Hi,
I don't know if anyone is interested in the subject of the mysteries and mysticisms of the Second-temple period (including Paul and the Gospels) but if so:
https://www.academia.edu/s/61773ba12f?source=link
Doug
Second-Temple period mysteries and mysticisms
by Doug Mason 6 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Doug Mason
Hi,
Back again, this time with egg on face.
I found errors with the hyperlinks I provided at Page 7 of my Study. No excuses, just plain incompetence.
The corrected file is at:
https://jwstudies.com/2TP_Mysticisms.pdf
I will correct the Academia address in the morning.
Sorry.
Doug
-
Terry
Thank you Doug. Your lucubration is always interesting and informative.
If you compiled all your essays under one cover the book would be too heavy to lift!
Never a dull moment in the lot of them.
HOWEVER ...
These Academic long-run sentences nearly break my head!
To wit:
"In this God-intoxication, in which self and the world are alike forgotten, the subject knows himself to be in possession of the highest and fullest truth; but this truth is only possessed in the quite undeveloped, simple, and bare form of monotonous feeling; what truth the subject possesses is not filled up by any determination in which the simple unity might unfold itself, and it lacks therefore the clearness of knowledge, which is only attained when thought harmonizes differences with unity."
Wow!
I had to read this 3 times and I'm still a bit woozy.
Is this really necessary?
I'm known for long-winded writing - so pot is calling kettle 'black'.
Shorter sentences, please. Less abstract, please.
"...thought harmonizes differences with unity." I can't extract a sensible understanding of what that is saying. Is it just me?
"...this truth is only possessed in the quite undeveloped, simple, and bare form of monotonous feeling..."
I don't grok this either. I mean, I sort of get the gist of it ...but...?
If you are writing this for the 'average ex-JW" I don't think most of us will make it through the first few paragraphs.
I LOVE YOUR WORK , mind you - but must I swim so hard against the current only to drown in the riptide?
HELP! -
Doug Mason
I absolutely agree with you, Terry!
The list of "definitions" in the book where I lifted that from runs to a few pages, several not in English, most far worse..
Thank you for your feedback and I will take another look with the view to replacing the paragraph.
I really appreciate your feedback.
If anyone can find a meaningful replacement from a recognised scholar, please let me know.
Doug
-
Doug Mason
Thank you, Terry. I will rethink that part again.
I am wrong to use "Christian" definitions of "mysticism" and "mystery". I need to provide the understanding of these terms during the Second-Temple period (which includes Paul).
To give you an idea of the slippery slope that befuddled my ancient grey cells, I have provided the "Christian" definitions here:
https://jwstudies.com/Defining_Christian_Mysticism__Inge.pdf
https://jwstudies.com/Defining_Mysticism__a_Survey__Zarrabizadeh.pdf
Regards -- and thank you,
Doug
-
Doug Mason
Thank you, Terry.
I turned page 8 on its head, I was wrong and I appreciate your help.
Please tell me if it is still out of whack - and anywhere else.
------------
Appropriate to other things, I came across the following passage in an old book languishing unloved for many a year:
Those who regard the prophets mainly as guides to the future are likely to be disappointed by this work. For me, "the prophets speaks primarily to the men of his own time, and his message springs out of the circumstances in which he lives" (Men Spake from God, Ellison, page 4). Hence we will best understand Ezekiel as we try to grasp what his own generation should have understood and only then reinterpret, if necessary, in the light of the New Testament. In dealing with the prophecies of the future. I have therefore been normally more concerned with what Ezekiel's contemporaries were to understand by them than what we may read into them from the standpoint of the New Testament. (Ezekiel: The Man and His Message, Ellison, (1956), 11).
Doug
-
Terry
Yes, Doug - better is best.
We glimpse what sort of people ACADEMIC writers are and the word is "constipated."
They cram too many shells in their pockets along the sandy beach of history and disfigure the outline.
The best popularizer of History I ever read was Isaac Asimov. He simply spoke to the reader as a fellow companion and it went down easy like a cold drink after a hard hot day.
Keep up the great work, Doug.