Posts by CalebInFloroda

18

GOD in the Beginning

by Doug Mason in

the ancient hebrews left two bequests:.

a universal, single god named yahweh;.

a series of writings identified as sacred scripture..

CalebInFloroda

Some of the details and conclusions are slightly different, but current Jewish thought and scholarship agree with Doug.

A good support from a reputable Jewish source is the recent BBC/PBS television series, "The Story of the Jews" by Simon Schama. it can found on some streaming venues, in the United States for rent on Amazon and Vudu.

YHWH, the G-d of Abraham and Sarah actually had to compete with other tribal gods until the Davidic dynasty made worship of YHWH the state religion of Israel. The Bible accounts are redactions into oral traditions that reflect a bit more fidelity to YHWH than what really existed until David's time.

However I do have one fairly unknown detail to add: the idea that YHWH is male is actually from a Christian invention due to the introduction of formal equivalence translations and word study independent of Jewish participation. The pronouns for G-d in Hebrew are actually neuter, even though they literally translate as "he," and the misogyny often attributed to the patriarchal system is based on an application of New Testament epistles introduced as an anachronistic principle for exegesis. Today only Fundamentalists tend to keep this as a holdover, as does traditional liturgical language in the Catholic Church such as in lectionaries and some psalters.

The strict demand that gender never be attributed to G-d from ancient Judaism become codified doctrine and to this day has affected languages such as English in rendering texts into the vernacular. Current versions of official siddurs, Passover haggadahs, and translations of Torah and the Tanakh in general into English are being produced that never use any type of male or female language for G-d, avoiding terms such as "he," "Lord," and "King," among others.

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

It's an interesting hypothesis, but it isn't accepted etymological theory.

The Hebrew word for "rib" in Gemesis 2 actually isn't "rib" at all. The word is actually "side" as in hillside or the side of a building.

I subscribe to the theory that since the word is so often used to refer to "walls" that the expression is describing Eve's creation in terms of making a building. A "side" or "wall" was taken from Adam, so to speak, to create the "building" of Eve. Semitic concepts of humans often pictured them as vessels and even arks (boxes or chests). The same word appears in reference to the walls of Noah's ark, the sides of the ark of the covenant, and the walls of various chambers and rooms in the First Temple.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

@Terry

Actually the New Testament isn't being contradicting regarding putting people to death.

Under Roman law Jews were not allowed to impose the death penalty, but it is likely that the lynching of Stephen took place as recorded. I don't find it hard to imagine that certain Jews did carry out such an illegal stoning. People do that kind of thing, take matters into their own hands, and my people do have a history of defying Gentile authority. So Stephen's death is probably not too far-fetched a report.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

@jhine

While I cannot promise I can walk that line perfectly, I have worked professionally with Catholics on translation and other theological projects. There is a very healthy dialogue between the two religions at present, part of which deals with a new understanding in Catholicism, namely that Catholics no longer believe in Superssionism and that the Jews are thus still in an active covenant relationship with G-d.

I cannot, of course, speak of the effects that this change is having on Catholic theology or practice, but I can use what I've learned through the years about Christianity and New Testament history to give some help in uncovering the problems JW theology has put upon itself by its peculiar reading of the Scriptures.

The idea that Christianity can exist without believing in a literal crucifixion or denying that Jesus was believed to be the very incarnation of YHWH is highly problematic. If these things weren't true, then there would be, for one thing, a very noticeable gap in Judaism's refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Witnesses tend to forget that as long as there has been a Christianity there has also been Jews claiming they don't believe in Jesus due to belief in his divinity and use and worship of the cross by Christians. Belief in Jesus requires what Jews see as defying the Shema, our most sacred prayer: "Hear, O Israel: Adonai is G-d. Adonai is One!" And the way the cross is used and displayed—well for Jews that's just plain idolatry.

If what the JWs claim is true, then how did Jews develop these counter-arguments regarding Jesus? If Jesus is just "a god" like the angels, why would Jews claim belief in Jesus violates the Shema? If Jesus did not die on a cross, why would Jews have arguments against its use in worship?

Until just recently with the release of the NRSV: Jewish Annotated New Testament (which is fruit of the Catholic-Jewish dialogue began in the 1960s), Jews had no access to or attempted to read the New Testament. Where did they get these ideas about the Incarnation and a cross and crucifixion (that is, not to mention our own history of the Second Temple era where we ourselves testify to the fact that Romans had a habit of nailing Jews to crosses who, by the way, weren't Jesus)? These Jewish counter-arguments are older than the Christian canon.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not think three-dimensionally. You can't take away "cross," the belief in the Incarnation, and you even have a problem with Petrine authority in the first century Church (as well as numerous other problems) if you take Witness theology as accurate. It doesn't work, and that's speaking for anyone whether you're a Jew or not.

78

I believe that the greater percentage of JWs-You Will Not Be Able to Help, no Matter What Facts You Show Them.

by John Aquila in

so i ran into this brother whom ive known for a while and the conversation led into me being invited to come back to the kingdom hall.

we talked for about an hour during which time i explained to him 607 being the wrong date and a lot of other stuff including the child abuse cases in australia.

but what i wanted to relate was the last few minutes of our conversation.

CalebInFloroda

“You and all apostates have nothing to offer.”

I've heard this song too many times before. I don’t speak for all “apostates,” but I didn’t choose my particular path because of what I could get out of it.

For instance, I’m not a Jew because of what Judaism “has to offer.” I didn’t leave the Witnesses because someone had something else better “to offer.” I’m not in it because I want to have a happy family life or some type of hope or feel secure or get answers. And I don’t think atheists and all religious people are that way either.

Apparently the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or at least those who sing this song, are in it for what they can “get out of it.” Like a rice Christian, they apparently only join a religion because there’s some of “gift tote” full of religious “swag.”

Sorry, but that’s a selfish way to be. Religion shouldn’t be about “me” and what “I” can get out of it and what it can do for “me.” I thought it was supposed to be about G-d.

“You have no answer as to why we were put on this earth and where we are headed.”

This is a lie JWs tell themselves. What they really mean when they say this is that “you don’t believe what we believe about the future of the earth, therefore what you have is no answer in our eyes.” But that is wrong.
Among Christians, Catholics have had almost the same identical belief regarding a future paradise earth but for 2000 years longer than the Witnesses. Most JWs have never bothered to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to verify this, and those I’ve shown this to have often poo-pooed it as insignificant.

Of course, Catholics (other Christians who believe this) got the foundation for this belief from Jews and our teaching of Olam Ha Ba, life in “the World to Come.” We were the first to have the answer to “where we are headed.”

And who’s to say that those believe the earth won’t last forever are wrong? Does this current universe need to last forever in order for these religious beliefs to be fulfilled? What if you belong to a different type of religious tradition that has a completely different eschatology than what is shared among Jews, Muslims, and Christians?

And even if you aren’t religious and you believe in some other destiny for the earth, isn’t there usually an “answer” as to why we are here and “where we are headed” that many of these have? It may be something science-based that goes against what JWs teach, but it is still an “answer.”

I’ve heard all this before from others: “I’ve got a great hope for the future. I’ve got a great life now. I know where I am going.” It’s all “me, me, me.”

I left the JWs because it is indeed all about what “I’ can get out of it. It’s about “me” having all the answers. It’s all about “knowing” this and that, about making sure “I” am in the truth and correcting others who are not.

That’s not worship of a god. That’s worship of yourself.

Ever read the Book of Job? The most righteous man on the earth of his time asks G-d questions, and what does G-d answer in reply: “Who are you to ask questions?”

If this life is all there is, shouldn’t we be thankful for at least that? If you are in this just because you want to have some hope that when you die this won’t be it, doesn’t that make your choice to serve G-d conditional? “I’ll serve you and belong to your religion if I get all the answers, a happy family life, have a hope so that when I die I won’t be scared, etc., etc., etc.”

And a god who would make a religion like that is only encouraging selfishness. I don’t want to worship a god like that, and I don’t recommend that anyone else does.

So to all who think like this person who doesn’t want to leave the comfort of his self-serving, self-centered religion that caters to his need for “me, me, me,” it’s not about your failed prophecies or proving you wrong with facts and figures.

It’s about being selfish and self-serving verses being selfless and serving others. It’s not about convincing you that you are wrong, because it’s not about you. Like the song says: “You’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you.” Guess what? It’s not.

It’s about being there for those who do let facts change them from being part of a self-centered group that is concerned only about what they will "get out of it."

It’s not about what we have to offer, it’s about what you have to offer us. Since selfish people don’t share, I would guess the answer is pretty much “nothing.”

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

@DATA-DOG

I've heard two theories and they are both based on reliable data:

1. Often criminals carried only the crossbeam to an area where an upright pale had been raised earlier.

2. Just as often, because the idea was to strike terror into the hearts of others, the Romans had criminals carry the entire cross.

Some ancient traditions claim that Jesus was made to carry a cross made specifically for him while the criminals alongside him carried only a crossbeam. While there is little if any empirical evidence behind the tradition in relation to Christ, it seems to have been a real alternative practice in some instances.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

Thanks, Faye. I got some help from some exJWs when I first left that helped me healed and move on some 20 years ago. Just passing it on.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

Actually the expression "tau" in reference to the cross does not imply that it was not a traditional cross with a headpiece that allowed an additional inscription to be nailed about the head. It is merely used in academia to give a general idea of the shape, especially in reference to comparisons with the "iota" shape of a pale.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

@John Aquila

The confusion among the JWs is actually a very telling mistake.

The Jews of the Second Temple era spoke Aramiac, mixed with Hebrew. The Romans spoke Latin. But the official language of writing was still Greek, the language of Alexander the Great who, though a Greek, paved the way for the Roman Empire and was still highly regarded after his death.

However holding on to Greek as the literary language was much like the use of Ecclesiastical Latin became centuries later. Most people in Rome didn't read, and those who did may have read only vernacular Latin with enough Greek to get by. And Rome had invented new technological advances, especially in warfare, that didn't exist in the Hellenistic world of Alexander and had no Greek words for them.

So the gospel writers used two Greek words for the cross, since the device did not exist in Alexander's time: STAUROS and XYLON. The first word meant "pale," a simple stake upon which criminals or their heads were sometimes tied or nailed to, and the other word meant "tree" in the sense of a dead tree trunk. The "T" shaped device had no word in the Greek at all.

The Witnesses, having no language scholars or background in history, simply opened a lexicon and read that the Greek word, STAUROS, meant "pale or stake." So they claim that the Devil and his Christian minions hide the fact from the world that Jesus really died on a stake. I mean, you can look it up for yourself in any Greek lexicon and verify it for yourself that the Greek word STAUROS does indeed mean "stake." Argument closed, right?

This is where being a language scholar is so important. Scholars know that the events described didn't happen in a Greek-speaking word. Jesus spoke Hebrew-Aramaic and the Romans spoke Latin. When the Romans pulled out the device upon which Jesus was nailed they called it a "crux," and there wasn't even a Jewish word for it then.

Because the official written language of the Roman world was Greek, the gospel writers did what you always do when you translate things from one language to another: use the best equivalent you have despite the fact that you will lose something in the translation.

Besides, we have evidence of crucifixion, secular accounts, etc., so why wouldn't anyone not understand these things?

Well, JWs obviously get blinded by that egotistical view "I looked it up and saw it with my own eyes, so I know the truth." The problem is that unless you know how to use a lexicon along with etymology then you will make many mistakes like the JWs did. It takes a translator, an etymologist, and a philologist along with a cultural specialist and a theologian who is an expert exegete in order to properly translate any Scripture text. That's a lot of educated specialists. Anyone can look up a word in a book, but it takes trained critical thinkers to put the data together properly, and the JWs have none.

The JWs missed the logical step of remembering that Greek is merely a translation of the events and that the words used were archaic or at least not always compatible with what was happening in the first century. Anyone can look up anything in a book, but that doesn't make you a scholar unless you can use it like a scholar.

24

The Romans did not crucify robbers

by purrpurr in

i've been reading a book called nonsense from the bible.

in it it makes the point that the romans did not crucify robbers.

having since researched this it seems this is true.

CalebInFloroda

@Diogenesister

Jewish historical accounts outside of the New Testsment testify to the typical treatment of Jews by the Roman State. There are many accounts, and even the Jewish Encyclopedia admits to this under the subject "crucifixion":

"The following crimes entailed this penalty: piracy, highway robbery, assassination, forgery, false testimony, mutiny, high treason, rebellion." Among the sources, the JE cites Jospehus, "B.J." v. 11, section 1.

So it is not due to reading the New Testament that it seems likely that Jesus was executed with petty criminals. I was simply stating that since this was the common type of criminal from among Jews that the Romans executed it isn't illogical to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion stood out as a high-profile execution among infamous individuals.

I don't doubt you are quite studious, and that you've read many books. Jewish accounts about the treatment we experienced is usually not detailed outside of Jewry with much accuracy, even among historians. This is often due to the complexity of the records and the language in which they are written, and largely due to the fact that Jews make up around only 1% or so of the population.