Posts by Doug Mason

28

The question no JW can answer without resorting to babbling

by Crabby in

let me ask you only one question.

first i need to clarify a few things.

in the new world translation, john 1:1 reads: “in [the] beginning the word was, and the word was with god, and the word was a god.” then in isaiah 9:6 (nwt) we read: “for there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder.

Doug Mason

Hi Tenacious,

I need to make a correction here, as it was the writer of Peter who said people were misusing Paul. I Timothy was written when the Jesus-followers were moving from their first blush of emotional enthusiasm to the consideration of church structure and hierarchy. As I said, we are looking at the first part of the second century.

Of the 13 writings attributed to Paul, the general consensus held by the majority of scholars is that 7 were genuinely written by Paul. In chronological order: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians and Romans. Further, some of these epistles are collections of letters; some scholars identify 4 letters in 2 Corinthians, others see 6 letters.

The others attributed to Paul, such as Colossians, Ephesians, and so on were written well after his death.

His genuine writings are our earliest written record. Mark's Gospel was the earliest record about Jesus' life and preaching, and it was written anonymously about 70 CE, some 40 years after Jesus' death. Matthew's Gospel (also anonymous) followed some 15 years later.

All the best with you research. You will find it exciting and challenging.

Doug

28

The question no JW can answer without resorting to babbling

by Crabby in

let me ask you only one question.

first i need to clarify a few things.

in the new world translation, john 1:1 reads: “in [the] beginning the word was, and the word was with god, and the word was a god.” then in isaiah 9:6 (nwt) we read: “for there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder.

Doug Mason

Tenacious,

Regarding Thomas worshipping Jesus (John 20:24-29). (Chapter 21 was added later.)

I do not know if you have studied the Christology of the Gospel of Thomas, but the people who wrote the Fourth Gospel ("John") had also developed their own Christology but had arrived at different conclusions. In this passage, the writers of John were reflecting upon the Thomasine community. Read the story again, this time realising that this is not a literal historical account but a story designed to denigrate the Christology of the Thomasines. This methodology is also employed at several other accounts in John, such as the mythical Nicodemus and the Blind Man who could now see.

Regarding 1 Timothy. It was written at the beginning of the second century (Paul died in 64 CE). At that time, a Gnostic named Marcion relied on Paul's writings, even producing the first collection of Paul's letters. Marcion made so much use of Paul's writings that the proto-orthodox gave Paul a wide berth.

The person who wrote 1 Timothy was complaining about the way that people (no doubt the Marcionites) were using Paul. In that context (early decades of the second century) attempts made against Marcion included the writing of Acts of the Apostles. (2 Peter is likely the last canonised writing, coming later in the second century, almost 100 years after Peter's death.)

Doug

28

The question no JW can answer without resorting to babbling

by Crabby in

let me ask you only one question.

first i need to clarify a few things.

in the new world translation, john 1:1 reads: “in [the] beginning the word was, and the word was with god, and the word was a god.” then in isaiah 9:6 (nwt) we read: “for there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder.

Doug Mason

Crabby,

Instead of jumping around the Scriptures like a knight on a chess board, stick with the immediate passage and drill down into the complete context of John's Gospel.

Discover the back story of the Gospel -- the group that wrote it, what their experiences were, and how they arrived at their high Christology. Climb back into the times when it was written and the reasons that that group had for the Christological statements they were making. At the same time, research the Thomasine Christians, whose experiences matched those of the Johannines, although their soteriology and Christology were markedly different.

Doug

6

If this doesn't make you question the Bible, I don't know what will...

by ILoveTTATT2 in

1 chronicles 18:4. .

na .

Doug Mason

Samuel and Kings are part of the history assembled during the 6th century BCE. This is known as the Deuteronomic History (Deuteronomy, Judges, Joshua, Samuel and Kings).

Chronicles was written about 200 years later, during the Persian era, by a person whose religious leanings did not align with those who penned the DH. Hence the need to write Chronicles. (I presume it's in two parts due to the physical limitations imposed by the length of a scroll.)

There is any number of subtle indications in Chronicles which indicate the writer's religious politics. Off the top of the head, I think that the story surrounding Manasseh shows this.

Doug

12

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures argues for more than one GOD

by smiddy in

gen.1:26 "and god went on to say "let us make man in our image according to our likeness.....etc,etc,.. the key words here are "us" and " our" ,he is including other life forms just like him in using plurals.. he did not say " i" will make man in "my" image ,using the singular vernacular.

the same is also noted in gen 3:22 "and jehovah god went on to say " here the man has become like one of " us".

again he is using the plural and not the singlar language clearly showing their were other life forms on an equal footing to him.. also satan via the serpent also knew the difference between good and bad before he tempted eve , showing he was on a par with jehovah god in knowing that fact along with the other gods in heaven.. another scripture that comes to mind is 1 cor.8:5 "........just as their are many gods and many lords,,,".

Doug Mason

Smiddy,

The name of the God in Genesis 1 is EL. He was the chief God who with his wife Asherah had 70 sons. This group was known as the Elohim. While EL was a kindly God, Yahweh was a minor fierce warrior. It is likely he originated in a southern neighbour of Israel/Judah.

Until the 6th century BCE neo-Babylonian period, the majority of the Henrews were polytheists. The Yahweh-alone party did not get their way until the nation went through the Captivity, and we now read their propaganda.

The creation myth at Genesis 2 (which was written earlier than the Genesis 1 account by a different group) uses the name YHWH. The group that wrote Genesis 1 did not use "YHWH" until it was revealed to Moses at the burning bush, but employed EL and Elohim.

Anyway, how does anyone really know what these gods said to one another at Genesis 1? Any eyewitnesses?

The writings attributed to Moses are pretty much myth from beginning to end. They are not literal history; they are religious stories with moral teachings.

Doug

11

Comparing the Septuagint to the Masoretic Text

by ILoveTTATT2 in

i am going to start a thread comparing the septuagint to the masoretic text.for those who do not know what the septuagint and the masoretic text are, here's an introduction on wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/septuagint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/masoretic_text.

i think that, more than anything else, the fact that the septuagint and the masoretic text are so different, is what made me stop believing in the bible.. since the new testament writers quoted from the septuagint, not from the masoretic text, one would think that the septuagint should be in all the current bibles, but the case is that most bibles today use the masoretic text as the basis of their old testament.

Doug Mason

The scrolls were written in Greek (from left to right) whereas the subsequently added paleo-Hebraic characters read from right to left. These ancient characters had long stopped being used.

Nowhere does the Watchtower ever follow that example. It never inserts the paleo-Hebraic characters into its texts. It uses a nonsensical word.

As for the New Testament texts, there is no example of Hebrew characters (HWHY) or their Greek equivalents. No one today has any idea what the initial writers wrote, whether in the OT or in the NT.

Reproducing texts in those days, which was needed given nature of the materials being used, required laborious copying by hand. Errors occurred during that process and at the same time the copying provided opportunities for deliberate amendments, often to suit later understandings (like the Watchtower does today).

Doug

11

Comparing the Septuagint to the Masoretic Text

by ILoveTTATT2 in

i am going to start a thread comparing the septuagint to the masoretic text.for those who do not know what the septuagint and the masoretic text are, here's an introduction on wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/septuagint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/masoretic_text.

i think that, more than anything else, the fact that the septuagint and the masoretic text are so different, is what made me stop believing in the bible.. since the new testament writers quoted from the septuagint, not from the masoretic text, one would think that the septuagint should be in all the current bibles, but the case is that most bibles today use the masoretic text as the basis of their old testament.

Doug Mason

There were several versions of the LXX and the NT writers cited whichever version suited at that moment. And they were not beyond stretching the meaning of the text to suit the point they were making.

I do not know if Jesus used the Hebrew text or the Greek, although one would need to be conscious that he was an Aramaic speaker and he preached in a very small area which had experienced limited Greek influence. Jesus did not write anything nor did any of his immediate followers. The earliest written record, the 7 genuine letters of Paul, do not recount Jesus' life or preaching. The earliest Gospel (Mark) was written 40 years after Jesus' death (and borrowed material from Paul). Matthew was written some 15 years after Mark, while Luke was initially written about the same time buit the version we have dates from the early second century (along with Acts, which is also a second century document).

The MT is about 1000 years younger than the LXX. As Emanuel Tov (obviously a Jewish scholar) points out ("Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible"), the Jews have one Hebrew text because the Masoretes (about 1000 years ago) created their text and destroyed all variants. He says that in the process, the Masoretes set in concrete all of the errors.

It is estimated that more alterations have been intoduced to the NT text (deliberate and accidental) than there are words in the NT.

The use of ancient Hebrew characters for HWHY into the scrolls, characters that had long ago ceased being used is something that the WTS does not do. Instead, it adds - wherever it suits them - the Roman Catholic word which amalgamates YHWH with Adonai (the "J" is soft in Jehovah, as in "Yahwist"). The paleo-Hebrew characters were inserted a long long time after the scrolls were written - perhaps looking back into their history.

Prior to the 6th century neo-Babylonian era, the Hebrews were polytheistic, including the worship of YHWH's wife, whose name was Asherah. The monotheists did not win out until the return from Babylonian Captivity, and all that we read is their propaganda. 95% of the population was illiterate -- and remained so until very recent times. At least one of my grandparents was illiterate.

Doug

28

Why Judaism and the Torah ?

by Crazyguy in

so i have been studying early christianity a bit and noticed that before christianity really took off after 325 ce, there were a lot of religions.

gnostics teachings , belief in all sorts of different gods from egypt to greece .

the practice of emperor worship etc.

Doug Mason

Saename,

My understanding is that Rome was a very cosmopolitan society and that the Emperor was concerned at the disharmony within Christianity, including within Pauline Christianity. I suspect that although this sect was "selected", it was not the dominant form.

My position is that Constantine and Theodosius intervened to bring the internal Pauline disharmony to an end, and in the process imposed the positions held by one part of that sect (that's where Trinitarianism rears its head).

Regarding "shall". My first editor, and we are talking about 1971, refused anyone the use of the word "will". He said that something happened or it did not. Secondly, I read that the English and the Scots use "will" and "shall" with opposite meaning. (I think the reference was a book by Fowler. Was it an English Government style book? I wonder whether the Chicago Style Manual discusses "will" versus "shall". There are, of course, differences in the English language between the correct version - Australian - and all other versions.)

Out of all that, I use will to mean "I want to" and I use shall to mean "I am going to". Apologise for the quirks in my old mind.

I get annoyed when I hear someone say that "such-and-such prevented this from happening". In my mind, the word "from" is unnecessary.

I am sure that I will get comments and criticisms on my upcoming Study.

Doug

28

Why Judaism and the Torah ?

by Crazyguy in

so i have been studying early christianity a bit and noticed that before christianity really took off after 325 ce, there were a lot of religions.

gnostics teachings , belief in all sorts of different gods from egypt to greece .

the practice of emperor worship etc.

Doug Mason

Saename,

My desire is to show that the Watchtower lies. I am concerned at the human damage they cause through trashing families, risking lives because of their stance on the medical use of blood, and the mental damage they cause by forcing people to believe things they do not give full mental assent to. Apart from those factors, they can teach any doctrine they want to. It does not matter what a person believes, as long it causes no harm to themselves or others.

You have every right to disagree with my understanding of the 4th century experience of the Pauline Christians. I have no proof but I surmise that the power behind Constantine's selection of that group of Christians was deeply influenced by his mother, Helena.

While Constantine elevated the Paulines, the greater influence came with Theodosius in 381. But if you disagree, that is your right to do so, but when you disagree, please remain agreeable. And let me know what you believe.

I am fully aware that people do not agree with me and with likeminded people. I suspect that no two people agree 100% on every aspect of their belief system.

Later this week, I shall release my latest Study, "The Jesus-movements' First 200 Years". Being very conscious that reference to Bart Ehrman will colour the attitude of some to my Study, I make minimal reference to his work. Indeed, I provide some 800 direct quotations from about 50 books by several authors.

I genuinely look forward to seeing criticisms of that Study.

In the meantime, if you want an Ehrman-free analysis of the 4th century Christianity include the following, at least, in your analysis:

"AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State", Charles Freeman.

"A New History of Early Christianity:, Charles Freeman.

"Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years", Philip Jenkins

"The Rise of Christianity", W.H.C. Frend.

The books by Geza Vermes are always enlightening.

For those who wonder why Christianity took the Hebrew Scriptures, ask the question: "Why did Christianity accept the New Testament Scriptures, when they are Jewish writings by Jews (apart from Luke-Acts, and Mark) about Jews?"

Doug

18

I have no prblems with "new light"

by Doug Mason in

there is nothing wrong with accepting new ideas.

even apostle paul changed his mind when he "saw the light".

indeed, i hope to learn new things every day.

Doug Mason

There is nothing wrong with accepting new ideas. Even Apostle Paul changed his mind when he "saw the light". Indeed, I hope to learn new things every day. There is nothing wrong with real "new light".

But I have problems with the way that the Watchtower operates its "new light" system. Not that a light stays on for long. It switches on and off, like the twinkling lights on a Christmas tree or it cycles like traffic light signals. What was old is new again, until it becomes old, waiting for its turn to be switched on again for a while.

All of that could be a cause for ridicule, but there is a seriously sinister side, at the human level. Each time a new light is switched on, the organization demands lock-step acceptance. All minds have to switch over, whether a person agrees or not, only to be told later that the process has once again been amended - sometimes reverting to previous ideas.

What havoc does this play with people's minds? Having to mouth ideas that in their minds they cannot accept yet must on pain of eternal damnation (or loss of family) be forced to give allegiance to? What mental damage does this result in?

Doug