Posts by Doug Mason

In Eve’s account in the apocryphal Apocalypse of Moses of her encounter in Eden with the Snake, she says that Satan, who is like an angel, seduced Snake and offered to talk through the Snake on his behalf.

Doug

2

The names of spirits

by Doug Mason in

gradually, i am editing my study on "satan".. here is one edited chapter:.

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

doug.

Doug Mason

Gradually, I am editing my Study on "Satan".

Here is one edited Chapter:

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

Doug

12

Relative rates of mental illness

by Doug Mason in

a report produced 50 years ago by a psychiatrist at a west australian mental health facility ("asylum"l reported that the mental illness rate among jws was 3 times the norm of society.

other similar studies at the time concluded the rate was much higher.. i wrote to the psychiatrist at the time, asking whether the wts attracted people who were already susceptible to mental illness or if the situation was created after the person became a jw.

he responded that they did not know.. being myopically focused on the wts at the time, but more importantly belonging to an alternative eschatological apocalyptic body at the time, i did not think more broadly.. i think that today i would like to know:.

Doug Mason

A report produced 50 years ago by a psychiatrist at a West Australian mental health facility ("asylum"l reported that the mental illness rate among JWs was 3 times the norm of Society. Other similar studies at the time concluded the rate was much higher.

I wrote to the psychiatrist at the time, asking whether the WTS attracted people who were already susceptible to mental illness or if the situation was created after the person became a JW. He responded that they did not know.

Being myopically focused on the WTS at the time, but more importantly belonging to an alternative eschatological apocalyptic body at the time, I did not think more broadly.

I think that today I would like to know:

1. How does the mental illness rate among JWs compare with the rate among other eschatological apocalyptic groups?

2. Similarly, what are the comparable mental illness rates among other groups, e.g. Fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, etc.); Pentecostals.

3. How do these compare with the mental rate among secular groupings?

I cannot say, but my gut feel is that the answer to my original question is:

1. Insecure people, (is "unbalanced" a valid expression?) are attracted to the atmosphere of the positive solution being offered. And the solution is imminent.

2. Once "inside" their inner doubts are added to because these do not align with the positive behaviour that is apparent in others.

3. The threatening messages of imminent doom, of a powerful demanding God only adds to their previous insecurity.

Does my hypothesis align with the large dropouts, especially from "born-in" children?

Doug

7

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

by Ireneus in

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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