts are products of their time. People viewed conquering of their enemies as signs that they were blessed from Heaven. Ancient Jews attributed this to G-d, and wrongly so. Remember unlike Christians, Jews are not bound to accept the written text as literal or to avoid looking at it critically. We once used to only say that HaShem was the G-d of Abraham, but now we say the G-d of Abraham and Sarah. We recognize our people have been wrong and change things as time moves on. You can’t stick by ancient texts that offer guidance for times long gone. But you can try to find the good in anything and adopt what works for you.

  And on Jesus Christ: I think that a few agnostic and atheists that come from a Christian background have a hard time separating the importance of Jesus to the G-d issue in Judaism (not to mention Christians themselves). Just like JWs don’t go around wondering what new publications and pronouncements the Mormons are making or what the latest encyclical of the Pope means, Jews don’t go around thinking about what they don’t believe about Jesus. It’s like that joke where one man from Canada sits across from an American at a truck stop restaurant, and the guy from Canada asks: “What do you Americans really think about us Canadians?” To which the American replies: “We don’t.”

  So the fact that Jesus may have been a prophet doesn’t mean that I also have to think he is the Messiah. If he was a true prophet, I can live with that. But I also believe that how the Christians interpreted Jesus of Nazareth was incorrect. So the conclusions about Jesus are different. The other stuff, I don’t think about. I don’t even believe in a personal Messiah as being the fulfillment of Jewish expectations. Many Jews are so past that. So the Jesus-issue doesn't even come up for consideration normally.

  And no, the Jewish Annotated New Testament, though available for Kindle as well as in hard copy form from Amazon, is not a light read. It is the entire NRSV New Testament text with footnotes, commentary, and study articles from Jewish sources regarding the material. It is a best seller and often hard to get in hard copy from, so you better get that Kindle app if you want to read it.

  Lastly, no. I don’t blame Christians as a whole for the Holocaust. I stated “Christian nations.” The actual expression is “Christendom,” but because JWs have screwed that up as well too so that even ex-JWs use “Christendom” to mean “false Christian religions,” I was forced to use a term that I believe many ex-JWs are still not familiar with. “Christendom” actually refers to the secular bloc of nations in Europe and Asia that once had kings who exercised their rights as such by Church authority. The nations were also legally Christian or considered themselves by law as such. Germany was a member of Christendom until Christendom crumbled with the passing of the two world wars. Christendom no longer exists as these nations all claim to be secular and those that don’t, well the whole idea is over now. My blame was on these so-called members of Christendom, the nations that either did something or failed to do something. But I can’t call to blame people who weren’t alive then or Christians as a whole.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @Vivane

  You are so right. Some of Scripture is clearly meant to be read as legend or parable or a religious reflection on a subject. People confuse finding truth with demanding that the Scriptures be full of inarguable fact, which it clearly is not. One can find truths in the fables of Aesop, and even Jesus Christ used parables (which are little fables) to teach "truths." So it is silly to claim the Bible is this book of historical facts when it is supposed to pass on teachings viewed as transcendent truths.

  Who uses dry facts to get across their ideals, their convictions, and pass on their treasured legends?
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @little_Socrates

  For whatever its worth on Matthew: the latest scholarly theories I have heard go like this.

  The earliest non-Scriptural references to this Gospel claim it was originally composed as a collection of sayings or teachings from Jesus (also known as a collection of "oracles") composed in Hebrew. This oracles-source might have been similar or actually be the mysterious "Q" source that is the foundation for Luke and the gospel of Matthew that we have today.

  The Gospel of Matthew we have today seems to have been written by either a member or several members of the Matthean church in Antioch, taking the sayings from either Q or the oracle-source (if they are not one-in-the-same), revising much information from Mark. The "author" worked his interpolations into the text in Greek, in what appear to be five chapters in imitation of the five books of Moses. If a Jew, the author relies heavily on midrash to apply Hebrew texts as being fulfilled in Jesus. If a Gentile, this would explain why most of the applied Hebrew texts are "fulfilled" in odd ways (and some don't even appear in the Hebrew text, such as "And he shall be called a Nazarean.") The book became the first in the canon because the Catholic Church used it more in official liturgy in the first 4 centuries than any other gospel account, thus it was viewed as the most important.

  If the oracle-source is Q, then you are correct that these sayings of Jesus are closer than the other Gospels. However there is also strong evidence to support that the predictions of the passion and the woes against the Pharisees in Matthew were not originally from Jesus per se, but interpretations based on certain sayings that only became reworked this way in the final editing of the book.
• 

  C0ntr013r

  A lot of Jews say “HaShem” when referring to G-d. “HaShem” is Hebrew for “The Name.” That’s pretty easy.

  You say one of the reasons you don't write it down is because it could be missuses.

  the name “God” might be destroyed as refuse

  What is the reason for not saying the name, even quietly in a prayer?

  As for repetition in prayer, I have no more to offer.

  I have no personal opinions about this, actually.
  

  I was merely curious about your point of view, thank you for your insight!

  Remember unlike Christians, Jews are not bound to accept the written text as literal or to avoid looking at it critically.

  But then what is stopping you from picking and choosing what God ordered and what people just attributed to him?

  Some "Christians" interpret it literally, but that can be because they want to be consistent. Sure your interpretation can come from context, but when there is no clear indicator. How do you "unbind" yourself fom looking at it literally?

  But you can try to find the good in anything and adopt what works for you.

  Do you believe that the positive impact a interpretation can have on your life trumps the true message?

  So the fact that Jesus may have been a prophet doesn’t mean that I also have to think he is the Messiah.

  But if he was a prophet from your God, would that not make him just as important as Jeremiah or Elijah? Would not your connection to him be more than the connection between Mormons and JWs?

  Jews don’t go around thinking about what they don’t believe about Jesus.
  

  But I also believe that how the Christians interpreted Jesus of Nazareth was incorrect.

  So you have studied Jesus enough to deem Christians interpreted him incorrect? But you don't think he is important so you don't think about how he could preform miracles?

  I am sorry if I am blunt but I don't understand how you can combine these; to me, contradictory ideas.

  I don’t even believe in a personal Messiah as being the fulfillment of Jewish expectations.

  If another "prophet" like Elijah preached a personal Messiah? Would that be different?

  It is the entire NRSV New Testament text with footnotes, commentary, and study articles from Jewish sources regarding the material.

  Sounds a bit "heavy" for me atm :P

  Lastly, no. I don’t blame Christians as a whole for the Holocaust.

  My blame was on these so-called members of Christendom, the nations that either did something or failed to do something. But I can’t call to blame people who weren’t alive then or Christians as a whole.
  

  kinda makes it hard for me to accept the claims about Jesus in the New Testament...but that's just me.

  But you see a connection between Jesus and the holocaust that makes you turned off by Jesus?