i been researching information on why the the conquest of canaan could not be a real historical account.
i found this on barts blog:.
when considering the historicity of the narratives of joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness.
@Crazyguy
Read my comments above your last post. I know very well where the stories come from.
Also: The story of Bel and the Dragon is not found in the most ancient texts of Daniel which are written in Aramaic and Hebrew. Those additions were added when the Septuagint was created many generations later by Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt. They only exist in Greek. The stories show great influence from the Hellenistic and heathen world around them and are not included in the Jewish Tanakh.
i been researching information on why the the conquest of canaan could not be a real historical account.
i found this on barts blog:.
when considering the historicity of the narratives of joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness.
@Crazyguy
I don't remember saying that we invented the stories ourselves. In fact, if you had done your homework you would be aware that Jews know very well that many of our legends are based and even transferred from the mythology of the ancient peoples who lived around us.
For instance, the cosmogony of Genesis chapter 1 was popular among almost all the peoples of Mesopotamia. The Hebrew Noah has his story interpolated with that of Utnapishtim from the Gilgamesh Epic. The lengthy ages of the descendants from Shem to Abraham are connected to the type of pagan stories as found on the Weld Prism of world history which gives a list of ten kings who ruled before a world flood, with ages similar to those listed at Genesis 11.10-26. And I could go on and on and on...
I don't know what parade you thought you were raining on, but I have no illusions on the texts we Jews claim as sacred and the origins of the texts. Their being original or not does not change the fact that I'm Jewish or stop me from fighting for justice where it is lacking or working to make the world a better place for all.
i been researching information on why the the conquest of canaan could not be a real historical account.
i found this on barts blog:.
when considering the historicity of the narratives of joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness.
@John Aquila
Jews have a totally different understanding of that text from Daniel. We don't even include Daniel as one of the books of the prophets, even though he was a prophet himself. The text in Daniel 9 reads differently in the Hebrew, and this makes the formula something different for us. We read it as discussing 70 years of Babylonian exile followed by 420 years of the Second Temple.
Not all Jews see prophecy about the Messiah as referring to a literal person. Many Jews see these prophecies as referring to a Messianic Age. Also the term "messiah" in Hebrew just means someone who has been chosen to rule, often being marked by literal anointing with oil as a sign of their installation. Because of that the references to "moshiach" in Daniel 9 have often been interpreted to be Cyrus, King Agrippa, and the High Priest at the Temple at the time of its fall is the third "moshiach." The term just means "anointed one" as in a ruler or priest.
It should be noted that the New Testament authors never quote this text or offer the general formula popular among Christians for Daniel chapter 9 in connection with an expected arrival of the Messiah. Being independent of the New Testament, the formula and its final conclusions are not directly based on any Christian Scripture.
i been researching information on why the the conquest of canaan could not be a real historical account.
i found this on barts blog:.
when considering the historicity of the narratives of joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness.
@cofty
No. My status of a Jew is due to being a literal offspring of the Jewish people. There are many Jews who are secular (atheist), agnostic, some who make claim to Buddhism, etc.
At the same time you can't disassociate the concept of the G-d of Abraham and Sarah from the Jewish people. We have been hated and persecuted due to our worship, our culture that has grown from such a belief. The Shoah (Holocaust), the Spanish Inquisition, even current anti-Semitism is centered on this concept of the G-d of the Jews, regardless if individual Jews believe in this Deity or not. We all got sent to the concentration camps, we all get expelled from Spain, we all got shot at on the eve of the Sabbath by that terrorist not so many weeks ago. People don't ask Jews if we personally believe in G-d to hate us.
It's just like I tell some people: I believe Jesus of Nazareth was real. I believe he was a great teacher and the Gospels are based on some type of historical happenings (not that the stories within are always literal or precise). It matters not if he performed miracles or was resurrected after he died or ascended to heaven afterward. Should he come again as Christians expect him to in an amazing display of heavenly sights, I have no problem with telling him I don't believe he's the Messiah. None of those things are earmarks that the Jews have been waiting for in the Messiah or the Messianic Age. I have heard from some atheists who I know who have stated they would probably believe like Doubting Thomas if confronted with a miracle-wielding Jesus, but I wouldn't. I wouldn't because I'm a Jew, and my belief that Jesus is not the Messiah is not conditional.
I'm a Jew regardless of what G-d turns out to be, whether I have the right concept of G-d or not. And G-d is real regardless if G-d is the stuff of legends or a transcendent Being because Jews are real. I am real. And for what it's worth, that is what makes G-d real.
i been researching information on why the the conquest of canaan could not be a real historical account.
i found this on barts blog:.
when considering the historicity of the narratives of joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness.
In Jewish culture the repeated use of something makes it mundane. Holy things are to be handled differently, otherwise they are just as mundane as any other object.
Unlike the JWs who came to the wacky conclusion that the only name for G-d is the Tetragrammaton, we Jews have many names for the Creator. One of them is "God." But to use it often makes the name mundane. Pagans use the names of their gods over and over again, but not Jews. Jews do the opposite. We rarely utter our G-d's name.
When writing it we leave out a letter or the vowels or something like that so that it can differentiate it from frequent use. It also helps in case the material upon which the name gets written is destroyed, so the chance of deliberately putting the name at risk of being handled like refuse is limited. It's just culture.
The literal existence of G-d isn't necessary in Judaism as it is in Christianity. What is necessary is the goodness of G-d, and that can be brought about in the world by anyone, an atheist, an agnostic, a Gentile, and even a Jew. Another lesson for Jews from Job is to live life in the world as if G-d isn't going to help you and isn't there to help others. We might believe that G-d is, but that does no good if we aren't changing the world for the better. What good is belief and condemning others for disbelief when time can be better spent loving others for who they are instead of changing them and helping one another when there's need?
i been researching information on why the the conquest of canaan could not be a real historical account.
i found this on barts blog:.
when considering the historicity of the narratives of joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness.
The book of Job is a poem that highlights the eternal search for answers. You are right: It's not a literal account like the JWs believe.
For instance, I noted that people were debating on how the Tanakh seemed to contradict itself by having Satan the Devil in heaven having a conversation with G-d. This is not what Jews read from the text at all, especially from the original Hebrew. (Many Jews don't believe there is a person such as "Satan the Devil." Christianity on the other hand is obsessed with this creature.)
In Job 1 and 2, G-d is discussing with the heavenly court the issue of Job's faithfulness. One member of the court plays the part of logic, asking opposing questions and setting up a test to help supply a valid answer to what has been raised. The term for this arguing person of logic in Hebrew is "ha satan," the "opposer." It isn't an evil spirit, however, just someone arguing a point to show that the Hebrew G-d is one who strives to come to conclusions fairly.
When the protagonist Job finds himself in the middle of his test, he demands answers, the main one being: Why? And he wants to hear from none other than the Creator.
But when G-d does finally speak to Job as requested, G-d offers no answers. G-d does, however, remind Job that G-d transcends our ability to fully comprehend our Creator. And then the account ends on a happy note.
It's a lesson in life we all must learn. Life is full of mysteries. The existence of G-d does not equate full comprehension of G-d by G-d's creation. G-d transcends, cannot be defined, and sometimes we have to search for and even make up our answers to questions we have.
Jews learn various lessons from this story (again not a literal tale). One is that Job doesn't do anything to make his life better. All he does is complain. That doesn't do him any good. G-d proves that Job's course has been one of folly, spending all his time wanting to know things that probably wouldn't matter in the end since Job is not a baby. He can do something to get out of his predicament, and obviously finally does because of the way the story ends.
Another lesson is that suffering of itself doesn't disprove G-d's existence. This was a lesson many of us have had to learn again and again during the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust. The suffering of almost 2000 years ended with out being restored to our homeland after World War II and our recapturing Jerusalem in 1967. Like Job the situation of the Jews has turned around and G-d has not forsaken his people but is fulfilling what G-d has promised.
Finally, Job is a book not of answers but of questions. Life is filled with them. Debates abound. Miracles are few. There is suffering, loss, and renewal. All of these things come to us many times and many ways. This is the stuff of life. Job teaches us that our journey through life will be marked with questions and all the other trials and rewards that came to Job. Sometimes we hear from G-d, and sometimes when we do we don't get the answers we were hoping for. The story is a legend, but its lessons are realistic. You can't have all the answers, but that is no reason to stop living.
i been researching information on why the the conquest of canaan could not be a real historical account.
i found this on barts blog:.
when considering the historicity of the narratives of joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness.
While I wish I could apologize to all who have been exposed to the idea that what you find in the Tanakh is literal history, the problem lies with the Christians and groups like the JWs who keep insisting that a book of truths requires that the book also be filled with facts. In reality humankind doesn't pass on its cherished truths through news reports and encyclopedic articles but through art, drama, and song. The same is true for the history of the Jews.
Though Jews recognize their religious texts as inspired of G-d, they also acknowledge the fact that the record is the product of human hands with human frailties and limitations. To illustrate, both archeology and Jewish history admit that the Jews were largely polytheistic until the reign of King David. Up until then the worship of Abraham and Sarah's G-d YHWH had to compete with the varies tribal gods the Jews also worshipped until the Davidic dynasty settled in Jerusalem.
But the Biblical text draws a picture of faithful followers of G-d being in the majority in Israel up to David's time, though nothing can be further from the truth. Our ancestors were much like their neighbors, given to the practices and superstitions of the people's around them. Where David became king, the archeological record in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas show a major change in worship, where David's G-d became the national Deity making all others due for the trash pile.
This however got "remembered" in the lore of my people differently, as if YHWH was always the G-d worshipped. The previous animalistic conquests of the Jews were thus attributed to the G-d of Abraham and Sarah by the time the legendary revisions of history became holy writ, most after the return from Babylonian exile.
Unlike Fundamentalist Christian religion which demands the Bible be a literal account, Jews view their Scriptures much like Americans view their historical legends. George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree as a child, but the myth keeps a vital truth alive about Amercian values. The log cabin on display meant to be the birthplace of Lincoln is actually not, but the legendary view of this famous president gets transmitted through the symbols preserved. The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere is just a poem, and the true details were very different. Even more recent events in American history are mythological, like the Great Depression being caused by a Stock Market crash or that the Space Race was merely the natural outcome of good old-fashioned American greatness--these are not facts. They are legends. But like movies, stage plays, musicals, and songs do, these stories transfer the truths and values of the American generations in clarity that sticks. Dry reports don't transmit values like legends do.
People need to give up on the idea that the Bible is literal or that the Jews were lying by preserving their mythology. They weren't lying anymore than Americans are in how they transmit their historical accounts.
The problem is that people blame the Bible accounts because of the failure of bad and misleading interpreters like the JWs. It is highly illogical to judge the texts of the Jews by the interpretation of Gentiles who hold the same Jews as incapable of understanding their own texts. You won't ever come to a dependable conclusion by judging a book by the interpretation of someone who refuses to discuss the same book with its authors.
when growing up a jw, i was always confused as to world history, geography and religious development.
it didn't make sense, because what we were told was simply untrue.... http://tinyurl.com/purzy8k.
Yep, Islam spread quickly. Very quickly.
Remember the “Dark Ages”? Well they existed only in the sense that the World Series held at the end of each baseball season here in the United States is really crowning the “world champion.”
If you watch the animated map, you will see Islam spread into what is now Spain but at the time was known as Seferad. When that happened my ancestors (members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) lived among them (if you watch you will see tiny blue spots appear before the 15th century). Jews and Muslims lived in peace and prosperity, an era of scientific and medical advances we call “the Golden Age.” (But like everything else, Christendom decided that since they were experiencing darkness and plague at the same time that history should be named after what they experienced instead.)
When the animation shows the “age of discovery,” which began in 1492, you will note that Spain is now covered by Christianity. That’s because the Spanish Inquisition managed to push out all Muslims and Jews from the land.
If you follow the lines from Spain into the Caribbean, you will note some of the islands there turn blue for a bit. While too small to probably include, tiny spots of blue should appear in Mexico where is now the city of Monterrey. That is because Sephardic Jews got chased all the way across the Atlantic into Mexico by the Catholic Church. My family was actually among the founders of Monterrey, but the moment of rest in the “new land” was not long as the Catholic Church invented the “Mexican Inquisition” and decided to continue with the witch hunt.
It did not last long, however. The government of Mexico and some good Catholics stopped the Mexican Inquisition by legislation. My ancestors, now in the country of Tejas (which would become the state of Texas) had by then settled in what is now known as Laredo, and moved toward the Valley of South Texas, helped create the beginnings of King Ranch and eventually into Corpus Christi.
The other reason those little islands turn blue for a short time is because it is theorized that Christopher Columbus was also a Sephardic Jew and carried many Jews with him on his voyage. As a result Cuba has a significant Sephardic community to this day.
Of course now I live on the East Coast and Jews make up only about 0.2% of the entire world’s population, mostly divided in half between the United States and Israel.
At one time I had about 2.5 million direct and distant relations spread across Europe down into Budapest, but they practically all disappeared within 5 years due to the Holocaust.
I recall trying to explain to elders once I found out about my family history that I was Jewish (it had been believed up till then I was merely Spanish…which most of them still got wrong and kept thinking I was Mexican). They denied that such a historical movement or type of Jews even existed, and even if they did it didn’t matter anyway because Jews were 'Christ killers and living a life of suffering because of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah,' as they put it.
Today I am one of around 100,000 people on the planet that speaks a dying language: Ladino. It is a combination of Spanish, Arabic (from the Muslims), and of course Hebrew. Because of this I understood Hebrew to a large degree while still a JW, but of course some thought I was pretending (I don’t know how you pretend to read and speak a language in front of people without getting caught). The Spanish-speaking congregations were always sending people over to try to get me to join their groups, but when I told them I didn’t speak Spanish and preferred to remain in the English-speaking congregation, they would call me “vanilla wafer,” meaning a Mexican who acts like a “white person.” (I actually have light olive tones in my skin, like someone from the Middle East, and not the reddish-brown skin of someone from Mexico--and people who actually live in Mexico can spot me right off as Sephardic.) When some of the Spanish-speaking brothers heard my Ladino, they told me that it was the language of “bad” or “lower class” people and that I should never speak it again.
ah!
yes, that remark made by pilate after pilate had asked jesus wether he was a king.
( john 18:37-38 ).. how would you answer the question according to what we know from the bibles definition, and how the faithful and discreet slave have endeavored to give us spiritual food at the proper time?.
Biblical scholars and theologians generally do not read Pilate's words at John 18.38 as a literal question. Pilate's question, "What is truth?" is meant to be narrative irony used by the author as a teaching device.
Pontius Pilate was not interested in Jesus giving him an answer. Pilate is obviously bothered by the whole ordeal of Jesus' arrest. The various Gospel references repeatedly agree that Pilate sees through the intentions of those who are bringing Jesus to trial, and later Pilate even has to argue with these same people in an attempt to release Jesus, seeing no reason for his arrest.
His expression, which in Pilate's native language would have been "Quid est veritas?" was obviously said in frustration upon realizing that Jesus is just some holy man and not a political threat to Rome as his accusers had stated that he was. Pilate doesn't wait around to receive an answer from Jesus, you will notice, but goes out to announce his decision that his investigation is over.
Yet as mentioned before, Biblical exegetes see this as narrative irony. John's gospel is very sentimental by comparison with the other accounts, and more inclined to literary expression as a result. The author is not merely stating that Pilate asked a rhetorical question and stormed off, but that Pilate is missing the fact that "truth" is standing before him (just a few lines earlier Jesus had stated that he was the personification of truth at John 14.6).
The theology of Christianity is one that believes that sacred secrets are hidden from the eyes of average people who see things that are only on the surface. It teaches that the Jews are blinded from understanding hidden patterns and codified expressions found in their own Scriptures. The author is probably reinforcing this idea with this incident because the "incarnation" of truth is actually standing before him and Pilate does not take advantage of this by asking further questions. The author wants the reader to learn from this lesson of Pilate's lost opportunity and not let the "truth" escape them as did Pilate.
While I personally agree with this interpretation of the author's intent, as a Jew I don't subscribe to the New Testament claims regarding revelation. Instead of hidden and secret revelations only given to a few or hidden from the average person's sight, Judaism acknowledge only community revelations such as performed in public by Moses and the prophets. I also find the belief that the Jews don't understand their own texts and that some hidden meanings are found within like some sort of code that requires Christianity to decode it as illogical.
Regadless of my personal convictions, however, I see the narrative device theory as a better likelihood regarding Pilate's question than the idea that it is some literal question that begs to be answered (and left without one in the Scriptural text that follows).
some have asked how my views and convictions have changed over the past 15 years or so after leaving the watchtower behind to return to my familys roots and embrace judaism.
the best way to explain things is to allow both the religion of the watchtower and my life as a jew today to stand side-by-side for comparison.
while i cant guarantee this will help prove to others that the jehovahs witnesses are truly a crazy religious group, i am sure it will prove to most that jews probably are, and are quite aware of it.
Yeah, I tell people that the main reason I decided to leave the JWs was because I wanted to add the "e." Some people don't get it, but I've questioned if these same people can actually spell.
