Posts by CalebInFloroda

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Opusdei,

Yeah, I have to agree with most of what you say. And it is obvious we are speaking about many similar things but from different perspectives.

No one has to tell me how the literal interpretation of the New Testament creates less than favorable paradigms. I almost weekly hear from people who tell me how I am doomed to hell because I'm Jewish, and it's almost 2000 years since these texts have been written. I am no fan of the NT.

Still it is not a constant. Many Christians fully believe that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, and these very same people are not anti-Semitic in their application. The fact that book causes controversies does not prove the book is at fault. Tom Sawyer, Catch-22, Slaughterhouse-Five are books that cause controversies, but is it the fault of the books?

Granted, the NT contains some strong language against non-Christians, but because it has never been a constant among Christians to act a certain way despite these texts is proof that the texts are not the fault. Christians have come to the aid of Jews during pogroms, crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust despite what the texts say. The NT would have to make every single Christian of every era into the same kind of animal if things were as black and white as the JWs suggest.

I still have to side with ambiguity intolerance (the inability to accept anything that cannot be definitively categorized as totally good or totally bad) as the cause of the problem. The New Jerusalem Bible and NABRE provide a context to the verses you discuss that neither ignores the texts nor accepts the JW view in their footnote apparatus. And the information is not totally new either. It doesn't excuse the ambiguity intolerance of the JWs or Catholics of the past, but it does show that people can believe a text from G-d that can be flawed and still not automatically perform in a drastic way. Many Bible- believing Christians are good people.

I have every reason to hate the New Testament text, but I don't. I don't believe it to be the inspired word of G-d, but I don't go to the other extreme to declare it is therefore evil. Like you I believe there is good and bad in it. Part of the problems created in history do come from the text, and some come from the mere interpretation, and perhaps a combination of the two are to blame. What I am saying is that we need to avoid seeing the problem in the simplistic, ambiguity intolerant eyes of the Watchtower. The problems are more complex than to simply blame written words, even if they do inspire hate in some who read them.

If the words were to blame then everyone could not help but to react the same way upon reading them, including you and me. But how we respond to them is clearly a free choice. The same is true for Christians.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Yes, but that is not the current state of the world or reality. And those words of Scripture are not accepted the way you mention by the majority of Christians today. It is the Watchtower religion that tells people that ancient black and white standards still rule.

Catholicism for instance currently rejects the view that truth cannot be found outside the Church. It now officially acknowledges Judaism as the "older brethren" religion to their own faith. Several official pronouncements from Nostre Aetate from Vatican II to the very recent study issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, "The Jewish People and their Scriptures in the Christian Bible" are quite clear that Catholics no longer believe that the Jews are rejected by G-d due to their rejection of Christ, that the covenants are still in effect between the Jews and G-d, and their call from and relationship with G-d is irrevocable despite the Church's view of Jesus as Messiah and Judaism's rejection of this concept.

Now this is just one denomination of Christianity, I will grant you that. But they hold the same Scriptural texts the Witnesses do, the same you mention above, and they come up with a totally different conclusion. They do not see things as so black and white as the JWs despite these texts also being considered as inspired and binding by Catholics.

Therefore it cannot be the New Testament texts that cause such polarization, otherwise Catholicism and the Protestant movements that have adopted similar views would be in total agreement with the Watchtower religion.

I have to disagree and say that it is the JWs theological insistence on ambiguity intolerance that causes one to read the text as if it is applicable in only one manner.

45

Rejecting something due to unscriptural or pagan origins.....?

by stuckinarut2 in

so witnesses reject many practices or holidays due to their "unscriptural or pagan" origins.. for example, birthday celebrations, mothers or father's day, christmas etc..... most people in the world will say "but the origin doesn't matter anymore, we follow this custom now because it's a joyful occasion that creates happy times and brings the family together".

it is still firmly rejected.. so, if the wrong origin is so important, and should result in rejecting something, why isn't the same principle applied to the actual jehovah's witness faith itself!?.

after all, the very foundation of the organisation was based on wrong understandings of the bible, far fetched teachings and doctrines, links to false religious backgrounds, pyramidology, false predictions, inaccurate beliefs etc...... using their reasoning, it doesn't matter how good something is now, if the origin was faulty to begin with?

CalebInFloroda

OnTheWayOut is very correct.

The term "pagan" actually refers to a different concept than the way it is used by the Watchtower. The pagan religions were the Hellenistic and Roman forms of religion.

"Heathen" is the word that the JWs mean to use. A "heathen" is someone who does not worship the G-d of Abraham and Sarah. However one cannot call Jews or Muslims "heathen," so this might be a reason why "pagan" has become the chosen word for JWs and Christians with views similar to them.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

No one should blame themselves for not knowing more if they were once a JW.

The Watchtower is oppressive in its demand that members avoid educating themselves, using critical methods for Scripture study, and avoiding learning from other religions by actual participation. Telling members they can't even have thoughts that are contrary to Governing Body teachings or have to avoid contact with atheists, agnostics, or other religious people and their customs destroys what is so vital to the human mind and spirit.

And while the New Testament may not be as idiotic as it looked to us once rejected the Watchtower (because leaving the JWs behind often makes a person want to throw out both "baby and the bath water"), it doesn't have to be stupid or illogical to be untrue. I for one think there's a lot of intelligence clearly displayed by its writers, but I don't buy into its theology or its claims one bit.

Watchtowerism teaches people to live by polarized standards. So sometimes when we leave the JWs behind we think we can only be totally rejecting G-d and Scripture or make a stand for it in some way. If we reject it we may carry over the JW habit of saying that rejecting something requires it to be unreal or illogical. That's a Watchtower concept, and it is not true. I believe, for example, that Jesus of Nazareth was historical. That doesn't mean that I accept him as the Messiah or require that I give credence to the claims of Christians about Jesus.

You can reject what is real and logical, and still be real and logical yourself. The two are not exclusive opposites as the Watchtower teaches.

Not everything that is logical has to be accepted. You can have cancer. Cancer is fatal. You don't have to accept that you have to give in to the disease. You can put up a fight. Your fight can beat the odds, even when doctors read real data that says you won't make it. Sometimes science doesn't have the answers or the results don't matter. Sometimes when we say "no, I won't be beat" it means just that. And despite the best data and evidence you don't die and you do beat cancer, contrary to what science may say.

The world is not black and white. You don't have to make the Bible out to be a book of illogical stupidity to reject it. G-d can be real and you can still tell G-d: "No thanks, but I don't want to worship you." G-d doesn't have to not exist for you to reject G-d. In fact it's easier to reject something fake than something that isn't. And it isn't wrong to reject someone or something that is very real. Sometimes these things don't matter to you or aren't your thing. They don't stop existing once we reject them, so neither does their existence mean we have to accept them.

There are a lot of steps to take in removing oneself from the Watchtower. Leaving is sometimes the easiest part. Identifying where some of it sneaked into us and came along on our way out is often the hard part.

45

Rejecting something due to unscriptural or pagan origins.....?

by stuckinarut2 in

so witnesses reject many practices or holidays due to their "unscriptural or pagan" origins.. for example, birthday celebrations, mothers or father's day, christmas etc..... most people in the world will say "but the origin doesn't matter anymore, we follow this custom now because it's a joyful occasion that creates happy times and brings the family together".

it is still firmly rejected.. so, if the wrong origin is so important, and should result in rejecting something, why isn't the same principle applied to the actual jehovah's witness faith itself!?.

after all, the very foundation of the organisation was based on wrong understandings of the bible, far fetched teachings and doctrines, links to false religious backgrounds, pyramidology, false predictions, inaccurate beliefs etc...... using their reasoning, it doesn't matter how good something is now, if the origin was faulty to begin with?

CalebInFloroda

And remember, what is "pagan" means what is not from the Jewish culture--right?

I'm a Jew. Let me tell you what is VERY pagan about the Jehovah's Witnesses.

1. Accepting the New Testament is the written word of G-d. Guess what? Jews don't accept the Christian Greek Scriptures.

2. Not observing a weekly Sabbath. That's right folks. When JWs treat Friday sundown to Saturday evening as just another day they are acting exactly like pagans!

3. Uttering G-d's name. Only pagans believe that their gods won't answer or even listen to their prayers unless they use the names of their deities. The G-d of Abraham and Sarah never has to be summoned by name because G-d always watches over humanity.

4. Not learning at least a little bit of Hebrew. You don't have to speak the language entirely, but you should at least know how to pray the Shema and read a little bit of the Torah in Hebrew.

5. Considering this the year 2015. If you are not a pagan, it's 5775.

6. For men, shaving, being uncircumcised. How many JWs grow beards? How many have...well, you know!

7. Viewing faith in doctrines as more important to G-d than doing something that will benefit the world around you. In fact, being neutral is definitely pagan. Jews believe you have to be involved in making the world community a better place for all.

8. Eating pork and/or mixing dairy and meat. How many Witnesses eat bacon cheeseburgers, pizza?

9. Not observing holidays. Yep, if you don't observe Jewish holy days that means you are a pagan.

10. Believing in a hierarchy or central governing body for doctrinal truth. While all organizations and groups have some type of structure, religious truth is a communal thing in Judaism. The pagan Gnostics developed the current belief popular among Christians that "truth" is found only among an enlightened few and that the rest of us are destined to feed off the crumbs that come from their table. Sorry, but that's a pagan concept.

The list can go on and on. And while some things by themselves are neither pagan or Jewish (not all Jews follow the exact same kosher rules for example or use them at all), the fact that the Witnesses claim to be a "pagan-free" religion is definitely a lie.

There is a pagan free religion. But sorry Jehovah's Witnesses. You guys are definitely quite pagan in custom and teaching.

13

Where Are They Now???

by minimus in

jw
friends

i was raised as a witness and i remember many of the old timers.

many of the elders are no longer serving.

it seems like almost anyone that wad married and had kids.

CalebInFloroda

Many of those I knew as elders are dead. Their wives are dead too. Now their children are old and dying off.

Those who are my age are just becoming grandparents for the first time, dealing with gray hair, getting old. Some are also already dead.

I don't know how the Watchtower does it, but there was a third and even fourth generation of dead witnesses that existed before I ever walked into a Kingdom Hall myself. How they have managed to see this as "one generation" or just recently as "one generation overlapping another" just proves to me what lengths the human mind will go to in order to preserve the state of denial one enjoys.

3

Another JW holocaust fund post

by Saintbertholdt in

the expenditure accounted for 6% of the total funds available over the period of the program*..

total funds available for recipients: $856 485.

total recipients benefited: 1876.

CalebInFloroda

If this claim is true then something tells me that this is another proof that the financial writing is on the wall for the Jehovah's Witnesses and their organization. They must need the money, really need it, in order to have the guts to claim they deserve it...and I can't see how they can claim they are entitled to it as an organization.

The reason for these type of funds is to compensate survivors and/or their families because of the financial burden the Holocaust has had on these people. What people don't realize because most as far removed from actual survivors is that many of these people are still struggling, and quite old too. When the war was over many tried to return to their homes and property only to find that others had moved in and refused to give them their homes back. This has affected a couple of generations in these families.

But financial compensation just because you were affected by the Holocaust is meaningless to Jews if you don't need the money. Money is no real compensation for the injustices suffered. All Jews were affected by the Holocaust. We all lost family relations and such, even those born after the events. We are not all getting compensation or applying for it. It's not about money.

The entire organization of JWs was not affected by the Holocaust. It's daily operations were not stopped. Most of its members didn't even know about it, and many who did see the events actually did nothing due to their neutrality while watching my family members being driven from the homes and sent to death camps. Just a few weeks ago we received an official apology from the Roman Catholic Church in Austria not only for the part Catholics played in the Holocaust but also from those who stood by and did nothing. I don't ever recall any JW apologizing for standing by and not doing anything during the Holocaust. Being neutral during the Holocaust is considered just as bad, you Jehovah's Witnesses...even Catholics see that!

So while I see it totally proper for individual JW survivors and their families to apply and receive funds for compensation due to losses incurred from the Holocaust, the JW organization has no right since as a whole it, like the Catholic Church in Austria, stood by and did NOTHING!

You don't stand by and do nothing when your neighbors are being dragged away to death camps. When the "godless" Soviets learned what was happening, they DID something...and these people were atheists!

Christians and their organizations who stood by and did nothing don't deserve compensation for the Holocaust. On the contrary, they should be the ones paying out the money!

40

JW Broadcasting is dying.

by John Aquila in

once a month about 15 to 20 elderly jw publishers would meet at the kingdom hall and one elder was assigned to set up the system so they could view jw broadcasting.

these publishers were long time pioneers, former elders, and long time publishers who know nothing about computers or the internet.

they are the last batch of those expecting the generation that saw 1914 or understood it--- to not die off.

CalebInFloroda

Note to idiot elders who told those weeping that Abraham was 100 when he had to raise a child and didn't cry about it:

Abraham was rich and had servants! He didn't cry about it because he had people to do it for him.

(Not to mention that humans are instinctively designed to care for their own infants, so much so that no one requires buying technology and taking classes in order to do it.)

Oy gevalt! Goy!

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@OUTLAW & Sparrowdown

You two got it wrong.

It was Chanukah, and the Apostle Paul was known for going into sufganiyot (Jewish doughnut) shops, and when no one was looking he would lick them and tell Timothy: "I hate Israel and Israelites."

He later offered an apology on his JDate account claiming that he really meant to say that what he hated was how "Jewish food made people fat in Israel, that's what I really hate." Paul stopped eating sufganiyot after that.

But Peter wrote he saw Paul trying to lick bagels at Einstein Brothers a week later.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Sparky1,

I was not offering my personal view. I'm a philologist who works in the field of Bible translation. I have worked on one ecumenical version so far. Though an exJW, I am also Jewish.

And as a Jew I don't have a personal opinion or conviction about what Paul was trying to say. I can only tell you the mechanics and what the general academic consensus is. If you wish to debate the points I made you will have to find you nearest university scholar and take it up with them. I am only repeating what is accepted in the field.

Lastly, while I appreciate your offering a link for me, that is only a lexicon entry. Lexicons give you "root meanings" to words, and some usage. They are not exhaustive representations however and they are quite limited in scope when it comes to how terms have been expressed by writers throughout various eras. We need to delve into etymology for that.

In my field you have lexicography (which is the work of defining root meanings), etymology (the origin of words and how there meanings changes over time), and philology (the critical analysis of language as used in history). A lexicon as you linked to is just a small part of what is needed to unravel and understand ancient texts and their words. You can't really understand a language just by looking up things in a lexicon. That's an old JW trick meant to "wow" people. It's really nothing more than looking up something in a dictionary.