Posts by Doug Mason

16

587 B.C.E vs 607 B.C.E

by fade_away in

the latest oct. watchtower has an article that seems to be controversial amongst us "apostates.

" it's a long complicated article with tons of confusing names and dates, but in the end it sums it up and says:.

"to sum up: the bible clearly states that there was an exile of 70 years.

Doug Mason

I had to correct a word in my brief Commentary.

I am sure others will find more. Please let me know.

Doug

224

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

by wannabefree in

obviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.

Doug Mason

While you wait for expert rebuttal of the article, you might be interested in my first amateurish endeavour.

http://www.jwstudies.com/Commentary_on_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf

Since I obviously put it together very quickly, I will appreciate all criticisms. omissions, etc.

Doug

16

587 B.C.E vs 607 B.C.E

by fade_away in

the latest oct. watchtower has an article that seems to be controversial amongst us "apostates.

" it's a long complicated article with tons of confusing names and dates, but in the end it sums it up and says:.

"to sum up: the bible clearly states that there was an exile of 70 years.

Doug Mason

While you wait for expert rebuttal of the article, you might be interested in my first endeavour.

http://www.jwstudies.com/Commentary_on_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf

Since I obviously put it together very quickly, I will appreciate all criticisms. omisions, etc.

Doug

224

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

by wannabefree in

obviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.

Doug Mason

The key date for the article is October 537 BCE.

Does the article prove that date? It cannot be based solely on the numbers of sources, or else the 587/586 date would be proven on the basis of that reasoning.

Not that the date of 537 is universally accepted by secular sources, with some aligning with 538 and others with 536, even 535.

Not that any Bible writer thought it significant enough to bother dating the moment of their return. Ezra aligns the end of the Seventy Years with Cyrus' decree, which was given in his first year (was Nisan accession year reckoning used or Tishri non-accession, or ... ?)

It's interesting to see that this article has completely forgotten the iron-clad determination of earlier years where, in accord with the book of Daniel, a king Darius ruled by himself before Cyrus ascended the Babylonian throne.

Would anyone here be able to prove -- and I do mean prove -- that the first Jews returned in 537 BCE?

The article demands pure and absolute removal of all people before their "70 years" can begin, yet is quite prepared for the returnees to go back to their villages, settle down and then later trek through the land before the WTS's "70 years" comes to an end.

Doug

79

Why did the Ethiopian require "explanation" of scripture in Acts 8?

by sabastious in

acts 8 29-31: 29 the spirit told philip, go to that chariot and stay near it.. 30 then philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading isaiah the prophet.

do you understand what you are reading?

philip asked.. 31 how can i, he said, unless someone explains it to me?

Doug Mason

Once more I write personal observations.

The Ethiopian was riding in a carriage/chariot; he possessed a Hebrew scroll; he was able to read Greek. (Given the description of him, it is reasonable to assume he could also write in some language.) He was reading the Isaiah scroll after going to worship at Jerusalem. (Since he was not aware of Jesus, I assume he was a Jew.) These are in line with the description that he was a person of high position and learning.

To me, the key point being addressed by the writer is at verse 34: "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" (NIV)

The Christians were attempting to convince Jews that their own Scriptures predicted this person Jesus/Yeshua, and this story at Acts was a vehicle employed as part of the Christians' strategy. In this case, the Christians were trying to reapply Isa 53:7, 8 to their dead leader, while the Jews were telling them it was referring to the time of Isaiah (the Jews were correct, of course).

The rest of the story, such as the Spirit angel having a chat with Philip, are padding which was added to give authenticity to the story.

--------------

While thinking about this black man I was reminded about my beef that the artists of the Middle Ages and those employed by the WTS show the faces of Jesus, his disciples, the early church, and others as pale-faced Europeans/Americans. Sure they place loose cloths garbed around the heads and bodies of their subjects, but the artists clearly make the vasiages unmistakeably Occidental.

Those people are of the Middle East, darker, swarthy, wrinkled by the sun and the sand. They are not namby pamby people from the courts of Italy or from the health studios of Western culture.

Just thinking aloud.

Doug

79

Why did the Ethiopian require "explanation" of scripture in Acts 8?

by sabastious in

acts 8 29-31: 29 the spirit told philip, go to that chariot and stay near it.. 30 then philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading isaiah the prophet.

do you understand what you are reading?

philip asked.. 31 how can i, he said, unless someone explains it to me?

Doug Mason

From the outset, let me say that I do not have the absolute answer. But a few principles of study might help.

To answer such a question, first discover the context. ("A text without a context is a pretext".)

Look at its litererary and theological placement in the broad theme of the writing, not just the immediate verses but also the adjacent chapters and the overall structure of the writing.

More importantly, unearth the cultural context. When was it written, by whom, what was the purpose of that sector of the Church, and against which "heresy" were they aiming their material. Everything was written for a purpose; they were not creating nursery tales that were aimed simply to amuse. Where was it written, what were their idioms, understandings, and such.

The Acts of the Apostles was not the only "Acts" written at that time, so investigate and compare those. The "final" decision on the canon of Scripture was not made until centuries later, by the sector of the church that became dominant.

The Acts of the Apostles is recognised as historically unreliable, where the writer presented stories in the manner that it was wished should have happened. It was penned about the end of the first century, some 40 years after Paul's death, and at a time of great stress within the Movement.

Their leader had been put to death, the promised imminent coming had not taken place, and they were struggling to make sense of what was happening. The Jews only understood that the Messiah would be a fearful powerful warrior king, removing all foes from God's land and people. This Jesus/Joshua was nothing like all that the Scriptures said about the Messiah. The Jews knew nothing about the Messiah coming twice.

So with the Christians at the end of the first century becoming a laughing stock at focusing on this dead Messiah, the Christians responded by searching the Hebrew Scriptures to explain the reason for their predicament, and in the process silence and hopefully denigrate the Jews. Anti-Semitism finds its roots, and this results in many anti-Semitic sentiments being introduced into the Christian literature.

When they were able to find a few Hebrew texts that might have just the faintest relevance to Jesus, the Christians twisted the original meanings to make them appear relevant. Texts such as at Isa 7, Isa 53, and Ps 22 in particular were re-engineered to take them away from their original meaning so they could make them instead be applied to their dead leader.

So it is possible that it did not matter what part of Isaiah the Ethiopean was said to be reading; that would not have been the writers' concern or objective.

Consider, also that the use of an Ethiopean might have been relevant to the location where the Acts of the Apostles might have been written, Alexandria.

And there was a number of significant black early Church Fathers.

Doug

18

Whatever you do, arrive at 1914

by Doug Mason in

the wts claims that the length of babylons king nebuchadnezzars suppressed state symbolised the suppressed state of gods kingdom.

each day of the heathen kings lack of control represented a year of heathen supremacy.. .

since nebuchadnezzars experience was symbolic, it would have ended before the fulfilment started; unfortunately the hebrews scriptures do not specify that moment.

Doug Mason

Daniel 2: A dream shows that Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom (head of gold) will be replaced with subsequent kingdoms.

Daniel 3: A huge image entirely of gold (Babylon will never be replaced).

Daniel 4 (v 30 especially): Nebuchadnezzar boasts that Babylon's glory is solely due to him. Story ends with Nebuchadnezzar acknowledging the supreme role of the Hebrews' God.

There is thus a continuing theme, a composite objective of these stories. They employ mythical elements (a fire that burns selectively?) and other elements that better fit a superstitious culture.

To whom were this set of stories addressed? What message of comfort or divine purpose did they contain? The messages had to have meaning for the community they were being addressed to, where the circumstance confronting Daniel and his cohorts was being repeated. Such considerations are among several that point to these stories being collected, assembled, and promoted during the persecution of the 2nd century BCE.

These stories had meaning to the intended audience without raising the suspicions of their terrifying persecutors. Understanding the 2nd century context of the book of Daniel provides meaning to its contents.

Doug

22

True Authorship of New Testament

by QED in

hi everyone.. i'm new here and this is the first time im posting.

about myself: i come from china and have been living in the uk.

5 years ago, i began to attend meetings and study the bible with jw in a chinese congregation, but never baptised.

Doug Mason

Band,

You name several sources, of whom I have only one on my bookshelf: Dominic Crossan (“Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography”).

I was unable to locate any comment in that book where he says forgery was acceptable to the primitive Christian church, so you will need to give me the location and context of his words.

Since I have no books by these other people you nominate, you will need to be kind enough to do the same for each of them. I have 45 years experience of seeing the WTS supposedly cite a source, only to discover that the source was being misrepresented or misquoted.

I have no real penchant for ringing people in USA, but it should be possible to ask this Prof. Pagels by email on his/her views on the acceptability of the bible’s forgeries. I would appreciate your providing his/her email address, since you appear to have ready contact.

Thanks,

Doug

22

True Authorship of New Testament

by QED in

hi everyone.. i'm new here and this is the first time im posting.

about myself: i come from china and have been living in the uk.

5 years ago, i began to attend meetings and study the bible with jw in a chinese congregation, but never baptised.

Doug Mason

Several NT writings were not penned by their alleged authors. This makes them forgeries, products of the intent to deceive.

It is beyond my belief that it would be said that the early Christian community tolerated forgery, fraud, and deceit. That would run counter to Jesus’ alleged words: “Watch out for deceivers”.

Today, forgery, misrepresentation, and deception are punishable as criminal, and there is no indication they were tolerated at the time the NT writings were created.

Earlier, the desire to root out such heinous practices resulted in the euphoria experienced by Archimedes. Today, forgery, fraud, and deceit can result in lengthy incarceration.

What would anyone say today should I write a book or article and then publish it with the claim that it was they who was the author? Utter outrage, at the very least. And deservedly so.

There is much evidence which identifies those canonised writings that were falsely identified as written by someone else. Why do people perpetuate the myth that these practices were acceptable to the early church?

It is quite ironic, yet revealing at the same time, that the forged writing now known as 2 Thessalonians, should warn people against forgeries that were being put out in Paul’s name: “We ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us .” (2 Thess. 2:1-2, NIV)

A revealing study, yet by no means unique, is “Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are”, Bart Ehrman.

Doug

22

True Authorship of New Testament

by QED in

hi everyone.. i'm new here and this is the first time im posting.

about myself: i come from china and have been living in the uk.

5 years ago, i began to attend meetings and study the bible with jw in a chinese congregation, but never baptised.

Doug Mason

Band,

I am not certain if your sensitivities were touched by my comments, or not. Please do not get personally offended by me, as none was ever intended.

My position is that no two of us has the same beliefs or understandings. These are moulded over the years through our many encounters, which we check against our pre-existing models. Many encounters will cause us to make adjustments to our models.

Often what we are hearing or reading, regardless of the impeccable source that it might be, often produces an outcome in the hearer or reader that the speaker or writer had never intended or even forseen.

You set out your qualifications, so I give you mine: University of Hard Knocks, Faculty of Life.

Doug