Doug Mason

Joined

• started 457 topics
• posted 2,351 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Doug Mason

• 
  7

  John 1:1—a concept blindly copied from other cultures

  by Ireneus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  john 1:1 is the adaptation from other cultures where it is taught that we are all gods.

  if expanded, john 1:1 would read like this: “in the beginning there was only god and he created the universe out of himself.

  that means you are made out of god and you are a part of god, hence you are god just as much as jesus was.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  An interesting observation, Venus, and one with several explanations.

  One view would be that the firebrand "end is upon us" John the Baptist either felt disillusioned that his expectations had not been met, and he simply needed confirmation, especially as his cousin Yeshua (Joshua aka Jesus) was also expecting the imminent divine intervention.

  Another view would be that Luke was denigrating the party that was following The Baptist, therefore the authors of Luke (writing about 60 years after said event) created this passage in order to belittle The Baptist's followers.

  We see that method employed by the writers of John's Gospel (20:24 ff) when they denigrated the followers of Thomas (John 20:24ff). The Gospel of Thomas had been circulating for decades before the John Gospel was created.

  These writers were astute and highly political (in religious terms). Each party wrote in order to promote their own ideology and at the same time to argue against the views of others. Hence we are exposed only to the views of a writer and we have to infer what their opponents were saying. This is true, not only of the Canonised writings but also of later writers, such as the Church Fathers.

  Doug
• 
  7

  John 1:1—a concept blindly copied from other cultures

  by Ireneus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  john 1:1 is the adaptation from other cultures where it is taught that we are all gods.

  if expanded, john 1:1 would read like this: “in the beginning there was only god and he created the universe out of himself.

  that means you are made out of god and you are a part of god, hence you are god just as much as jesus was.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Hi Ireneus,

  I am in no way saying whether I support what the superstitious, either ancient or modern, thought or wrote. I look at their works dispassionately, objectively.

  As for religion, I see it providing a means for a few people to use superstition in order to control and exploit the masses.

  This is why it is so important to read and to study the religious writings and to treat any religion with scepticism.

  That is, of course, my view and it shows that I fully respect the right of each and every person to their views. We can disagree, as is absolutely natural, but we must not be disagreeable. One need only look at the outcomes when members of one religious philosophy disagree with another -- wars in the name of their God.

  As for John 1:1-18, identify its core message by creating the chiasm formed by those 18 verses. The focus is not John 1:1.

  Doug
• 
  7

  John 1:1—a concept blindly copied from other cultures

  by Ireneus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  john 1:1 is the adaptation from other cultures where it is taught that we are all gods.

  if expanded, john 1:1 would read like this: “in the beginning there was only god and he created the universe out of himself.

  that means you are made out of god and you are a part of god, hence you are god just as much as jesus was.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Ireneus,

  I am bemused by your characterising the writers of the Johannine Gospel as doing anything "blindly".

  The Johannine community had been expelled from the synagogue community over their High Christology, so they were very conscious of their position.

  The Jews did not exist in a vacuum and they were not isolated from the external influences, the greatest of which was and remained the Hellenistic. This is exemplified by their need to translate the Scriptures into Greek (the LXX) and is demonstrated by the impact on Paul's thinking.

  The earliest "Gospel", which was Mark's, made no mention of Jesus' birth but this was followed by Matthew and then Luke, who started Jesus' life with his natural birth. The Johannine's, however, started earlier and they harked back to the origin of Creation. (One good myth deserves another.)

  Regards,

  Doug
• 
  22

  Only one real point per WT study...

  by JW_Rogue in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  has anyone else noticed that in the wt study articles the main point they want you to remember is always somewhere around paragraph 11-14?

  it's like a formula.

  intro and overview paragraphs 1-4. basic wt stuff 5-8 (not controversial).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Keep repeating the same thing over and over and over ... That way you can start a religion. And then use the same process to maintain it.

  Doug
• 
  11

  Son of God

  by Steel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  is this a title of diety or did god have a baby?

  .

  sorry for being so brief, typing on a phone.. i am kind of interested to see what you have to say.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  "Son of God" was one of the titles of the Roman Emperor.
• 
  21

  Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

  by Wonderment in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

  under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

  in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Wonderment,

  Everything in life requires faith, and particularly when dealing with material from the past.

  I prepared that material. It is a chapter from one part of a series of Studies I prepared in recent times dealing with the history of Judaeo-Christian doctrines of Salvation. At the moment I have removed the series from circulation. My intention is to reformat the material, which will take me some time to achieve.

  If you email me, I can provide you with material as it exists today.

  http://www.jwstudies.com/contact_me.html

  Doug
• 
  21

  Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

  by Wonderment in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

  under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

  in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Absolutely, context is everything.

  What was the Johannine Community? What motivated them to write? Who were they writings against? What were their opponents saying?

  What did their words mean to them at the time they wrote?

  What were their concepts? Did they think that matter came into existence because of the word (logos) coming from God (his "mouth")?

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

  This is a chapter from material I released maybe a year ago:

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

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

  Did the Johannine Community reason that Logos climbed into Mary's fertilized (or pre-fertilized) egg and existed in there until the human element had fully developed? Did they think that during Jesus' life, that Logos co-existed inside Jesus as a separate entity?

  Or did Logos morph into a spirit being named Michael - who lived inside Jesus?

  Is the Watchtower's rationale equally as fanciful as the Trinitarian's?

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

  The biggest question about John's Gospel is: Why should anyone believe what they wrote? How did they know these things, living 100 years after Jesus' birth?

  Doug
• 
  10

  HOURGLASS!--What Do We Know About It?

  by Atlantis in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  your assistance and opinions will be very much appreciated.

  a friend sent me the information listed below wanting to bring some attention to the website hourglass.. i myself know very little about the site other than the information i received today.

  perhaps there are others here that could shed some light.. is this a dangerous site?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Have you "Googled" with this expression?

  hourglass jehovah

  Doug

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

  The term "hourglass" rang a very ancient bell. Somewhere, somehow, I obtained a list from a site that is now defunct. Most probably a deeply colored red herring.

  http://www.jwstudies.com/The_List_from_Hourglass.pdf
  
• 
  4

  What do you mean by "The Bible"?

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  two books that i purchased recently for my research into the latter centuries bce open in similar fashion, having to explain the use of the term, "hebrews' scriptures".

  one book was published in 1971 and again in 1987, while the other book was published in 2017.. i provide a searchable scan of these opening pages:.

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Two books that I purchased recently for my research into the latter centuries BCE open in similar fashion, having to explain the use of the term, "Hebrews' Scriptures". One book was published in 1971 and again in 1987, while the other book was published in 2017.

  I provide a searchable scan of these opening pages:

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

  Doug
• 
  14

  Most illogical verse in the Bible

  by Ireneus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in exodus 20:3-5 god is depicted as saying: “you should have no other gods” and worshipping them would bring ‘punishment for three to four generation’ and worshipping me would bring blessings for “a thousand generations.”.

  the sentiments behind this command is same as the one that was displayed by othello who punished his wife desdemona all because of a handkerchief (given to her by othello on their honeymoon) that was happened to be found with someone else.. if it were the real god, he would have said something like this: “you are my children, and you should not worship me.

  how can father accept worship from his children?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Exod 20:1-17 The differences between the Ten Commandments as they appear here [at Exodus 20:1-17] and in Deuteronomy 5 indicate that there was an original text of the Ten Commandments—which appears to have been a part of E originally—that was elaborated upon by the person who produced P in typical P terminology, and by the person who produced Dtr1 in typical D terminology. Compare especially the Sabbath commandment in Exod 20:11 and Deut 5:15. The J text of the Ten Commandments meanwhile appears in Exodus 34:14–28. (Who Wrote the Bible? Richard Elliott Friedman, Kindle locations 4157-4161; also pages 258-259, paperback).