Posts by CalebInFloroda

11

Judgement

by davidmitchell in

https://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/2015-ewhc-1722-qb.pdfjust had a look at this 2015 legal judgement.

one of a number of things that caught my eye was the statement in (11) that "the organisational structure of jehovahs witnesses is modelled on first century christianity as described in the bible".er, hardly.

try acts 2: 44-45"all the believers were together and had everything in common.

CalebInFloroda

Acts 2.44-45 is speaking of Jewish Christians who still lived as part of the world of Jewry.

These Christians lived in Jerusalem and unlike Gentile Christians observed the Mosaic Law as stated in Acts 21.17-26. In a Torah-observant world these Christians were able to and even encouraged by Mosaic Law to share what they owned with the less-fortunate among them. Read in this context the verses in Acts 2 are stating that these Jews helped fellow believers in Jesus of Nazareth among them as a priority. It does not mean they ignored other non-Christian Jews who under Torah they were obliged to help assist, nor is there any indications that Gentile Christians ever did the exact same thing in their communities or were even capable of doing something similar. JWs are not capable of imitating first-century Christianity as they had no New Testament at the time and were governed by an apostolic college that was composed mainly of Jewish Christians that still saw themselves obliged to observe Torah.

Luke 14.25-33 are a series of hyperboles. Jesus is not demanding a literal application of verse 33 otherwise he would be asking to literally hate their parents and undergo literal crucifixion. It would not be fair to judge JWs by failing to apply this text literally.

It would also be illogical to demand a literal application of Matthew 5.42. This section of the Sermon the Mount, Matthew 5.38-42, also employs hyperbole. The text is speaking about avoiding retaliation, not actually telling people how to give in charitable ways. If people applied this literally they could go bankrupt themselves. The "giving" is not the primary point of verse 42, it imeans not refusing anyone who is asking. In other words be as cooperative as you can, even going that extra mile, to avoid situations that might tempt you to retaliate, and do this with anyone who may push you in this direction.

While I have no love for the JWs, it does no good to misapply Scripture as they do and judge them according to failed and untested exegesis.

39

The Vedas - Scientific Knowledge - Prophecy - The Truth?

by LAWHFol in

the vedas are the core sacred texts for the people of the east.

generally the vedas are to the east as the hebrew scriptures are to the west.

supporters of the bible, boast of it's scientific accuracy,prophetic accuracy & general infallibility.

CalebInFloroda

Actually the New Testament is a product of what we now call Western Civilization.

The Tanakh, which Christians call the Old Testament, is actually a product of Eastern thought. Even the Jewish exegesis of it is far different than what is claimed by Christians...

1. The Scriptures are scientifically accurate.

Not in the eyes of Jews. The Scriptures are not the basis for our religion or culture, but a product of these two things. They reflect ancient ways of thinking, employ old and unscientific cosmogonies, even its views on G-d are ancient and primitive when compared with modern Jewish thought,

2. If the Bible is flawed, G-d is flawed.

Again, a Christian thought. The G-d of Abraham and Sarah is not perfect in the way Christians demand and define perfection. In Jewish theology and Scripture G-d is evolving with humanity and learns how to love properly and deal more justly through interchange with humanity. In Judaism it is not wrong to say that it seems G-d created humanity to fill a need in order to move beyond what was lacking in the Creator.

3. Abrahamic Faith

Faith and belief are irrelevant concepts to Jews. We don't "believe" in G-d in any manner similar to Christians who believe it is a requisite to have faith in G-d's existence. Instead G-d is encountered, responded to, interacted with, even challenged. There is no such thing as the "Abrahamic faith." Jews are in a covenant with G-d, and this leaves some of them in active participation with the Creator and others guessing at G-d as agnostics and other Jews dealing with the G-d concept as atheists. But each Jew still remains part of the Tribe, and each can still fully participate in its rich spiritual tradition, theology, and work together to fulfill the aims of Tikklun Olam.

4. Truth is found in written texts.

That is too limited a concept for the children of Abraham and Sarah. Truth can be found where we least expect it. Even the Hebrew Scriptures are not the basis of religious truth, as our "truth" existed for centuries before we wrote them down as Scripture. Our religion was totally functioning with a theology and Temple before Scripture was complete. In fact Scripture was an afterthought, not the beginning for us.

So yes, one can probably find many truths from sources like the Vedas. But you may need to revise your views about the Scriptures of the Hebrews. They are tied to a very foreign theology that many Christians are still ignorant of after 2000 years. Some of your comments about them are in need of a bit revision.

24

Is Satan really a liar, and the father of the lie?

by Israel Ricky Gonzales in

5 for god knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like god, knowing good and bad.. .

genesis 3:22. jehovah god then said: here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad..".

for god knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like god, knowing good and bad.?.

CalebInFloroda

Giordano is right about the original Jewish view of these Genesis texts.

As a Jew I can attest that this narrative is neither viewed as an "original sin" story nor is the snake viewed as "Satan the Devil." It is merely one of three origin stories in Genesis that explains how Jews see themselves in relation to G-d.

Like Israel, Jews "wrestle" with the G-d concept. We ask questions, we argue, we refuse to submit. This is very different from the submissive "listen and obey" attitude of JWs. Eve's actions and Adam's response are reflecting what Jews saw in themselves in relation to G-d, describing the then current view of the relationship between the covenant people and the Almighty as if it originated in Adam and Eve's experience with G-d as well. Jews were not claiming that this was the history of the Gentiles.

We view "Satan" as that within us that fails to reach the potential we all have for being just, good, and reclaiming freedom for all humans. While the Christian view is to blame another creature for our failings, Jews believe it is better to take responsibility for these as to be able to repair and redeem humanity from the problems we as the human race allow to befall upon ourselves.

20

Perfection? Ponder this...

by OverlappingGeneralizations in

hello all- nice forum.i have been contemplating a fade for a while, and i have been reading various sites such as this one.

i have seen all kinds of things that have made me think.

but something came to mind lately, and i wanted to throw it out there-satan was cast down to the earth, and he is supposedly the cause of all imperfection.

CalebInFloroda

Imagine a religion where there is no Satan the Devil...

...where the Creator is not as perfect as many claim and that the Almighty can grow and learn things...

...which states that the condition people are in now is not far off from what Adam and Eve were like when they were first created.

Oh, and it was the religion Jesus and his parents practiced too.

Yep, ancient and modern Judaism has never recognized the same ideals of perfection that Christianity and especially groups like the JWs demands of G-d and humans.

And while there may be wicked spirits (or spirits who act wickedly), many Jews have no "Satan the Devil" in their theology. In fact when read in the original Hebrew, there is no Satan, not even in Job!

And while G-d is perfect, this doesn't mean that G-d doesn't have room to grow or learn. In fact Jews see in Scripture the possibility that G-d created humans to challenge and inspire growth in the Almighty. G-d is not necessarily all loving, not exactly as Christians believe anyway. G-d learns love and patience through dealings with humans. In Jewish theology that is what G-d's perfection is like, very different from the perfection of Watchtower teachings.

And that means we are not far from "perfection" now either if we take the Jewish view into account. Humanity evolves toward it along with G-d. "Satan the Devil" is often seen as the personification of anything that holds us back to those Jews who recognize "Satan" as directly personified in Scripture (but again, a direct reading in Hebrew also allows for reading the texts as there being no devil at all).

Because of the close ties these two religions have, and since the above views are part of Scriptural Hebrew exegesis, that makes them possibilities as well, or at least something to be considered when pondering these questions.

Perhaps there is no Satan to blame for humankind's own failures. Perhaps our own evolution includes further evolving in morality and justice. Perhaps the idea that G-d grows in union with the creation made in G-d's image is more realistic than trying to make some Biblical narratives fit the Creator into a peg designed for perfection that is impossible to reach or isn't even perfection in the first place.

Can humanity shed ancient and primitive views of G-d and Satan and perfection for more evolved views of spirituality based on and in partnership with a reality that is practical?

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

CalebInFloroda

@nicolaou

I'm Jewish so I don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. Also Jews don't base their beliefs on the Scriptures; the Scriptures are based on our beliefs. So I am neither arguing here for a belief in Jesus, Christianity, etc.

The actual Christian teaching is that Jesus is the Incarnation of G-d, not an angel. The expression "son of God" in the New Testament in reference to Jesus is a Semitic expression which means "of the same cloth," similar to the English idioms, "spitting image" or "chip off the old block." The title "Son of God" in reference to Jesus expresses what is referred to as the Epiphany in Christianity: the realization that God was present in the Person of Jesus. The Epiphany is a teaching that predates any writings of the New Testament, though it is not an explicit teaching of the Trinity as it only deals with the identity of Jesus but not his nature or that of the Holy Spirit.

The thread is here discussing whether the JW theology is compatible with this. The Witnesses believe that "Son of God" means what it does in English instead of what it means in Semitic idiom, namely "male offspring of God." Because of this anachronistic reading, the JWs have adopted the idea that Jesus as likely the archangel Michael.

The question therefore is not whether the Bible's claim about Jesus is true, but whether or not the JW exegesis fits all of Chrstian theolog. Remember Christianity existed for at least 40 or 50 years before the first Gospel account was written. That is an entire generation or lifetime back then. There was already a living Christian theology and liturgy in place which affected how these texts were written. Like Judaism, the New Testament is not the basis for Christian claims, it is a reflection of them.

As a Jew I have to admit that there is some historical basis for accepting that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth. However because his followers defined him in terms of an Epiphany and the Incarnation, many Jews could not accept such views as this violated the Shema in their view. This rejection of Jesus as Messiah was pre-New Testament, not after the New Testament. The New Testament was neither the basis nor foundation of the stories about Jesus, the same stories which by the mid-first century had already been rejected by the Jewish community at large before being written.

In conclusion, one cannot merely argue or try to prove the claims of New Testament Scripture in reference to Jesus. The origins of the claims about him are far more ancient. One needs to delve into the most ancient theology of the Church. Since it's claims about Jesus state that Christ is the Incarnation of YHWH, the Church expects the Epiphany to be accepted on the basis of faith, not evidence.

The challenge of the Church is not whether there is empirical evidence for their claims, but rather will people put faith in what they have. The New Testament merely extended these claims into written form.

Our disbelief in these aside, the point of thread is trying to show that the JW argument is flawed. Disbelief in spirits and deities is a conclusion, true, but not an efficacious means of examining their exegetical approach.

Regardless what either you or I believe on the subject of Jesus or G-d, those things often have to be put aside to demonstrate other points at hand.

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

CalebInFloroda

@Vidqun

You’ve created a paradox that disproves your argument.

At 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 identifies the archangel with Michael.

Employing the same formula you do here, you are also saying that Jesus is Jehovah.

The text at 1 Thessalonians 4.16 not only says Jesus begins the resurrection with “the archangel’s call” but that Jesus also commands them to rise “with the sound of God’s trumpet.”

If the fact that Jesus employs “the archangel’s call” means that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, then the same logic would mean that you believe that Jesus is also the Almighty since Jesus has the control of and uses “God’s trumpet.”

This would further mean that Jehovah is also Michael the Archangel. I doubt this is what you believe.

You see when you use Scripture, your logic has to hold up under all scrutiny. The rule is simple: what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If logic applied in one instances proves something, then the same logic proves the same thing in any and every other case.

If using the “archangel’s call” makes Jesus the same as Michael the Archangel, then using “God’s trumpet” also makes Jesus the same as Jehovah. And if Jesus is Michael the Archangel, then Jehovah is also Michael the Archangel.

But that would go against Scripture.

Hebrews chapter 1 tells us that no angel of any kind, not even an archangel is the same as Jesus:

The Son became so much greater than the other messengers, such as angels, that he received a more important title than theirs.

After all, when did God ever say to any of the angels:

You are my Son.
Today I have become your Father?

Or, even,

I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son?

But then, when he brought his firstborn into the world, he said,

All of God’s angels must worship him.

He talks about the angels:

He’s the one who uses the spirits for his messengers
and who uses flames of fire as ministers.

But he says to his Son,

God, your throne is forever
and your kingdom’s scepter is a rod of justice.
You loved righteousness and hated lawless behavior.
That is why God, your God,
has anointed you with oil instead of your companions.

And he says,

You, Lord, laid the earth’s foundations in the beginning,
and the heavens are made by your hands.
They will pass away,
but you remain.
They will all wear out like old clothes.
You will fold them up like a coat.
They will be changed like a person changes clothes,
but you stay the same,
and the years of your life won’t come to an end.

When has he ever said to any of the angels,

Sit at my right side
until I put your enemies under your feet like a footstool?

Aren’t all the angels ministering spirits who are sent to serve those who are going to inherit salvation?

—To the Hebrews 1.4-14, italics added.

16

This is funny! BAR article asks: "Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?" But what is a Baculum?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we all know the bible story (as its translated into english) that eve was made from adam's rib.

now bible scholar, ziony zevit, distinguished professor of biblical literature and northwest semitic languages at american jewish university in bel-air, california has written in the 'biblical archeological review' that the hebrew word that is traditionally translated as rib which is 'istsela has been wrongly translated.. zevit says, "it was first translated as rib in the septuagint, a greek translation of the hebrew bible from the mid-third century b.c.e.

however, a more careful reading of the hebrew word for rib in the adam and eve story suggests that eve was created from another, very different, part of adams anatomyhis os baculum (penis bone).".

CalebInFloroda

@fulltimestudent

Interesting points. Four stars-worthy, indeed!

Yes, Second Temple-era Judaism is partly to blame for the "Jesus" movement. When the Roman occupation occurred, many Jews developed the Messianic concept into an individual monarch that would redeem Israel from Gentile rule.

But the idea of a Messiah who is actually a person may be a prophetic device, employing a personification to a concept connected to the reclaiming of Israel by G-d. Today many Jews have returned to the more ancient concept of Messiah, one who may not necessarily be an actual individual. The Messiah in the minds of many Jews may be the completion of the Jewish concept of Tikklun Olam that will usher in the Messianic Age.

Whatever the meaning, those who fail to evolve with Judaism are themselves responsible for being left behind.

16

This is funny! BAR article asks: "Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?" But what is a Baculum?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we all know the bible story (as its translated into english) that eve was made from adam's rib.

now bible scholar, ziony zevit, distinguished professor of biblical literature and northwest semitic languages at american jewish university in bel-air, california has written in the 'biblical archeological review' that the hebrew word that is traditionally translated as rib which is 'istsela has been wrongly translated.. zevit says, "it was first translated as rib in the septuagint, a greek translation of the hebrew bible from the mid-third century b.c.e.

however, a more careful reading of the hebrew word for rib in the adam and eve story suggests that eve was created from another, very different, part of adams anatomyhis os baculum (penis bone).".

CalebInFloroda

@Crazyguy

Which of the three creation stories are you talking about, and do you believe they all come from the same foreign sources? Who did the validation work on your theories? You raise some interesting points even though much of academia would not agree on all your points.

@fulltimestudent

Of course you realize you are only talking about Gentile Christians (which I am sure you do). Except for fanatical Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Judaism doesn't support a literal inerpretation of these stories like Christans do.

Also Jews don't "suspend belief" as the concepts of "belief" and "faith" are irrelevant to Judaism. If we could find out why so many Christians are intent on making the religious lessons and mythos of my people read as literal history, I believe we can also solve most of the world's problems. I kinda wish they had chosen some other culture's mythology to try to prove true because we Jews get blamed for their curious exegesis.

34

JW to SDA anyone do it ?

by Introvert 2 in

a couple friends pointed me to some info on the sabbath and i just plain like it, being the workaholic i am it's a lifesaver for me and gives me the motivation to be more balanced about my business and work schedule.

so from there i looked into the adventists and found a hall near my place and went last week.

i honestly enjoyed myself and the meeting time is not disruptive and the people were great and pretty laid back.

CalebInFloroda

@barry

I do agree that there are some who do not subscribe to Anglo-Israelism, but I have had the unfortunate experience of meeting a few that do. Some of them even believe they are actually more Jewish than Jews, or so they have led me to believe by the conversations I have had with them.

16

This is funny! BAR article asks: "Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?" But what is a Baculum?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we all know the bible story (as its translated into english) that eve was made from adam's rib.

now bible scholar, ziony zevit, distinguished professor of biblical literature and northwest semitic languages at american jewish university in bel-air, california has written in the 'biblical archeological review' that the hebrew word that is traditionally translated as rib which is 'istsela has been wrongly translated.. zevit says, "it was first translated as rib in the septuagint, a greek translation of the hebrew bible from the mid-third century b.c.e.

however, a more careful reading of the hebrew word for rib in the adam and eve story suggests that eve was created from another, very different, part of adams anatomyhis os baculum (penis bone).".

CalebInFloroda

@Crazyguy

Two problems with your theory:

1. The "rib" story predates Babylonian exposure. The previous creation story, chapter 1, about the six creative days is the one that came about after Babylonian captivity. Philologically speaking the second story, from Genesis 2, is not only much older but clearly comes from Hebrew oral narrative.

2. The word in Hebrew is NOT "rib," which is the point of the thread. The use of the word "rib" comes from Gentile renderings and is anachronistic, such as the way people picture an "apple" as the forbidden fruit. While you are correct that the idea of a rib comes from heathen sources about creation, this has influenced the TRANSLATION of the Hebrew text, mostly by Christians who from their exposure to such stories inserted the idea of a "rib." The Hebrew expression is ambiguous at best and hard to situate, and outside of borrowing some Mesopotamian cosmogony this narrative has many original elements unseen in other mythologies.