Posts by Doug Mason

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

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

Information on the NT use of Hebrew apocryphal writings

http://www.jwstudies.com/God-breathed_Scriptures.pdf (pages 21-26)

http://www.jwstudies.com/Why_Does_WTS_Accept_Christendoms_Scriptures.pdf (page 46)

http://www.jwstudies.com/We_can_be_sure.pdf (page 8, 59, 60)

Thus these books were not rejected by the rest of Christianity. Look at the wide range of canons. Look at the differences between the LXX, MT, Symmachus, Theodotian, etc. or the arguments that rage about the differences between the Textus Receptus and Wetscott/Hort.

Or consider the fact that no one is or will ever be able to know what any writer originally wrote.

Or consider the fact that throughout the ages, people accidentally and deliberately amended the text to suit their current beliefs (as the WTS has done).

Doug

12

Buddhists and Jehovah's Witnesses

by tornapart in

recently i have just started looking into what buddhism is all about.

i rather like the idea of a personal spirituality.

of trying to be a better person and an acceptance of the reality of life and trying to find an inner peace and contentment.. anyway, i came across this today.

Doug Mason

Buddhism is Australia's second-largest religion after Christianity, with 500,000 adherents.

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

The "rest of Christianity" does not have an agreed canon.

Only the Catholic Church has voted on the Canon, which happened at the Council of Trent (15th century or thereabouts).

Early Christian codices included writings such as "Barnabas" and "The Shepherd of Hermas" as authoritative.

If the OT apocrypha are unacceptable, why did the NT writers quote them so heavily, such 1 Enoch and Sirach?

There is a number of very good scholarly books on canonization, and I can recommend some if you are interested.

Criteria employed by the Church Fathers for determining a writing as Scripture were: (1) Apostolicity (2) Orthodoxy (3) Antiquity (4) Use (5) Adaptability (6) Inspiration. ("The Biblical Canon", pages 401-42, Lee Martin McDonald)

As you can see from this list, the writings were accepted if they agreed with doctrines the church had already determined. The decision was thus determined by use, not imposed from the hierarchy

Doug

35

When did the Great Crowd start forming?

by Vanderhoven7 in

i realize that rutherford received a flash of light regarding the identity of the gc in the year 1935, but that does not tell us when the crowd began to form.

what would be the earliest date?

any ideas or quotes from wt literature?

Doug Mason

Do my Studies help?

http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Great_Crowd_before_1935_and_since.pdf

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

http://www.jwstudies.com/WT_magazines_from_2000_to_2015_on_144000_and_the_anointed.pdf

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

Doug

31

Far fewer references to lesbians

by Doug Mason in

i notice that while a search of the wt library reveals many references to homosexuals, there are few references to lesbians.. does the wts include women when it uses the term homosexual?.

when discussing masturbation, does it mention both sexes?.

i am asking out of pure ignorance, seeking clarification.. my only comment is that religion of every shade has difficulty with the subject of sexual activity, as if it were something that is not part of nature.. doug.

Doug Mason

Thank you everyone for your fantastic comments to my initial post on this thread.

I was very concerned at the way my post might have been construed, but I can tell you that I appreciate the positive way in which this subject has been approached.

Doug

31

Far fewer references to lesbians

by Doug Mason in

i notice that while a search of the wt library reveals many references to homosexuals, there are few references to lesbians.. does the wts include women when it uses the term homosexual?.

when discussing masturbation, does it mention both sexes?.

i am asking out of pure ignorance, seeking clarification.. my only comment is that religion of every shade has difficulty with the subject of sexual activity, as if it were something that is not part of nature.. doug.

Doug Mason

Hi GodZoo,

I understand the dictionary definition, but I am wondering whether the WTS manages the situation explicitly with that understanding. Perhaps it does; I am simply asking, especially when I see homosexual references being made to "tight pants" and "effeminate" behaviour.

What "non-effeminate" behaviour by a woman does the WTS object to? "Loose pants"?

Doug

31

Far fewer references to lesbians

by Doug Mason in

i notice that while a search of the wt library reveals many references to homosexuals, there are few references to lesbians.. does the wts include women when it uses the term homosexual?.

when discussing masturbation, does it mention both sexes?.

i am asking out of pure ignorance, seeking clarification.. my only comment is that religion of every shade has difficulty with the subject of sexual activity, as if it were something that is not part of nature.. doug.

Doug Mason

Hi,

I notice that while a search of the WT Library reveals many references to homosexuals, there are few references to lesbians.

Does the WTS include women when it uses the term homosexual?

When discussing masturbation, does it mention both sexes?

I am asking out of pure ignorance, seeking clarification.

My only comment is that religion of every shade has difficulty with the subject of sexual activity, as if it were something that is not part of nature.

Doug

63

AUSTRALIA – Artemis Legal launches inquiry into group and class action lawsuits against Jehovah’s Witnesses

by jwleaks in

jw
friends

jehovah's witnesses - group action lawyers fighting for justice | artemis legal .

artemis legal | watchtower claims.

13 october 2015 .

Doug Mason

The Royal Commission is an enquiry. It is not a court. It can only make recommendations. The quality of evidence tendered before the enquiry does not require the legal rigour of evidence before a court.

The Commission has recommended that the Australian Government set up a compensation fund of $4 billion, but any decision lies outside the duties or powers of the Commission.

It can recommend to the Department of Public Prosecution that criminal proceedings should be commenced but the decision whether to do so is solely the prerogative of the Proscutor, not of the Commissioner.

I suspect there will be opportunists swarming around seeking to make money from these victims. Beware of anything at this early sate. The Commission has only been running for 2 years, and could probably run for a few more. Give it time to make its recommendations.

Doug

11

New Bibles on the website

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

i was going through a few websites and isolating text of the 'deuteronimist history' for my channel on youtube today when i opened a tab to jw.org to see if they had actually dome anything in a few days.

to my surprise up popped the new bibles.. no for many year the only one they had was nwt 1984 and as of 2 years ago the rnwt with audio coming in slowly.

(the guys that do ezra are crap and lett ruins mark) a week or two ago they started adding a study bible starting with matthew.

Doug Mason

HTBWC,

I asked you what your intention is when you write: "isolating text of the Deuteronomistic history".

Friedman's work addresses the first 5 books, whereas the DH stretches further, in which Deuteronomy forms only the first scroll of the history. Hence my question.

No criticism, just curious, given your statement.

Doug