Doug Mason

Joined

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

Posts by Doug Mason

• 
  13

  Start and end of the "Seventy Years" according to the WTS

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the wts says that the seventy years started when a group of judeans, including jeremiah, crossed the border into egypt.

  this, they say, was required since the land had to be absolutely and totally depopulated, without a human or a beast on the land.. one would thus expect that the wts would end the seventy years when the first captives crossed the border into the province of yehud.

  that would mean that once again there were people on the land.. but no, the wts does not do that.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  The following posts (if I get it right) are from pages of a book that includes this description of Piazzi Smyth.

  Doug
• 
  13

  Start and end of the "Seventy Years" according to the WTS

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the wts says that the seventy years started when a group of judeans, including jeremiah, crossed the border into egypt.

  this, they say, was required since the land had to be absolutely and totally depopulated, without a human or a beast on the land.. one would thus expect that the wts would end the seventy years when the first captives crossed the border into the province of yehud.

  that would mean that once again there were people on the land.. but no, the wts does not do that.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Thank you guys for your support. I find it a most humbling experience.

  Billy and Wobble, in the following post in this thread I shall share a passage about Piazzi Smyth.
  --------------------
  Aristeas, Also the people who wrote after Paul did, such as the "Gospel" writers, were very loose in their reapplication of their Scriptures. As Spong points out, they were expecting their leader to achieve great and wonderful things, but instead the Romans murdered him. How could this be? So they searched their writings for answers and they reinterpreted the passages, such as Isa 53 and Ps 22, to make it appear as if they had some prophetic intent. Much like the WTS does today, in seeing symbolisms and parables in Scripture as if they applied to them.

  Are you aware of which NT writings are wrongly attributed to Paul and to Peter?

  I have never been a JW but I was an SDA (cousins of the WTS) for about 16 years, so I am fully aware of what it means to belong to such an organisation and the mental stresses caused when leaving one. It took me at least 10 years to free my brain.

  If I have not fully answered your question, please let me know.

  Doug
• 
  112

  The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !

  by TheFrench in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the latin fathers of the church has never described jesus carrying a "patibulum".

  indeed, the early christians to represent jesus carrying the "crux", not the "patibulum".

  it's a fact.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  I am interested to know which was the earliest NT writing (chronologically speaking) that describes the trial, persecution and description of Jesus' death, when was it written, and by whom?

  Paul was the first writer, and we know which of the writings were actually written by him. He died in the early 60s and the other writers came after him.

  So who first described these events? How did they know what happened if they had run away? How did they know what happened during the trial? How do they know what Pilate's wife said? Were any of the eye witnesses still alive when the story of Jesus' last days were written down?

  Doug
• 
  13

  Start and end of the "Seventy Years" according to the WTS

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the wts says that the seventy years started when a group of judeans, including jeremiah, crossed the border into egypt.

  this, they say, was required since the land had to be absolutely and totally depopulated, without a human or a beast on the land.. one would thus expect that the wts would end the seventy years when the first captives crossed the border into the province of yehud.

  that would mean that once again there were people on the land.. but no, the wts does not do that.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Thanks for your thoughts, aristeas.

  I wonder if others can see a shift away from the WTS saying that the Parousia has occurred, or that the WTS was anointed in 1919? Do they no longer say this? If that is so, where is their anchor, their source of authority?

  For decades I have felt that the value of looking at the subject of the neo-Babylonian chronology lies in its use as the foundation for determining 1914 and 1919 (the WTS earlier used Lev 26 instead of Dan 4).

  Its value also lies in showing how the WTS organisation continually misquotes and misrepresents the authorities it supposedly quotes. Since it is easy to show that the WTS does this, that fact should help break the WTS's mental stranglehold and permit enlightened discussions.

  Until and unless that happens, a JW believes the WTS because of whom and what it claims to be (Jehovah's sole channel of communication), rather than because of what it is saying.

  When the JW sees that they are being deceived and lied to, that the organisation is waging theological warfare on its own followers, then it is possible to have an open discussion. Certainly no two people will agree on everything, but that should never matter. The WTS does not allow for personal views; I encourage them

  I certainly do conduct very deep, serious and personally challenging study into the Biblical writings and I am more than keen to discuss my views.

  I am not an eschatologist, nor am I interested in so-called prophetic fulfilment. Rather, my strong interest lies in discovering the immediate context of any writing (religious politics, secular politics, contemporary idiom, and so on), and knowing whether a writing is genuine.

  Each Biblical writer was only addressing their immediate community, with the objective of influencing behaviour and attitude within that immediate community. With many of the NT writings, the writer was arguing against opposing views within the Christian community. Much of the NT writings are not what they purport to be; much is wrongly attributed. Most of the so-called NT fulfillments of the OT stretch the bounds of credulity.

  Another area of great interest to me is the religious and secular politics that determined which NT writings were canonised. It took centuries before a decision was finally arrived at, and the Roman emperors had a say.

  The religious expectation of an imminent divine appearance of Jesus (Yeshua/Joshua) has been taking place in every century since the first, and probably earlier. Even Jesus and Paul expected it to happen in their own time (this generation, then we who are alive, etc.). The expectations in every century of an imminent divine manifestation have had the same outcome -- zero.

  I see the Bible as a human book.

  But until we are able to break the nexus between the WTS and the JW's brain, such valuable discussions cannot commence. If you know of a better tool than neo-Babylonian chronology, I am more than keen to hear of it.

  Doug
• 
  2

  Corrections to my Study

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have made two corrections to my recently announced study, "insights reliance on secular sources", which is available at:.

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

  page 3: an unwanted word "the" near the bottom of the page.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  I have made two corrections to my recently announced study, "Insight’s Reliance on Secular Sources", which is available at:

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

  Corrections.

  Page 3: an unwanted word "the" near the bottom of the page. The phrase should thus read: "Most significantly for its purposes"

  Page 20: Should read "568 BCE for the 37th year of his son Nebuchadnezzar."

  I have corrected the online file.

  Doug
• 
  13

  Start and end of the "Seventy Years" according to the WTS

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the wts says that the seventy years started when a group of judeans, including jeremiah, crossed the border into egypt.

  this, they say, was required since the land had to be absolutely and totally depopulated, without a human or a beast on the land.. one would thus expect that the wts would end the seventy years when the first captives crossed the border into the province of yehud.

  that would mean that once again there were people on the land.. but no, the wts does not do that.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  The WTS rabbits on about the need for the land of Judah to be totally devoid of people and beasts for the full 70 years, even waiting until a group enters Egypt before allowing the period to start, yet it does not terminate the period when people return. The WTS waits until after the Returnees have settled into their communities, made their journeys in the land to Jerusalem, and then held a ceremony at the temple site. Even when, for the WTS, the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem did not mark the start of the 70 Years.

  Doug
• 
  13

  Start and end of the "Seventy Years" according to the WTS

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the wts says that the seventy years started when a group of judeans, including jeremiah, crossed the border into egypt.

  this, they say, was required since the land had to be absolutely and totally depopulated, without a human or a beast on the land.. one would thus expect that the wts would end the seventy years when the first captives crossed the border into the province of yehud.

  that would mean that once again there were people on the land.. but no, the wts does not do that.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  The WTS says that the “Seventy Years” started when a group of Judeans, including Jeremiah, crossed the border into Egypt. This, they say, was required since the land had to be absolutely and totally depopulated, without a human or a beast on the land.

  One would thus expect that the WTS would end the Seventy Years when the first Captives crossed the border into the province of Yehud. That would mean that once again there were people on the land.

  But no, the WTS does not do that. The WTS lets each Returnee settle into their own house, village and community, but the Seventy Years continues.

  Then, after having settled down, each person makes the journey to Jerusalem, and yet the Seventy Years is still continuing, even though the land is now populated, settled with man and beast.

  Not until people perform a ceremony at the temple site (surrounded by opponents), does the WTS end the Seventy Years. Does the Bible say this event marked its ending?

  If the Seventy Years could not start until the “last person” had gone to Egypt, if the Seventy Years required the land to be without a person living in it, then how could it continue for such a long time after people had returned?

  If the Seventy Years did not start when the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed, why did the WTS make the end relate to the temple?

  Or is it significant that the time from the destruction of the temple to its rebuilding was 70 years?

  Doug
• 
  2

  “Insight on the Scriptures” relies on secular sources for 539 BCE

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  after starting the previous thread i realised that i had been using firefox, so here it is through ie.. the chronology article in "insight on the scriptures" accepts from secular sources the date of 539 bce for the fall of babylon.

  it must do so since it is not possible for pre-christian sources to provide dates in terms of present-day calendars.. .

  the chronology article, however, denigrates the dates, source material, and chronologies employed by those who provide it with that date.. .

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  Sorry. After starting the previous Thread I realised that I had been using Firefox, so here it is through IE.

  The “Chronology” article in "Insight on the Scriptures" accepts from secular sources the date of 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon. It must do so since it is not possible for pre-Christian sources to provide dates in terms of present-day calendars.
  
  The “Chronology” article, however, denigrates the dates, source material, and chronologies employed by those who provide it with that date.
  
  My study is available at:
  
  http://www.jwstudies.com/Insight_s_reliance_o...
  
  Doug
• 

  “Insight on the Scriptures” relies on secular sources for 539 BCE

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:donotshowrevisions /> <w:donotprintrevisions /> <w:donotshowmarkup /> <w:donotshowcomments /> <w:donotshowinsertionsanddeletions /> <w:donotshowpropertychanges /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp /> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables /> <w:dontvertalignintxbx /> <w:word11kerningpairs /> <w:cachedcolbalance /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="&#45;-" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

  [endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

  /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} [endif] .

• 

  Doug Mason

  The “Chronology” article in “Insight on the Scriptures” accepts from secular sources the date of 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon. It must do so since it is not possible for pre-Christian sources to provide dates in terms of present-day calendars.

  The “Chronology” article, however, denigrates the dates, source material, and chronologies employed by those who provide it with that date.

  My study is available at:

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

  Doug
• 
  10

  Higher Criticism and the WTS

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:donotshowrevisions /> <w:donotprintrevisions /> <w:donotshowmarkup /> <w:donotshowcomments /> <w:donotshowinsertionsanddeletions /> <w:donotshowpropertychanges /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp /> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables /> <w:dontvertalignintxbx /> <w:word11kerningpairs /> <w:cachedcolbalance /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="&#45;-" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

  [endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"times new roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif].

  i have my idea why the wts waxes so strongly against higher criticism, so i would like to hear the views of others on this matter.. i do not want this thread to degenerate into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of higher criticism, but rather for this thread to explore the reason(s) why the wts has to be so adamantly against it.. as a clue to my own thoughts, i suggest that consideration should be given to the wts's silence -- as far as i am aware (and i am open to correction) -- on the subject of lower criticism (and other forms of analysis).. doug.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Doug Mason

  I have my idea why the WTS waxes so strongly against Higher Criticism, so I would like to hear the views of others on this matter.

  I do not want this Thread to degenerate into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of Higher Criticism, but rather for this Thread to explore the reason(s) why the WTS has to be so adamantly against it.

  As a clue to my own thoughts, I suggest that consideration should be given to the WTS's silence -- as far as I am aware (and I am open to correction) -- on the subject of Lower Criticism (and other forms of analysis).

  Doug