Posts by Doug Mason

13

Colossians 1:15,16 all (other) things

by truthwillsetyoufree in

this thread isn't meant to go into discussing how deceptive the society has been over the translation of this passage of scripture as that has been done many times on here.

what i want to know is this - the society has inserted the word other in the collosions verses and the one in philippians (above every (other) name).

they've done this for doctrinal matters.

Doug Mason

Truth ...,

We can rightly state that the WTS's NWT does not correctly represent the text that has been provided to it by Christendom. We can rightly say that it has allowed its theology (study of God) to influence its rendering. And for this it stands condemned - and this is a practice it follows regularly across citations of others.

However, we must always keep in mind that in amending the Scriptures according to its prejudices, it is following the practice of Hebrew and Christian redactors for at least 2500 years.

As a scroll was copied (there were not only perishable, they were in constant use), the texts were deliberately amended to make them suit the views of the period. About the 2nd century, the Jews removed all variants they did not agree with but by this time that text was severely corrupted. When the Masoretes invoked their regime of precise copying about 1000 years later, they set the corrupted text in concrete.

The text of the NT is likewise subject to opinion and interference. The Greek text used by the NWT comes from two 19th century Anglican Bishops. The KJV used a different Greek text - the "Textus Receptus". And the WTS is fully aware of disputed passages, which it does not include in its NWT. This shows how throughout the past 2000 years, people have misused their authority to get people to believe what they want the people to believe.

Further, when the 4th century Christian Church decided to create a list of accepted Scriptures, they selected those writings which it decided fitted in with their beliefs. So again we have an example of doctrine influencing the text.

The WTS is not justified in misrepresenting the text it has accepted, but it does follow millennia of tradition of playing with the text to make it say what the editor (redactor) wanted it to say.

Doug

13

Colossians 1:15,16 all (other) things

by truthwillsetyoufree in

this thread isn't meant to go into discussing how deceptive the society has been over the translation of this passage of scripture as that has been done many times on here.

what i want to know is this - the society has inserted the word other in the collosions verses and the one in philippians (above every (other) name).

they've done this for doctrinal matters.

Doug Mason

Tiger,

Colossians is one of the letters that is considered was not written by Paul.

Only 7 of the NT missives attributed to him are considered to be genuinely by him. And of those which are, some are compilations of several letters and some are missing (Laodicea, for example).

For the first two centuries, only "heretics" such as Marcion (mid-2nd century) used Paul's writings but the church fathers did not oppose him by quoting Paul's writings. At that stage, the church considered Paul's writings were not catholic (for the church as a whole) because they were written to a particular church over a specific incident.

Doug

13

Colossians 1:15,16 all (other) things

by truthwillsetyoufree in

this thread isn't meant to go into discussing how deceptive the society has been over the translation of this passage of scripture as that has been done many times on here.

what i want to know is this - the society has inserted the word other in the collosions verses and the one in philippians (above every (other) name).

they've done this for doctrinal matters.

Doug Mason

If you are really interested in deceptions in Colossians, you only need to look at the first word of the letter. It's a deception.

Doug

22

2 Cor 11:4 PROVES there were various versions of Jesus and gospels BEFORE the gospels

by yadda yadda 2 in

the gospels were written after paul's epistles.

this is commonly acknowledged by both apologist and neutural bible scholars.

yet we see that paul says clearly in 2 corinthians 11:4 that persons were preaching different versions of jesus and different gospels before the orthodox canonized gospels were written:.

Doug Mason

I write about the distance between Paul and Jerusalem in my Study:

http://www.jwstudies.com/2013_-_Did_a__Governing_Body__govern_Paul.pdf

A seminal work is "St Paul versus St Peter: A tale of Two Missions", by Michael Goulder, which influenced much of John Shelby Spong's writings.

Doug

22

2 Cor 11:4 PROVES there were various versions of Jesus and gospels BEFORE the gospels

by yadda yadda 2 in

the gospels were written after paul's epistles.

this is commonly acknowledged by both apologist and neutural bible scholars.

yet we see that paul says clearly in 2 corinthians 11:4 that persons were preaching different versions of jesus and different gospels before the orthodox canonized gospels were written:.

Doug Mason

I do not have a list, but I have seen some Bible commentators say that about 25% of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuinely his. I recall that one criterion that makes Jesus' words to be considered as genuine is when it is uncomfortable to the Church or unfulfilled. (There is a technical term that I do not recall). In other words, if Jesus said something that is obviously embarrassing to the church, yet they retained it, then it is considered to be genuine. ("This generation will not pass" would qualify, because by the time the story was written - and later included in the 4th century canon - it was clearly a disastrous pronouncement.)

I would appreciate any information if anyone has access to such studies.

One commentator writes that people believe that the words attributed to Jesus are genuine because the words are often written in red colour and the edge of the book has gold leaf applied.

Doug

11

Jesus use of illustrations in wt July 7-13

by What is Truth? in

this is the first time i noticed how dumb jc's use of illustrations could be if that's all he did in the context of.

matt.

13:10-15 ) so the disciples came and said to him: why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?

Doug Mason

It was not until the 4th century that a NT list was termed Canon.

The Church operated for 400 years at least before it had a Bible. The Church created the Bible based on what it considered to be orthodox ("right beliefs"). Beliefs created the Bible, not the other way around.

Regarding the NT writers: Paul was the chronologically first writer and his claim to fame was that Jesus visited him in visions. He says so. Paul also says that he received nothing about Jesus from other men. He says so. The earliest writers after Paul (died about 64 CE) lived about the time of Jerusleam's destruction, which is a generation after Jesus' death. No one knows the names of the Gospel writers. Only later tradition assigned names; one criterion for accepting a writing into the NT was "apostolicity", so an Apostle's name was assigned to each (apart from the Greek Luke).

There was no consciousness of a biblical canon in the first century; the earliest list was by the (supposed) heretic Marcion.

Out of interest, took at the llist of books in the earliest known Codices (and their dates). (The Jews used scrolls; the Christians used the codex format.)

Doug

22

2 Cor 11:4 PROVES there were various versions of Jesus and gospels BEFORE the gospels

by yadda yadda 2 in

the gospels were written after paul's epistles.

this is commonly acknowledged by both apologist and neutural bible scholars.

yet we see that paul says clearly in 2 corinthians 11:4 that persons were preaching different versions of jesus and different gospels before the orthodox canonized gospels were written:.

Doug Mason

clarity,

I include a discussion on the Jewish expectations of the "Anointed"/"Mesach" (Messiah) in my Study at:

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

Jesus says that when the Son of Man comes "he" will reward. Why does Jesus not say "I" will reward? Perhaps his riding into Jerusalem in victory indicates that as the Romans said, he planned to make himself the "King" in the kingdom that some "Son of Man" would soon set up (with his friend Judas as an accomplice???). Jesus repeatedly spoke of the "Kingdom" - which he was fully expecting to come in his time - hence his continuous focus on it. He was wrong.

Doug

11

Jesus use of illustrations in wt July 7-13

by What is Truth? in

this is the first time i noticed how dumb jc's use of illustrations could be if that's all he did in the context of.

matt.

13:10-15 ) so the disciples came and said to him: why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?

Doug Mason

It might fit in with Matthew 7:6 (“Do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw your pearls before swine.”)

Rather than ask what Jesus meant, ask yourself who were the writers and why did they say this? Whom were they talking about and talking to?

Always remember that not one of the NT writers had actually seen or heard Jesus. They were writing a generation later, and each writing group was operating with religio-political agendas that developed since Jesus' death.

We can safely say that the "Matthew" authors were part of the Jewish-Christian community. That group, originally based at Jerusalem, operated in opposition to Paul, who was based at Antioch. I do not know, but it is not impossible that the "Matthew" writing group were throwing a few barbs at their Gentile-Christian "brethren".

Looking at the Bible from the outside in provides a valuable understanding.

Doug

56

Is this a new "This Generation" or not?

by Doug Mason in

first of all i want to express my sincere gratitude to atlantis and his good friends for making this 2014 book available.. ------------.

as i see it, and i am absolutely open to contradiction, the wts appears to be giving another new meaning to this generation.

this time the term means all of his anointed followers, including his immediate disciples.

Doug Mason

Of course Russell and his friends did not have the current "understanding" of 1914. They anticipated that 1914 would usher in unprecedented peace under the rule of the Zionists.

And we can see how peaceful they are.

Doug

56

Is this a new "This Generation" or not?

by Doug Mason in

first of all i want to express my sincere gratitude to atlantis and his good friends for making this 2014 book available.. ------------.

as i see it, and i am absolutely open to contradiction, the wts appears to be giving another new meaning to this generation.

this time the term means all of his anointed followers, including his immediate disciples.

Doug Mason

I suppose the sentence that interested me is: "The apostles would soon be anointedwith holy spirit" (italics are mine). And Jesus was speaking to them "privately" (as he does to the GB). So is the WTS including the apostles (or disciples) whom Jesus was speaking to as part of "this generation"?

If it were saying this, then their "this generation" continues until there is no more "anointed one" (on Earth), making it quite open-ended and unrelated to a time period, or maybe no longer related to 1914.

Of course, the argument would be raised that when Jesus said these to his apostles (disciples?), they were not yet part of the WTS's "anointed" so they were not yet part of "this generation".

Or am I crediting the WTS with too much thinking ability in this para?

Doug