Posts by Doug Mason

40

A serious question for Christians and Non-Christians: How Can Love Hate?

by sabastious in

1 john 4:2 - whoever does not love does not know god, because god is love.. .

what does the statement "god is love" mean?

well quite simply that god = love.

Doug Mason

sabastious,

Why has God permitted so many changes to be made to these written words? Why has he not preserved the original writings? I presume you understand the meaning of "Lower Criticism".

Doug

40

A serious question for Christians and Non-Christians: How Can Love Hate?

by sabastious in

1 john 4:2 - whoever does not love does not know god, because god is love.. .

what does the statement "god is love" mean?

well quite simply that god = love.

For example, you only need to compare differences between the accounts at Kings and Chronicles of David or of Manasseh. Since each writer had their own objective(s), their account of each King differs.

What about the differences between the two stories of Creation?

Study the subject of "historiography".

Compare the marked differences between the accounts of the so-called synoptic gospels. As examples, see how differently each handles the stories of his birth, his death and his resurrection. None was an eye witness to any of these events, with the earliest (Mark) written at least 30 years after Jesus had been killed (and later than the death of Paul).

Worship God, not the Bible.

Doug

40

A serious question for Christians and Non-Christians: How Can Love Hate?

by sabastious in

1 john 4:2 - whoever does not love does not know god, because god is love.. .

what does the statement "god is love" mean?

well quite simply that god = love.

Doug Mason

Sabastious,

Correct.

Even their histories are not literally correct, but were shaped to influence their own immediate community.

Doug

40

A serious question for Christians and Non-Christians: How Can Love Hate?

by sabastious in

1 john 4:2 - whoever does not love does not know god, because god is love.. .

what does the statement "god is love" mean?

well quite simply that god = love.

Doug Mason

Tammy,

It is difficult to translate words and the meanings that the original had (or has) in another language, but it is far more difficult to transport ourselves into the other culture, particularly an ancient one. We also need to recognise the contemporary situation when a passage was written (and edited), who wrote it, their purpose, political and religious power struggles, geography, etc.

This includes the writings of Jesus' words. For example, the first NT writings were those of Paul. He died in 64 CE, before Jerusalem was destroyed. So he was not aware of the writings of Mark, Matthew, Luke or John, etc. And Paul's writings (7 are definitely from him) are arguments written on the run against specific circumstances which we are not fully cognisant of.

When each of the Gospels was written, the people structured their documents to meet their specific purpose; hence the discrepancies between the gospels; they are not literal histories. Further, they wrote of events that none of them was witness to, such as Jesus' birth (there was no census), temptation, final hours or his resurrection.

Doug

40

A serious question for Christians and Non-Christians: How Can Love Hate?

by sabastious in

1 john 4:2 - whoever does not love does not know god, because god is love.. .

what does the statement "god is love" mean?

well quite simply that god = love.

Doug Mason

possible-san,

You are absolutely correct. There are four Greek words that are translated as "love".

The NT writers adopted the word "agape" to describe the Divine Love, which is an unemotional principle; Barclay describes as the ability to love the unloveable, to do what is right because it is the right thing to do.

The other Greek words for "love" refer to emotional love, such as within a family or to erotic love.

So the love that a man has for his wife, or that a child has for their parent, is in no way related to the meaning of "agape" as employed by the NT community.

Doug

15

Livestock - 1st and 2nd Plague

by elder-schmelder in

did all of the livestock die in the 1st plague, or just some of them?.

6 and the lord did just as he had said.

the next morning all the livestock of the egyptians died, but the israelites didnt lose a single animal.. .

Doug Mason

elder-schmelder,

Your observation illustrates the careful attitude that needs to be taken with these ancient writings.

One must recognise the frequent use of hyperbole throughout these writings. While we might look at something for literal and technical precision, we need to cast our mind into culture of the time that the piece was written, as well as at the political ambitions of those writer(s).

The 9th chapter of Exodus was cobbled together from several sources. Verses 1-7 and 13-34 (which you refer to) come from the source now known as E. These writers were priests of Israel (as against Judah), so these passages were created after Judah and Israel had separated, and they were concerned with Israel. If you wish to know more about E, the other sources and the person who likely combined these sources, I suggest the book, "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman.

And after all this, we need to recogise that the original writings underwent subsequent editing, where further changes were introduced to suit the understandings at the times of the editors. Does that mean we do not know what the original writers actually wrote? Is it possible to unscramble an omelette?

Some suggest that the Israelites always were the hill-dwellers of Canaan and that these stories of Moses/Joshua were created to say they were living in a God-given land. These were the objectives of the stories, rather than being concerned about technical precisions such as you observed. There are no archaeological evidences for a large group wandering the desert, which would have been the case if they had wandered about it for 40 years, and the ruins of Jericho do not support the Biblical account.

So please read those words at Exodus 9 while keeping these external contexts ever in mind.

Doug

5

Did Daniel "Forget" the Ending of His Dream Prophecy?

by cameo-d in

.

daniel, however, forgot the "end" revealed to him, after an angel had shown him everything (genesis rabba xcviii.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/daniel_in_rabbinic_literature.

Doug Mason

To properly understand the book of Daniel, it is necessary to recognise WHEN it was written (about 164 BCE) and for what purpose (to provide strength and propaganda for the Jews/Israelites during their difficult times.)

Much has been speculated on the reasons for the two languages that Daniel is written in. Maybe some could put their ideas forward.

Daniel was not a prophet. He does not have the factors necessary for being called a prophet. He was not a priest and he never preached to God's people, only to heathen royalty. He never admonished the people for their waywardness, only pleading for them to God on their behalf. He did not fulfill the office of "prophet", and the Jews do not recognise Daniel as a prophet.

His name incorporates that of the God EL, not of the god named YHWH.

Because of its late composition, the book of Daniel contains wrong facts and the incorrect reading of Jeremiah's "70 years".

Doug

32

The Story of Adam and Eve, Sexist, Egotistical and Guilt-Inducing

by sabastious in

put yourself in the mind of an ignorant early human.

he can speak, he can understand his surroundings and can even chart the stars in the night sky.. .

one other thing this man can understand is injustice: when bad things happen to people who didnt do anything to deserve them.. .

Doug Mason

zid,

It is possible that the Israelites always were hill dwellers of Canaan, and that their priests created stories to make out that God had given them the land they were now occupying. Hence stories such as Moses and Joshua.

Doug

4

FDS, Holy Spirit, the Mole and Tinkerbell

by cameo-d in

as an outsider, it appears to me that this fds is kind of like a tinkerbell fairie.

and i wonder if according to wt, the holy spirit is portrayed in a similar light.. a jw once told me that the fds "reports" to the "(gb) authorities" concerning the acts and behavior of the congregation.

so at first i wondered if this was some kind of "mole" in the group.

Doug Mason

Seriously and technically, the GB represents the FDS, and the GB is responsible for teaching only the earthly members of the FDS (the balance of the 144,000 still on earth).

This means that the earthly FDS (some 10,000) are real people, but with no power or authority, the GB is dictatorship, and the heavenly spirit members of the FDS are figments of the GB's imagination.

It goes like this: the parable says that the FDS (and by implication the GB) is the sole representative on earth of God's heavenly Kingdom. How do they know that this is the way that this parable has to be understood? Because the GB says so. But how can we know that the GB is providing the correct explanation? Because it is the sole representative on earth of God's Kingdom. And around and around and around we go.

Doug

5

Did Daniel "Forget" the Ending of His Dream Prophecy?

by cameo-d in

.

daniel, however, forgot the "end" revealed to him, after an angel had shown him everything (genesis rabba xcviii.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/daniel_in_rabbinic_literature.

Doug Mason

When I read that Wiki article, I noted that it recognised that Daniel was not a prophet. His book is included in the Writings section of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I was about to list reasons why Daniel was not a prophet, but instead I thought I would ask others to do some research and provide the reasons.

Hint. I do not think the reason is that the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE, some 400 years after the Babylonian Captivity. (That is, the writer "predicted" events that had already taken place.) No, there are other reasons.

Doug