Posts by Doug Mason

13

Was Jesus a hypocrite?

by James Mixon in

jesus spoke of loving your enemy, matt.5:43, luke 6:26, but look what is said in.

mark 16:51,16 "go preach but who ever does not believe his ass will be set on fire".. i don't think that is good news.

hell if that is love, what the hell is hate.

Doug Mason

James,

These three Gospels - Mark, Matthew, and then Luke - were written by different people at different times for different readerships for very different purposes.

No NT writer, including these, either saw or heard Jesus. They relied on the traditions that were passed on in their respective communities.

So it should not be any surprise that they disagreed with one another.

The initial Christians were not documenters (probably not literate). They fully expected the Coming and God's Kingdom to take place shortly, so why write? Even Jesus - who shared their expectations - did not write anything.

The earliest NT record comes from Paul, and he does not describe Jesus' life or his words. He too expected Jesus to "come" during his lifetime, and his letters address short-term local issues based on the final days of Jesus' life.

The Gospels started to emerge after Paul's death, after the destruction of Jerusalem. "Luke" was not even a Jew, His Gospel is as unreliable as his book of Acts.

An interesting direction of research would be to study scholarly works that seek to determine which of the words ascribed to Jesus were likely genuinely uttered by him. I have seen estimates that 25% can be considered as genuine.

Doug

7

The mythical meaning of the “Lord’s Supper” was revealed to Paul by Christ, not by any man

by Doug Mason in

the following is from: christian beginnings, geza vermes pages 91, 92, 98.

paul inherited from his predecessors a second great cult practice, the communal meal, referred to as the breaking of the bread as well as thanksgiving or eucharist in greek.

as in the case of baptism, paul supplied a new meaning to the community meal and turned it into an imitation and repetition of the lords supper.

Doug Mason

half banana,

I touch only briefly on Paul's Hellenism on pages 76-77 of my Study, "The Babylonian Exile shaped the future" (mentioned in the above Thread: : http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Babylonian_Exile_shaped_the_future.pdf). As I write in my Study, I skip across a lake of deep, moving waters, barely touching the surface.

I am very tempted to flesh out your idea on Paul's non-Jewish influences, so I would appreciate any scholarly references. I already have Maccoboy's book and another whose name is just outside the reach of my memory,

Take Paul out of the NT (and those writings by his adherents) and very very little is left. And Paul had no idea he was writing Scripture - his focus lay with the imminent Coming and Kingdom of God.

Doug

17

Only 144,000 saved in 2000 years?

by LevelThePlayingField in

so i phoned an elder in the cong and asked him: "when did the calling for the great crowd start, was it 1935?

he said, "no, i think i remember a convention talk about 1950.

" so anyway, i said, "so then let's say in the 20th century right?

Doug Mason

As I understand it, all people who did not get the opportunity to become a follower of the WTS will get their chance by being resurrected during the "1000 years" and being given that opportunity.

Let's guess that means 10 billion people would be given that chance to obey the Watch Tower Society.

If 1 million were to be resurrected each and every day, imagine the task awaiting the "faithful", knowing that another million will pop out of the depths. And how many years would that go on for?! (Let's say, 30 years.) How would the "faithful few JWs manage?

Sounds like pure bliss, not!

Doug

6

“The Babylonian Exile shaped the future”

by Doug Mason in

the theme of my study, the babylonian exile shaped the future, is simple:.

(1) the hebrews considered themselves to be gods chosen people, yet israel had been dispersed by the assyrians and judah was dominated by egypt and then by babylon..

(2) in response to judahs captivity, its prophets promised the nation that god would restore them to their rightful position and that god would forever maintain the throne of david..

Doug Mason

The theme of my Study, “The Babylonian Exile shaped the future”, is simple:

(1) The Hebrews considered themselves to be “God’s Chosen People”, yet Israel had been dispersed by the Assyrians and Judah was dominated by Egypt and then by Babylon.

(2) In response to Judah’s captivity, its prophets promised the nation that God would restore them to their rightful position and that God would forever maintain the throne of David.

(3) When exiles returned from Babylon, they set about creating a nation that was faithful to God.

(4) Centuries passed but the Hebrews remained oppressed by successive Gentile powers. In response, the Jews anticipated imminent divine intervention.

(5) Followers of Jesus Christ applied the prophets’ promises to their leaders and to themselves, anticipating an imminent divine intervention.

(6) In every succeeding century, people kept expecting divine intervention during their life.

In this way, the neo-Babylonian Exile casts its shadow forward throughout history.

It is available at: http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Babylonian_Exile_shaped_the_future.pdf

Doug

7

The mythical meaning of the “Lord’s Supper” was revealed to Paul by Christ, not by any man

by Doug Mason in

the following is from: christian beginnings, geza vermes pages 91, 92, 98.

paul inherited from his predecessors a second great cult practice, the communal meal, referred to as the breaking of the bread as well as thanksgiving or eucharist in greek.

as in the case of baptism, paul supplied a new meaning to the community meal and turned it into an imitation and repetition of the lords supper.

Doug Mason

The following is from: Christian Beginnings, Geza Vermes pages 91, 92, 98

Paul inherited from his predecessors a second great cult practice, the communal meal, referred to as the ‘breaking of the bread’ as well as ‘thanksgiving’ or eucharist in Greek. As in the case of baptism, Paul supplied a new meaning to the community meal and turned it into an imitation and repetition of the ‘Lord’s Supper’. …

Paul implies that the mythical significance of this meal was revealed to him directly by Christ: ‘I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you’ (1 Cor. 11:23). He does not say that it came to him through apostolic tradition as the story of the death, burial and resurrection of the Saviour: ‘I handed over to you what I in turn had received’ (1 Cor. 15:3). If my understanding is correct, the mystical significance of the Last Supper must not be attributed to the Synoptic evangelists composing their accounts between ad 70 and 100, but to Paul writing in the early 50s. It seems that the idea entered the tradition of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew through Luke, Paul’s disciple, whose Last Supper account mirrors that of his teacher. Only Paul and Luke mention Jesus’ command relating to the repetition of the ritual. For Paul the rite comprised a twofold allegory: the participation of the believers in the redemptive acts of the death and resurrection of Christ, and their assimilation into the mystical body of Jesus and the church. … The breaking of the bread or the ‘Lord’s Supper’, as perceived through Paul’s eyes, became the cornerstone of the cultic edifice of Gentile Christianity in his day and has remained so ever since.

None of the letters of Paul include a general code of behaviour for members of his churches. As a rule, he offered them, in the concluding part of several of his letters, a long or short list of moral rules inspired by, and reflecting, the Jewish ethics of the age….

It is remarkable that neither the Pastoral Epistles nor the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles assign any particular role to the bishops and presbyters in the conduct of the Lord’s Supper. Their duties were exclusively didactic and pastoral. The Eucharist was a communal ceremony and the other principal rite, baptism, also could be administered by anyone.

16

The canonised Old Testament is no different from the Apocrypha except with more scary fables and mythology

by fukitol in

the apocryphal books are accepted by catholics in their douay version as inspired of god, but rejected by the rest of christianity?.

why?.

when you examine the reasons for and against acceptance of the apocrypha as divinely inspired or not, it dawns on you that the traditionally accepted 39 books of the hebrew scriptures are nothing but the same sort of stuff as the more recent apocryphal books are, with the only difference being that the 39 much older ot books contain a lot more scary stories, fables and mythology invented by the ancient jewish priesthood to frighten their followers into fear and obedience and continued giving of meat sacrifices for the priests to eat.. ultimately, the ot can be summarised as nothing but a mixture of relatively accurate historical jewish war histories and genealogies, such as the aprocrypha is, mingled with scary stories made up by the ancient jewish priests and scribes..

Doug Mason

Connie,

Hippo is in Algeria, North Africa. A Synod was held at that time, not a Council. And the decision made in North Africa corresponds with the canon later accepted by the Church of Rome. I presume but do not know if Rome was invited to Hippo.

The power base of early Christianity lay in North Africa - Carthage and Alexandria in particular, with the Eastern Church having great influence (as per the Council of Nicea, where Rome was an observer only).

The 4th and 5th centuries saw the bloodiest conflicts between Christians, based solely on doctrinal differences (think of the current civil war among Muslim sects, but many times worse). These conflicts weakened the Christian Church's hold in North Africa, enabling the Muslims to take over, and Christianity moved northwards to Europe, and thus Christianity became a European religion, with its Middle Eastern origins taken over by European cultures.

Doug

16

The canonised Old Testament is no different from the Apocrypha except with more scary fables and mythology

by fukitol in

the apocryphal books are accepted by catholics in their douay version as inspired of god, but rejected by the rest of christianity?.

why?.

when you examine the reasons for and against acceptance of the apocrypha as divinely inspired or not, it dawns on you that the traditionally accepted 39 books of the hebrew scriptures are nothing but the same sort of stuff as the more recent apocryphal books are, with the only difference being that the 39 much older ot books contain a lot more scary stories, fables and mythology invented by the ancient jewish priesthood to frighten their followers into fear and obedience and continued giving of meat sacrifices for the priests to eat.. ultimately, the ot can be summarised as nothing but a mixture of relatively accurate historical jewish war histories and genealogies, such as the aprocrypha is, mingled with scary stories made up by the ancient jewish priests and scribes..

Doug Mason

opusdei,

Those early Christians were focused on the person, now known as Jesus Christ. The initial Christians were not interested in writing - even their Leader Jesus left nothing in writing. The earliest written material comes from 49 CE by the Apostle Paul - who never witnessed Jesus. Indeed, none of the writers either saw or heard Jesus.

Paul's writings were local instructions covering specific topics, never intended to be read as Scripture. This attitude gradually changed as we see in the letters falsely attributed to Peter, written about 150 CE.

Paul was focused completely on local issues because he fully expected Jesus to return during his own lifetime. Paul had no vision for a long future( which is one reason we know he did not write those letters that discuss organisational matters, such as the appointment of elders.)

When they started to document their thoughts, these writers searched the Hebrew texts with the sole intent of supporting their predetermined ideas about a Person - Jesus Christ. So they selectively quoted texts that they could twist to mean that the Hebrew texts applied to Jesus. So they did not quote texts because they considered them to be "inspired".

The writers of the NT never claim that their writings were "inspired". The sole text brought up by Fundamentalists uses a unique word "theopneustos" - literally meaning "God-breathed", but used only once (by someone who pretended to be Paul - so much for his/her inspiration).

A small but very interesting book, "A High View of Scripture?" by Allert puts a lot of this into perspective.

Investigate "Higher Criticism".

Doug

16

The canonised Old Testament is no different from the Apocrypha except with more scary fables and mythology

by fukitol in

the apocryphal books are accepted by catholics in their douay version as inspired of god, but rejected by the rest of christianity?.

why?.

when you examine the reasons for and against acceptance of the apocrypha as divinely inspired or not, it dawns on you that the traditionally accepted 39 books of the hebrew scriptures are nothing but the same sort of stuff as the more recent apocryphal books are, with the only difference being that the 39 much older ot books contain a lot more scary stories, fables and mythology invented by the ancient jewish priesthood to frighten their followers into fear and obedience and continued giving of meat sacrifices for the priests to eat.. ultimately, the ot can be summarised as nothing but a mixture of relatively accurate historical jewish war histories and genealogies, such as the aprocrypha is, mingled with scary stories made up by the ancient jewish priests and scribes..

Doug Mason

For a comprehensive and detailed listing of "quotations, allusions and parallels to the New Testament", see "Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature", pages 342 - 409, by Craig A. Evans (Baker Academic, 2005).

The same book provides a comprehensive summary of "The Old Testament Apocrypha" (pages 9-25) and also of "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" (pages 26-75).

Doug

16

The canonised Old Testament is no different from the Apocrypha except with more scary fables and mythology

by fukitol in

the apocryphal books are accepted by catholics in their douay version as inspired of god, but rejected by the rest of christianity?.

why?.

when you examine the reasons for and against acceptance of the apocrypha as divinely inspired or not, it dawns on you that the traditionally accepted 39 books of the hebrew scriptures are nothing but the same sort of stuff as the more recent apocryphal books are, with the only difference being that the 39 much older ot books contain a lot more scary stories, fables and mythology invented by the ancient jewish priesthood to frighten their followers into fear and obedience and continued giving of meat sacrifices for the priests to eat.. ultimately, the ot can be summarised as nothing but a mixture of relatively accurate historical jewish war histories and genealogies, such as the aprocrypha is, mingled with scary stories made up by the ancient jewish priests and scribes..

Doug Mason

Books on my bookshelf that I could easily and quickly lay my hands on:

"The Canon Debate", McDonald and Sanders (Hendrickson Publishers, 2002)

"The Biblical Canon", McDonald (Baker Academic, 2007)

"The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction", Carr (Oxford University Press, 2011)

"Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible", Karel Van Der Toorn (Harvard University Press, 2007)

"The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning", Gamble (Fortress Press, 1985; Wipf and Stock, 2002)

Do not expect uniform agreement among scholars, but research them and decide on a model that suits your understanding of the externals - culture, religious politics, etc.

Each of these books lists any number of their sources.

Doug

16

The canonised Old Testament is no different from the Apocrypha except with more scary fables and mythology

by fukitol in

the apocryphal books are accepted by catholics in their douay version as inspired of god, but rejected by the rest of christianity?.

why?.

when you examine the reasons for and against acceptance of the apocrypha as divinely inspired or not, it dawns on you that the traditionally accepted 39 books of the hebrew scriptures are nothing but the same sort of stuff as the more recent apocryphal books are, with the only difference being that the 39 much older ot books contain a lot more scary stories, fables and mythology invented by the ancient jewish priesthood to frighten their followers into fear and obedience and continued giving of meat sacrifices for the priests to eat.. ultimately, the ot can be summarised as nothing but a mixture of relatively accurate historical jewish war histories and genealogies, such as the aprocrypha is, mingled with scary stories made up by the ancient jewish priests and scribes..

Doug Mason

There is a simple explanation for the reason why NT writers cited or alluded to writings that are today considered "apocryphal" -- there was no canon of the Hebrew scriptures at the time.

The Jews kept their writings on a number of scrolls. Quite early in their experience, the Christians adopted the codex format, which naturally led to the idea of a collection of writings in a single volume. The idea of a canon was thus a Christian process, not Jewish. For some time, scholars said that the canon was discussed by the Jews in 90 CE at a council in Jamnia, but this has now been positively discounted. They most likely went through the process over several centuries, as did the Christians. For the latter, they were apparently initially motivated by the actions of Marcion, who produced a limited list of scriptures (he said that the god of the OT was not the Christian's god).

The axiom states that "Scripture does not need a Canon but a Canon needs Scripture". The NT writers cited Scripture but that does not mean they had a canon of Scriptures. And when they cited their sources they were not providing an exegesis; they were simply using - and misusing - Hebrew texts to support their predetermined views about Yeshua (Jesus the Anointed/Christ).

Doug