Posts by CalebInFloroda

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

CalebInFloroda

@C0ntr013r

I appreciate the questions, really I do.

Even though you don’t notice it, there seems to be something in your questions that is suggestive of Christian logistics. It’s very two-dimensional in that what you ask begins to contradict itself in other questions. I’m glad you’re asking, but to understand you will have to let go. It will actually help you understand the following answers.

Learn from the atheists on this board who have been atheists for some time. They are happy. They are healthy. They are secure. Like the American in my joke above, outside of this board they probably don’t go around thinking about G-d. To understand and appreciate the atheist one has to understand this as a constant. And one has to accept that their identity doesn’t stem from their not being a god. Their identity merely consists of this facet, which may be a very unimportant one for them on their list of convictions.

You have to do the same with Jews and Judaism. You have to accept Jews not from your perspective, but from that of a Jew. Like the way we read from right to left and place a headcovering on our head when we pray instead of remove one’s headcovering, you have to understand that the steps of logic will sometimes be in reverse from Western logic.

Why not speak the Divine Name? What is stopping me from picking and choosing things from Scripture to follow or forsake? How do I unbind myself from the literal interpretation from Scripture? Why can a prophet like Jesus not be the Messiah? Why do things in Judaism seem so contradictory?

All you questions are answered with one simple answer: That’s just the way it is in Judaism.

Some of the reasons are use of logic. Some of the answers lie in how Judaism works. Others are bound to cultural constructs. And finally Judaism can seem contradictory sometimes because Judaism deals with life—and life can be contradictory sometimes.

It takes a long time to un-think like a Westerner or a Gentile and turn your thinking to naturally flow like an Easterner and Jew. It won’t make sense overnight or with a simple answer because it requires an approach that let’s go of what you are familiar with, what is making you ask questions. Once you learn it you will have other questions, of course, but that’s the way things are.

This ain’t no Jehovah’s-Witness-Watchtower-Governing-Body religion. This is Judaism. It ain’t got no easy answers for everything. It’s about life. Life ain’t got no easy answers. It’s complex because life is complex. It’s ambiguous because, again, that’s what life can be and often. JWs have a religion that is made up because they can’t deal with life and it’s lack of easy answers, it’s complexities, it’s ambiguities. Jews and atheists and agnostics often find more in common and mutual respect because of our approach. There are even crossovers like Jewish Humanists, and like I mentioned many atheist Gentiles who enjoy sharing in Jewish ritual. If you are really looking for answers about Judaism itself you might want to check out some books or websites. I will gladly help point the way, but I am not writing this information or am here to make converts or change people. But I am afraid the more answers I give you, the more you are going to be confused. You sound like you might need to research Judaism a bit more.

We welcome everybody but we’re not in the business of proselytizing. We accept people as they are on their own terms and our religion teaches us that this is how we find the greatest gifts of G-d and from life. I want my friends to be Jewish and Christian and atheist and agnostic and straight and gay and Gentile and Muslim and etc., etc. And I want them to know I accept, love, and support them as they are.

12

There is no God.

by nicolaou in

it had been raining and i could smell the pine trees nearby.

god wasn't necessary.

the clouds cleared and the sunlight blazing from above paid out a bonus in the puddles at my feet.

CalebInFloroda

@nicolaou

Try not to look at your own response to the "God issue" as something being right or wrong. Instead give yourself some much needed acceptance for where you are at and permission to believe what you believe.

Freedom brings happiness. Happiness can be contagious. Bring to the world the best of you and, as up you are doing now, you will find how it can give the best it has to offer back.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

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.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

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?

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

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.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

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.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

CalebInFloroda

@C0jtr013r

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that the "name" Elohim is more holy than the tetragrammaton? Or is it different depending on what language you write it in? Or if you speak it?

No. The Divine Name is the most holy of all, but so is Elohim. Because “God” is used so often when we speak of the Creator, and because when you physically write it down the name “God” might be destroyed as refuse, it became a practice to write it as G-d. The custom is not to expose something holy to the possibility of being mistreated if possible. We live in an electronic world now, so the practice has just followed. But one can also consider that the information can be repeated or reprinted on a material that can equally be treated as mundane, so the reasoning stands.

Why do you think this is referring to repetition? To me it sounds more like we should mean every word when we pray. Not just say a lot of words to make the prayer "impressive".

You are correct that this is also talking about mindless prayers, but look at the text carefully. Jesus has been talking about not being like “the hypocrites” and then suddenly changes to not praying “like the Gentiles.” He is no longer talking about Jewish behavior, but Gentile behavior. What type of Gentile repetition is Jesus speaking of?

Two things to remember: Psalm 118 shows that Jews do repeat phrases in prayer. The Psalms are still our official prayers, and when you see us praying at the Western Wall we are often praying the Psalms. If Jesus was referring to mere repetition, this Psalm (and a few others) would be forbidden to use. Do you think Psalm 118 is bad? It uses repetition. Should we avoid and maybe even remove this Psalm because of this?

Second, I am not giving you my personal interpretation. What I mentioned is actual history about heathen worship. And this is recognized by scholars. Notice from the Catholic NABRE footnote on Matthew 6.7:

The example of what Christian prayer should be like contrasts it now not with the prayer of the hypocrites but with that of the pagans. Their babbling probably means their reciting a long list of divine names, hoping that one of them will force a response from the deity.

Protestants also agree, adding even further possibilities to the mix (it's not just one thing or the other). Wikipedia states the following under “Matthew 6:7”:

France notes that in this era Gentile prayer was portrayed as repeated incantations that had to be perfectly recited, but where the spirit and understanding of the prayer was secondary. Fowler states that the Jews believed the pagans needed to incessantly repeat their prayers, because their false gods would not answer them. The followers of the true God had no need to repeat their prayers as God would hear them the first time. Schweizer presents an alternate view. He does not feel battalogeo is a reference to repetition, but to nonsense. He argues that the Jews of that era felt that the pagans had forgotten the true name of God, and that their prayers were thus filled with long lists of meaningless words in an attempt to ensure the true name of God would at some point be mentioned.

Reading your post I could not help to wonder, do you think that the NT is accurate?
If not, how do you know what Jesus actually said or didn't say and what he actually meant?

I’m Jewish, I can only go by what the evidence and study of scholars reveals. I do believe Jesus was a real person, yes. I think the text reveals the beliefs of those who believed he was the Messiah and tried to make the circumstances fit their preconception.

If you do, how can you not think he was from God? He resurrected dead, rose from the grave himself etc.

Jesus may have been a prophet. But Elijah and Elisha also resurrected people, and one person rose from the grave after touching Elisha bones. None of this makes them the Messiah in Jewish theology anymore than Jesus.

Or do you think only some of it is true? In that case, how do you pick which parts to believe?

If you want a really close view on practically what I think about the New Testament, read The Jewish Annotated New Testament. The commentary there contains the closest to my views.

Or do you simply use the NT to point out problems with the JWs doctrines without believing a word of it yourself?

I don’t believe that it is fair to use the NT as a puppet. And I don’t agree that it is always right to just point out “problems with the JWs doctrines,” either. I can share what I know from scholarship to help people make decisions, but at the same time even though I was once a JW in my youth I don’t hate them or believe they are evil.

I do think they leave people with wrong views of Scripture and Judaism in particular (as well as wrong views about atheists, Catholics, Mormons, tuna fish, the paying of taxes, homosexuality and tight pants, etc.). And I feel I owe it to others to help them see things are not as black and white as the JWs lead people to believe. I think it an injustice not to try to help a little, even if my views may not be fully acceptable by some or may need adjustments themselves.

But the NT was written by Jews (except for Luke and Acts, and then the author was greatly influenced by Judaism), and there is a movement among Jews to study it, learn from it, and accept it as part of their own history. At one time the Christians viewed themselves as nothing more than another sect within Judaism, and at the time they wrote the NT they likely were nothing more. So there is a lot that we as Jews can learn from it ourselves. It is a story of how what some Jews believed about the Messiah.

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.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

CalebInFloroda

@Cofty

Not as presented in the book of Exodus, but there was a period in Egyptian history where there were mass exits of slave tribes after the Hyskos dynasties fell from power. This appears to be the foundation of what became the story of the Exodus for the Jews. That is what I am saying.

And I have no problem with people who find that a far-fetched assertion. You are okay in my book.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

CalebInFloroda

That's right. The word "firmament" actually comes from a Latin term which means "to hammer out" meaning to hammer out metal and spread the metal like a sheet.

63

How the Watchtower Screws Up Your View of Scripture

by CalebInFloroda in

while i do not argue the stand of atheism (because as a jew i find it totally logical and acceptable), i have noticed that there are odd carryover preconceptions about scripture that some hold as axiomatic about the bible (at least the hebrew texts), misconceptions that have nothing to do with the jewish scriptures themselves.. so regardless of what you may think of scripture, whether you believe it is of g-d or not, i thought some of you might enjoy a reference to see how much the watchtower teaching on scripture might still be influencing the conclusions you are making today...at least about the tanakh.

jews read their texts acknowledging the following:.

1. no scriptural concept of original sin.

CalebInFloroda

From John Aquila:

Caleb,

Why were the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther accepted by Jewish believers as part of the Hebrew Bible?

John, you actually answered your own question. 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.) The Hebrew Bible, or the Tanakh contains texts written in Hebrew (or Hebrew characters) and composed before the Hasmonean Dynasty Era. Anything written after that or in another language doesn't qualify. Simple.

Just because something is not part of the Tanakh does not mean that it is not sacred or inspired. The question over these books is not totally closed or finished like Christians claim it is. Jews never officially defined a "canon" because it (the "rule" or "canon") was a device raised in a dispute in the Catholic Church. We don't have a central hierarchy to decide which books are this or that (unlike what Protestants want to admit, the New Testament was decided and closed by Catholic Church authority, and its canon is part of Apostolic Tradition, the same Tradition that sola scriptura Protestants say has no authority...hmmm.)

And no, there was no council of Jews at Jamnia in 90 CE that decided it all and closed the canon. That is a hypothetical formula that is used to discuss how the shaping of the Tanakh could have come about, but it is generally rejected as a historical event.

To be honest, the books you mention are part of Jewish Scripture, but what we call the Greek Scriptures or the Septuagint. And books like Maccabees contain readings that are reviewed each Chanukah by some Jews (because those are the books that mention the origin of this observance).

Jews also have the Talmud, the Mishnah, the Kabbalah too. The most sacred and important is the Torah, the five books of Moses. Just because it ain't Torah doesn't mean it isn't important or not from G-d. And there is question whether or not a "Jewish canon" was ever officially decided or "closed," so to speak. For all genuine purposes, however, never think of the Jewish canon as being anything like or settled by the same points Christians use for their canonization purposes.