Posts by Doug Mason

24

Bible Teach book

by factfinder in

the revised edition of the bible teach book is up on jw.org with a new cover..

Doug Mason

Exactly where has it been revised?

Thanks,

Doug

25

Watchtower 'Experts' on Being Gay?

by jw07 in

have you seen this article?.

the watchtower is trying to be experts on all things having to do with human sexuality.. repressing sexual desires, gay or straight only creates more problems.. http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/family/teenagers/ask/pressure-to-be-gay/.

.

Doug Mason

SoJo,

Your comment about the force that a piece of paper has reminded me of my paternal grandparents. (I know this story is a total distraction, but it is informative).

My grandparents lived during the Austria-Hungary empire. Austria does not recognise religious marriages; it only recognises civil ceremonies conducted under the auspices of the State. That situation did not interest my Jewish Grandparents: they were fully satisfied that their union had been blessed by their Rabbi.

But as far as the State was concerned, they were not legally married and the Birth certificates of their first 3 children were marked as "illegitimate". Finally, in 1907, when she was carrying their 4th child, they bowed to the State's pressures and they went through a civil ceremony in Vienna. Their children's certificates were retrospectively amended.

It was not unknown for a Jewish couple to go through a civil ceremony after having lived together for 60 years after receiving their Rabbi's blessing. My gradmother was permanently listed as illegitimate because her mother died before her parents had a civil ceremony, only a religious one by their Rabbi.

The power of the State; the power of a piece of paper.

I suppose the legal situation is not dissimilar for modren same-sex couples when it comes to passing on the estate of a deceased partner, or regarding the legal status of their children. Although I think that is addressed in the State where I live, even though same-sex unions are not legal here in Oz.

Doug

25

Watchtower 'Experts' on Being Gay?

by jw07 in

have you seen this article?.

the watchtower is trying to be experts on all things having to do with human sexuality.. repressing sexual desires, gay or straight only creates more problems.. http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/family/teenagers/ask/pressure-to-be-gay/.

.

Doug Mason

I always find it interesting how modern religions have difficulty handling the subject of sexual relations. They fail to see the subject as natural and encompassing a wide range of acceptable experiences. I am not speaking of extremes such as institutionally enforced celibacy or religious leaders who are guilty of sexual abuse but of the Church's inability to treat the subject maturely and to get out of areas where it has no role.

How do they relate to people born with both male and female genitalia? How do they relate to people whose internal genetic makeup is of one sex while their body is that of the other sex?

How can a person's sexuality be considered a "sin"?

Doug

32

Series of articles about the March 15, 2015 Watchtower on AD1914.com

by Gilgamesh in

over the next 5 weeks, we should have 5 or 6 articles/posts that will provide more commentary on the march 15, 2015 watchtower.

important doctrinal changes in march 15th, 2015 watchtower (study edition) explained wp.me/p4cpzs-xo .

http://ad1914.com/2014/04/20/new-important-doctrinal-changes-in-march-15th-watchtower-study-edition-explained-clarified/.

Doug Mason

You raise the very interesting issue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream at Daniel 4.

If the WTS has dropped the type-antitype model, how do they maintain their idea that there was a 2520-year hiatus of the Kingdom of God, terminating the period in 1914? Or is that due for the chop too?

The Bible says that the dream was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar's 7-year experience. The WTS claims that his 7-year experience lasted 2520 days, and that it was the type for a 2520-year experience of God's kingdom. It was always bizarre that the WTS has God's kingdom symbolised by the King of Babylon.

Doug

4

"Son of God", "Son of Man"

by Doug Mason in

fulltimestudent,.

boyarins book the jewish gospels: the story of the jewish christ poses challenges and each needs to be tested.. his dominant themes, as far as i can make out, are that the term son of god comes from the anointing (messiah/christ) of king david, whereas the term son of man derives from the divine figure at daniel 7. for boyarin, therefore, son of god refers to jesus humanity whereas son of man refers to his perceived divinity.. he correctly writes: oceans of ink and forests of trees have given their substance so that humans could continue to argue about where the term son of man came from and what it means.

and boyarins is an added voice.. i am not saying whether i am necessarily in agreement with him or not; i need to examine every instance where these expressions are employed by nt writers and come to my own conclusion.

Doug Mason

fulltimestudent,

When you read the OT, you are reading the views of only one voice, the priestly Yahwists who were determined to have all worship centralised at their location, Jerusalem. You are reading their propaganda.

The fact is that other sectors of the Hebrew community were not monotheists, which is the reason for the complaints and assertions that needed to be made by the Yahwists. For example, when the general Hebrew populace (typified through the power group known as the People of the Land) accepted YHWH, they assigned EL's wife Asherah to him. And they worshiped both YHWH and Asherah together. Consider the references to her in the OT.

It is, of course, more complex than can be described here, but EL was the supreme God in charge of the elohim comprising 70 Gods. YHWH was a minor, warlike, angry god, in contrast to nature of EL. Gradually, the Hebrews (the hill-dwelling Canaanite tribes) took on YHWH from their neighbours. Other gods, such as Baal, figure in the mix (consider the bull at Sinai), but as I indicate, you need to study books that are devoted to the subject. I have listed some of these books on recent threads (exactly which, I do not recall, but not so long ago).

Doug

4

"Son of God", "Son of Man"

by Doug Mason in

fulltimestudent,.

boyarins book the jewish gospels: the story of the jewish christ poses challenges and each needs to be tested.. his dominant themes, as far as i can make out, are that the term son of god comes from the anointing (messiah/christ) of king david, whereas the term son of man derives from the divine figure at daniel 7. for boyarin, therefore, son of god refers to jesus humanity whereas son of man refers to his perceived divinity.. he correctly writes: oceans of ink and forests of trees have given their substance so that humans could continue to argue about where the term son of man came from and what it means.

and boyarins is an added voice.. i am not saying whether i am necessarily in agreement with him or not; i need to examine every instance where these expressions are employed by nt writers and come to my own conclusion.

Doug Mason

Hi NCC-1701,

Thank you!

I have sent you a pm. Rest assured I shall not pester you with emails nor will I disclose your email address.

Doug

4

"Son of God", "Son of Man"

by Doug Mason in

fulltimestudent,.

boyarins book the jewish gospels: the story of the jewish christ poses challenges and each needs to be tested.. his dominant themes, as far as i can make out, are that the term son of god comes from the anointing (messiah/christ) of king david, whereas the term son of man derives from the divine figure at daniel 7. for boyarin, therefore, son of god refers to jesus humanity whereas son of man refers to his perceived divinity.. he correctly writes: oceans of ink and forests of trees have given their substance so that humans could continue to argue about where the term son of man came from and what it means.

and boyarins is an added voice.. i am not saying whether i am necessarily in agreement with him or not; i need to examine every instance where these expressions are employed by nt writers and come to my own conclusion.

Doug Mason

fulltimestudent,

Boyarin’s book “The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ” poses challenges and each needs to be tested.

His dominant themes, as far as I can make out, are that the term “Son of God” comes from the anointing (Messiah/Christ) of King David, whereas the term “Son of Man” derives from the divine figure at Daniel 7. For Boyarin, therefore, “Son of God” refers to Jesus’ humanity whereas “Son of Man” refers to his perceived divinity.

He correctly writes: “Oceans of ink and forests of trees have given their substance so that humans could continue to argue about where the term ‘Son of Man’ came from and what it means”. And Boyarin’s is an added voice.

I am not saying whether I am necessarily in agreement with him or not; I need to examine every instance where these expressions are employed by NT writers and come to my own conclusion. Comments by his supporters and critics will also need to be studied. His ideas need to be seriously examined.

I am interested to know what your research reveals, remembering that as you seek opinions, that people are prone to defend their previous conclusions.

I produced a bullet-point summary Chapter 1 of Boyarin’s book for myself. You are most welcome to it; I provide my email address in my studies.

Doug

45

About the ten plagues in Egypt

by runForever in

alot of people are saying god is cruel for killing the firstborns and animals and people in the ten plagues.

but didn't god achieve his goal of making nations and people be in fear of him?.

Doug Mason

Cold Steel,

There is no universally accepted Bible. Do not bring in irrelevancies.

With the OT, some bodies accept the MT, others the LXX, while we have many other sources, such as Symmachus, Symmachus and Theodotian; there is no agreement between the Church of Rome and Protestants, and you can throw the Orthodox into the mix. Consider also the TANAKH.

Differences exist with the NT, where some swear by the Textus Receptus, others accept Westcott-Hort, others take on an eclectic mix (e.g., the NIV). Add to that the books still accepted by some Christian Churches, including the Orthodox. I believe I am correct in saying that Codex Siniaticus includes Barnabas, and the early church accepted other writings as Scripture until the Paulines dominated and accepted only their own writings as sacred.

The Roman Catholics are the only Church to vote on which books were sacred and hence constitute the Bible. They conducted that vote at the Council of Trent in the 15th century. Ironically, Protestants accept the list of books based on Tradition.

While it is instructive to note the writings that the early church rejected, it is also significant to note the extensive use of apocryphal writings throughout the NT. Read the book of Enoch, for example, to see its influence on the ideas of Son of Man or on the Millennium that figures in Revelation.

Doug

19

Christmas markets - apparently fine for JW's to attend

by FeelingFree in

this has got me really wound up and i feel the need to post.

our friend an ex jw has just returned from a famous christmas market in germany, now my husband mentioned this to his mum as they have connections there.

she got all excited about how amazing the german christmas markets are there and how she would of def gone to one this year if she had the time!

Doug Mason

I just posted a non-religious but respective Xmas card along with a small pressie (2 DVD's with hundreds of old WTS periodicals) wrapped in non-religious Xmas paper to a couple of local JW families. I wonder if I will ever find out what they thought.

Doug

29

Greek Mythology influence on New Testament

by Magnum in

a few days ago, i was in a book store, and i picked up a book providing a brief overview of classical mythology.

as i examined the opening pages, i read about tartaurus (place of punishment) and hades (god of the underworld).. it seems so odd that tartarus and hades would be mentioned in the new testament, and yet they were part of greek mythology which predated the new testament.

why would bible writers have used such terms?

Doug Mason

Magnum,

To understand the Bible (and any writing for that matter) come to terms with the culture, religo-politics, concepts, idioms, geography, and so on and on at the time when something was written. Each group was writing (and rewriting) to its own immediate community, with the purpose of influencing it.

This does not mean whether there is a God or not. It simply means that the Bible (which did not come into existence for many centuries after Jesus) is not the Word of God. Do not feel the need to throw God out with the rejection of the Bible, although you might ultimately reached that stage, when you find it comfortable to do so.

Doug