Posts by Doug Mason

44

Please explain the Watchtower's "Ransom" for me

by Doug Mason in

according to the watchtower:.

who received the ransom payment?.

why did the ransomer need to be paid?.

Doug Mason

Wow! What a most interesting set of responses! Thank you. Broadly speaking, these do not paint Jehovah in a good light.

Your responses lead me to these thoughts:

1. The Watchtower's explanation, as shown by you, is predicated on the myth that there was a real Adam and that the Genesis Creation myths are literal records. (Search a Bible for the word "Adam" to see how few times it appears, when, and in what contexts.)

2. Do some people hold onto the idea that there was a literal Eden - Adam - Eve - Snake - creation 6000 years ago only because it gives sense to "Jesus died for me"? (If the Creation stories are just myths, then why did Jesus have to be killed and resurrected?)

3. What is it that enables a myth, a superstition, to exert such a hold on the human mind? How can irrationality be so effective?

4, Paul (in his genuine letters) does not focus his soteriology solely on Jesus' death but he also included the resurrection. Why should anyone accept Paul's opinion?

Doug

44

Please explain the Watchtower's "Ransom" for me

by Doug Mason in

according to the watchtower:.

who received the ransom payment?.

why did the ransomer need to be paid?.

Doug Mason

According to the Watchtower:

Who received the Ransom payment?

Why did the Ransomer need to be paid?

Who was Jesus sacrificed to?

Who was being held captive and by whom?

Whom did the Ransomer release?

Doug

20

Is it really possible to disprove the Watchtower?

by Coded Logic in

dear brothers and sisters,.

considering the end is so near at hand we thought it important for to reiterate that it's absolutely impossible to prove god's "one true organisation" wrong.

there is nothing on heaven or earth that could ever be shown to be false or incorrect in our entire .

Doug Mason

JWs listen to the Organisation because of WHO and WHAT it claims to be, regardless of whatever it says.

Or perhaps they follow the Organisation because they know the personal cost associated with being disfellowshiped.

The WTS rips families apart, causes children to bleed to death, and the way they play with people's minds it causes untold mental instabilities, where people are forced to say and believe things they do not genuinely agree with, only to find that the Organisation changes its mind and JWs now find that the thoughts they had to suppress had now become True. Is there anything that is True? If so, how will a JW ever know?

My bigger question is: What is it in people that makes them believe a myth?

Doug

17

Is the husband the head of his wife?

by Doug Mason in

how do we explain the marital role with what paul said in 1 cor.

“but i want you to realize that the head of every man is christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of christ is god.” (niv).

read a few chapters earlier at 1 corinthians 7 to see what paul does say about the relationships between husband and wife.

Doug Mason

Apologies. I had not made my thoughts totally clear.

Firstly, I wanted to show that Paul's attitude towards women was not misogynistic. I attempted that by referring to what Paul wrote a few chapters prior as well as in Galatians (a letter that is genuinely by Paul).

I then looked at the structure of the context of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 to demonstrate that someone had later inserted it within Paul's discourse.

Following that, I suggested that the inserted sentiments reflected the thoughts expressed in the Pastoral Epistles (Timothy and Titus). These particular Epistles were written at the end of the first century or early in the second century, about 50 years after Paul's death.

The Pastoral Epistles, and hence 1 Corinthians 11:2-6, thus reflect the evolutionary stage of the Jesus-community and they do not reflect what Paul said, thought or wrote. From what I have read, I understand that the term Christianity and probably "Christian" first occurred at the time of the Pastoral Epistles, and they speak of things that Paul had no interest in -- formal structure.

If you think that the Watchtower Society changes Scripture, a little research will show that they are rank amateurs at the task. The first substantive New Testament was developed 300 years after Paul's time (the earliest NT writer) and the material underwent much revision during that period and it continued to be revised afterwards.

There is no agreed Canon nor any agreed text.

Doug

17

Is the husband the head of his wife?

by Doug Mason in

how do we explain the marital role with what paul said in 1 cor.

“but i want you to realize that the head of every man is christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of christ is god.” (niv).

read a few chapters earlier at 1 corinthians 7 to see what paul does say about the relationships between husband and wife.

Doug Mason

How do we explain the marital role with what Paul said in 1 Cor. 11: 3?

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (NIV)

============================

Read a few chapters earlier at 1 Corinthians 7 to see what Paul does say about the relationships between husband and wife. Read a few translations.

Now read Galatians 3:25-28: “Now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (NRSV)

Clearly the sentiment expressed at 1 Corinthians 11:3 is not compatible with the above statements by Paul.

Let's look at the immediate context of this verse: In the previous Chapter (1 Corinthians 10) Paul entered into a multi-faceted discussion about eating and drinking, about having meals. Then at 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 this discussion about husbands, wives, their head coverings and hair length follows. Suddenly at verse 17 the text continues the discussion about food, drink, and meals.

This strongly indicates that later someone inserted 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 into Paul's writings. Inasmuch as the sentiments being expressed are similar to the attitudes at the Pastorals (Timothy and Titus), this suggests that it happened at that time, the end of the first century, 40 years after Paul's death.

In addition, when I look at the flow of the reasoning, 1 Corinthians 11:3 stands out like a sore thumb -- it is not part of any natural, rational flow. How many people follow the instructions about hair and head covering? Remember, there were no "churches" then (small groups met in people's houses or shops). In any case, 1 Corinthians 11 says that any time a woman prays, she must cover her head. Do wives do this every time they pray at home?

The rationale used by the writer of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is that there is a hierarchy set by Adam having been created before Eve. I do not believe the Adam / Eve / Eden / Satan-snake story, so the analogy does not exist for me

============================

[1 Corinthians 11, NRSV]

ARGUMENT CONCERNING HAIRSTYLES

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.

4 Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head — it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.

6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil.

7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. 8 Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10 For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?

14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

16 But if anyone is disposed to be contentious — we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

2

History of "salvation"

by Doug Mason in

slowly, ever so slowly, i continue to investigate the history of the judaeo/christian ideas of "salvation" (soteriology).

i have been working on my study for more than a year and it will take me a few more months to prepare the drafts of the remaining chapters.. my investigations have shown me that people have held -- and continue to hold -- a range of expectations, explanations, and opinions concerning a future existence and how that was provided, how it will be attained, and what will be experienced.

this research has confirmed for me that religion is supernatural superstition exploited by a few in order to manipulate and manage the masses.

Doug Mason

scratchme,

The benefit I see -- for those who need it -- is that a Church provides them with a community of like-minded people. I guess I make it sound banal, but we see any number of communities of people who have similar convictions, and in this instance the commonality lies with myths and the supernatural.

I suspect that arguing against the belief systems of other myth-followers enables one to have a sense of protecting one's local community and of identifying with it. Although arguing against conflicting belief systems is a tool exploited by religious leaders to construct a fence around their sheep (Trinity, etc.).

While conducting this Study, I have been struck by the range of ideas and explanations regarding "salvation", to the point where I asked myself: "Why do people listen to and heed the opinions of religious leaders/voices?" Paul had his opinion (after supposedly speaking with the spirit of an executed person) but why should his ideas be taken as absolute?

My background had been within Christianity and that is the limit of my personal experience. There is such a vast tapestry for enquiry, and looking at these has helped me shape my relationship with current events. I have no real knowledge of belief systems outside the Judaeo/Christian stream.

I see Christianity as an element of Judaism. The Christian Bible is comprised of Jewish writings, apart from probably Luke, Acts, Hebrews and 2 Peter -- I am open to thoughts on whether there are other non-Jewish writings in any of the Christian Bibles. What about the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas and Thomas - were they Jewish in origin? Likely not.

Doug

2

History of "salvation"

by Doug Mason in

slowly, ever so slowly, i continue to investigate the history of the judaeo/christian ideas of "salvation" (soteriology).

i have been working on my study for more than a year and it will take me a few more months to prepare the drafts of the remaining chapters.. my investigations have shown me that people have held -- and continue to hold -- a range of expectations, explanations, and opinions concerning a future existence and how that was provided, how it will be attained, and what will be experienced.

this research has confirmed for me that religion is supernatural superstition exploited by a few in order to manipulate and manage the masses.

Doug Mason

Slowly, ever so slowly, I continue to investigate the history of the Judaeo/Christian ideas of "salvation" (soteriology). I have been working on my Study for more than a year and it will take me a few more months to prepare the Drafts of the remaining chapters.

My investigations have shown me that people have held -- and continue to hold -- a range of expectations, explanations, and opinions concerning a future existence and how that was provided, how it will be attained, and what will be experienced. This research has confirmed for me that religion is supernatural superstition exploited by a few in order to manipulate and manage the masses. This does not mean that religion does not help some people cope with the vagaries of life with its sadnesses and pressures. If it helps them to cope, they should hold on to It.

To date, my Study has considered the ancient Hebrews, some New Testament writings, Gospel of Thomas, the primitive Church, and the European Medieval periods, including people such as Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, along with the Council of Trent and the soteriology of the Orthodox Churches.

Although the Study skims lightly across very deep lakes, its scope means that it is not small. I provide a comprehensive Contents at the rear of the study. A Bibliography near the rear explains the reference titles in the footnotes.

I am seeking corrections and advice, no matter how large or how small. You will find my email address in the Study.

I update the Study each time I complete a draft Chapter. Currently I am investigating the Pastoral Epistles (Timothy, Titus), which were written some 50 years after Paul's death.

My Study is available at:

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

Doug

29

What is your understanding of the terms "Ransom" and "Redeem"?

by Doug Mason in

with respect to christ being the "redeemer" and of having "paid the ransom", i would like to know:.

(1) what is your technical understanding of each term?.

(2) what is the watchtower's understanding of each term?.

Doug Mason

As I wrote, I created that diagram without having sought any scholarship in support. I started with "death" because in my mind I imagined Humans and others such as the Neanderthals, living hundreds of thousands of years ago, grieving over the deaths of their loved ones, whether through illness, attacks from wild beasts, or from enemies. Archaeological evidences reveal the care they took with the remains of the departed. This sense of grief is not confined to us as a species.

In my diagram, I made the hypothetical assumption that grief evolved into a hope, which then developed into the idea of a spirit world (often seeing the world of nature manifesting actions by the spirits). The nature of this spirit world reflected the hierarchical structure of their communities, with an upper echelon of super powers, the gods.

I then imagine that over time, questions arose regarding ethics, morality and so on, and in the process this created the concept of sin, along with the consequent necessity to address it. One such resoluton is theodicity. Another outcome for Christians was to provide a reason for Jesus' death, which they did by believing that the Adam story is truth.

As I research the views of the formative church, today I came across the following, which supports my hypothesis that the narrative began with Death but that the Church later reversed this to say that the story began with Sin.

Doug

==========================

"The crucial question of origin for the Hebrew writers and earliest Christian writers was more about the origin of death than of sin. Why are human beings created only to face death? Why is the created order, a product of divine goodness, the source of tragedy and suffering? These dilemmas invite a theodicy, an explanation of how God is powerful, good, and loving and yet there is evil. Death faces humankind as an evil. To attribute to sin the introduction of death into the created order places the blame for such evil on the side of humans, not God. By their rejection of God’s will, it was argued in both the Hebrew and Christian traditions, human beings brought death into a world where it had been absent. Death is the punishment for sin." (Original Sin, Wiley, page 53)

29

What is your understanding of the terms "Ransom" and "Redeem"?

by Doug Mason in

with respect to christ being the "redeemer" and of having "paid the ransom", i would like to know:.

(1) what is your technical understanding of each term?.

(2) what is the watchtower's understanding of each term?.

Doug Mason

Hi,

I wonder if I am correct in saying that everything I and you have said on this Thread is speculation and that this is based on opinion and superstition?

If that is even grudgngly admitted, I would like to offer my Model. Without any basis from scholarship or other resources, I have created a Model based on my speculative opinion that "Sin" is the outcome of "Death".

Here is my simplistic Model.

Doug

29

What is your understanding of the terms "Ransom" and "Redeem"?

by Doug Mason in

with respect to christ being the "redeemer" and of having "paid the ransom", i would like to know:.

(1) what is your technical understanding of each term?.

(2) what is the watchtower's understanding of each term?.

Doug Mason

Vidqun,

I hope you appreciate why you were provided with only part of the passage from Keil And Delitzsch.

Doug