Posts by Doug Mason

If they keep having "new light", when will they have the True Light? How will anyone know what is Truth, if it is subject to change? Does Truth then matter?

Or is it really a matter of WHO is giving the message, rather than WHAT they are saying?

There are, of course, factors at the very personal and family level which come into play, which you would be familiar with, that override any rationality.

Doug

19

Summary of WT Foundation Quotes

by Vanderhoven7 in

the watchtower, november 1, 1922, pp.332-337.

do you believe that the king of glory is present, and has been since 1874?… this is the day of all days.

behold, the king reigns!

From 1876, Russell taught that the Parousia had taken place in 1874. He then designated the following 40 years to be the "Time of Trouble". This would terminate in 1914 with unprecedented peace under the auspices of the Jews.

Because of this, he named his periodical "Zion's Watch Tower" -- because of his Zionist beliefs, and he subtitled that same magazine as "Herald of Christ's Presence", because he was "heralding" that it had taken place in 1874.

For a while, Rutherford maintained his support for the return of the Jews. Likewise, until about 1930, he maintained the Parousia had taken place in 1874.

I collected and sorted many of these passages in:

http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Watch_Tower_Society_Reveals_Itself.pdf (searchable)

When Russell's predictions regarding 1914 turned out to absolutely hopelessly wrong, Rutherford amended the offending words -- and kept selling the books. For example, "before 1914" was changed to "after 1914".

I provide the evidences at:

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

Doug

23

Jesus Christ—The Greatest Scientist (and Psychologist) who ever lived on earth!

by Ireneus in

if we eliminate all the controversial and confusing verses attributed to jesus we will get the crystal clear truth from him because his source was (1) god which can be seen from his habit of early morning talking to god in prayer (mark 1:35; john 8:1, 2) which would not have been for material blessings (mathew 6:8; 16:24), and (2) also observance of people.. 1) jesus who said judgment is based on whether we acted humanely or not (mathew 25:31-46) would not have spoken about god’s people and pagans (which means bulk of the things found in gospel had not been spoken/done by jesus).. 2) another important truth he said was about the real key to our happiness which he said is with each one of us.

(luke 17:21).

from his observance of history, he knew there are people from adversities who made great contribution to the world; and there are people from all abundance who lived a life of wastage accomplishing nothing; and there are people who are mixed in varying degree.

Doug Mason

Ireneus,

When we read Mark, Matthew and Luke, we are discovering what each of those communities thought of their own local situation. None of those writers was an eyewitness. None of them heard or saw Jesus. Mark was written 40 years after Jesus lived; Matthew a further 15 years later, while Luke is later still.

Each writing group was making points against others of their own time. Matthew, for example was deeply antagonistic towards Pharisees, so they write a tirade against them (Chapter 23).

None of them was writing literal history. All Bible writers were creating religious stories to influence their own group and against their opposition. This is the feature and purpose of all religious publications, including in our own time. Propaganda.

So seek the reason for any statement they make in terms of their own group, rather than seeing statements being ascribed to Jesus as actually having been said by him.

Doug.

10

The Anal Retentive Biblical Jehovah

by Brokeback Watchtower in

freud came up with the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anal_retentiveness.

i would like to sight some examples of a anal retentiveness of the biblical deity.. the garden of eden and the death penalty for eating a fruit, which by the way was passed on to all future offspring requiring an anal retentive jehovah to provide a suitable sacrifice of his only begotten son to correct the situation and thus make it possible for forgiveness from the big guy and remove the death curse.. working on a saturday= death penalty.

mandatory blue thread and fringes on all israelite garments.. death penalty for touching the ark of the covenant to prevent it from tipping over.. exclusive devotion only to be given to him, bowing to other gods/idols forbidden.. grows hot with anger and becomes violently enraged killing off all kinds of human and animal life with a flood when humans not living the way he feels is right.. threatening to tread on mankind like a mighty man crushing grapes under his feet when pissed off.. loss of self control when pissed off over insignificant trifles.

Doug Mason

Brokeback,

The specific texts you cite (Job, Exodus, Numbers, Judges) come to us from the time of the Babylonian Captivity and Exile.

Previously, the vast majority of Jews and Israelites had recognized the existence of several Gods, and the writers -- the minority group who promoted "Yahweh-alone" -- now blamed the people's monolatry / henotheism / polytheism for the nations' predicament. Hence the words they wrote (propaganda), the words they attributed to Yahweh.

The writers had to reconcile the recently emerging dominance of monotheism with the fact that the nations of Israel and of Judah had both been destroyed by foreign powers (Assyria, Babylon).

How could Yahweh be good yet evil prevails? The writers had to explain the situation by blaming the people for God's anger because they did not have a being called Satan to be able to blame for evil.

In our recent past, theologians have employed the term Theodicy: how can evil exist in a world controlled by an all-powerful God who is Good?

Doug

10

Inconsistency involving Lot and Abraham

by Ireneus in

when god informed of his intention of destroying the wicked inhabitants of sodom and gomorrah abraham made extensive questioning, cross-questioning and bargaining with god till he gets satisfied.

(genesis 18:16-33) however, when god informed of his intention of murdering abraham’s own only-begotten, innocent son, he simply obeys without any questionings [which he should naturally have done more intensely than he did in the case of unrelated wicked people].. god too acted strangely!

no introduction of the subject with sufficient reasons.

Doug Mason

The Hebraic sacrificial system had nothing to do with pointing to the future.

It was limited in its scope, relating to only minor infringements, mostly unintended or accidental. Some sacrifices did not involve the shedding of blood.

The Day of Atonement, in which the priest lay two hands on the scapegoat - not a confessing sinner's hands - was designed to ensure Yahweh continued to live in the Sanctuary. And that goat which carried the sins from the Sanctuary was not sacrificed but driven off to live with the demons.

As for Paul's opinion and creative imagination, his idea of "salvation" included resurrection and did not stop at Jesus's death. He only states what he believed happened but he never explains how his salvation model operated. For that reason, there has been any number of models.

Augustine's model survived almost 1000 years until Anselm introduced his medieval explanation, soon to be contradicted by Abelard and he by Thomas Aquinas. And so on the explanations keep changing with the times. Luther and Calvin were at murderous loggerheads while the Orthodox Church has its "deification" model.

And running along in the background is Theodicy, which conceivably is a problem created by Monotheism.

What a tangled mess supernatural superstition finds itself in.

Doug

10

Inconsistency involving Lot and Abraham

by Ireneus in

when god informed of his intention of destroying the wicked inhabitants of sodom and gomorrah abraham made extensive questioning, cross-questioning and bargaining with god till he gets satisfied.

(genesis 18:16-33) however, when god informed of his intention of murdering abraham’s own only-begotten, innocent son, he simply obeys without any questionings [which he should naturally have done more intensely than he did in the case of unrelated wicked people].. god too acted strangely!

no introduction of the subject with sufficient reasons.

Doug Mason

Ireneus,

Many suggest that Abraham actually killed his son: "you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son" (v 16); "you have obeyed me" (v 18).

I would like you to dissect the passage further. The WTS says that LORD should be rendered as "Jehovah". In the following I will use the term "Yahweh". But I want to go further than they do.

The early Patriarchs did not use the name "Yahweh". rather they used the name of "EL". (Hence "IsraEL"). We see forms such as "El-Shaddai", and so on. (The God EL was Israel's first main God and we encounter him and his pantheon of Gods in Genesis chapter 1. Yahweh does not appear in Genesis 1.)

Read that chapter 22 again, this time substituting EL for whenever you see "God" and "Yahweh" whenever you see "LORD".

Abraham was terrified because this was the first time he had encountered the deity named Yahweh. He had been following the instructions from EL (="God").

Interestingly, the Mount is named "Moriah", which is a Yahwist word ("Mori-Yah"). It is not named after the God EL ("Mori-El").

Doug

9

Eden's snake

by Doug Mason in

in my study into the israelite and judahite salvations, i provided sources which tell us that the writers of the creation story at genesis 2 and 3 employed symbols associated with the goddess asherah, namely: eve, snake, and tree.. at present, i am researching satan and i came across the following from “the birth of satan” by t.j. wray and gregory mobley (pages 68-69 70).

doug.

even casual readers of the bible have heard about the story of the garden of eden (genesis 2-3).

Doug Mason

Venus,

When the Bible writers speak of "all the nations of the world" they meant the nations around the Mediterranean.

Do not impose 21st century thinking onto the culture of a different people living centuries and millennia ago.

A quick look at Google images for "Hebrew cosmology" shows that they thought the world was a flat disc.

Doug

9

Eden's snake

by Doug Mason in

in my study into the israelite and judahite salvations, i provided sources which tell us that the writers of the creation story at genesis 2 and 3 employed symbols associated with the goddess asherah, namely: eve, snake, and tree.. at present, i am researching satan and i came across the following from “the birth of satan” by t.j. wray and gregory mobley (pages 68-69 70).

doug.

even casual readers of the bible have heard about the story of the garden of eden (genesis 2-3).

Doug Mason

Venus,

Goddess Asherah is at times shown with a snake. At times she is symbolised as a tree. Of the 40 times she is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, it is often as a tree or a wooden pole that was erected to her, even in Solomon's Temple.

The writers of that myth were intent on destroying the worship of the Goddess Asherah by the Israelites and Judahites, so they used those symbols of a deceiving woman, a snake, and tree for that purpose. Adam (actually Israel and Judah) were being deceived by Asherah ("Eve") and by the wisdom of Snake and the Tree that promised life -- eternal life. And when they ate of the tree they did become like the gods.

The writers, who lived around the 6th century BCE, were intent on introducing their monotheism and to destroy all the other Gods and Goddesses, such as Asherah and her son Ba'al. (EL fared a little better by being assimilated into Yahweh.)

These were the only people capable of writing and reading, so all we read is their propaganda. The situation of the Babylonian Captivity enabled their minority monotheistic opinions to prevail.

Quite ironically, the later Jews reintroduced a tree that is reminiscent of Asherah's tree, in the form of the Menorah.

The story is a contrived religious myth. Nothing in the Bible may be construed to be literal history in terms that we would understand. Seek the religious motive of the writers and of the editors as they endeavoured to influence their own immediate community.

They were not writing to us.

Doug

9

Eden's snake

by Doug Mason in

in my study into the israelite and judahite salvations, i provided sources which tell us that the writers of the creation story at genesis 2 and 3 employed symbols associated with the goddess asherah, namely: eve, snake, and tree.. at present, i am researching satan and i came across the following from “the birth of satan” by t.j. wray and gregory mobley (pages 68-69 70).

doug.

even casual readers of the bible have heard about the story of the garden of eden (genesis 2-3).

Doug Mason

In my Study into the Israelite and Judahite salvations, I provided sources which tell us that the writers of the Creation story at Genesis 2 and 3 employed symbols associated with the Goddess Asherah, namely: Eve, Snake, and Tree.

At present, I am researching Satan and I came across the following from “The Birth of Satan” by T.J. Wray and Gregory Mobley (pages 68-69 70)

Doug

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

Even casual readers of the Bible have heard about the story of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2-3). …

Many casual readers of the Bible assume two things about this story: that the fruit that Eve took a bite from was an apple and that the serpent who enticed Eve to disobey the divine commandment was the Devil. Neither assumption has any basis in the Hebrew Bible. Both represent later—centuries later—interpretations. …

The identification of the serpent in Genesis 3 with the Devil, although without any foundation in the original story, emerged in the final centuries before the common era. … It was during the Intertestamental Period, between 200 B.C.E. and 200 C.E., that the Devil in all his macabre glory appears in Jewish and Christian literature. The account in Genesis 3 about the serpent in Eden, written in the Iron Age (anywhere from 300 to 700 years before the Intertestamental Period) assumes that the serpent was one of the wild animals and that the serpent was ultimately subservient to the LORD God, since God made it:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. (Gen 3:1)

Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is there any identification made between the serpent and the Devil/Satan; furthermore, the Hebrew Bible does not invest snakes, as a species, with any special qualities of evil. The appearance of the serpent, as opposed to some other animal, in the role of tempter in the Garden of Eden story is probably influenced by creation stories from other cultures.

----------------

But in Jewish and Christian literature of the Intertestamental Period, the serpent did come to be identified with Satan. For instance, in the Life of Adam and Eve, a rewritten account of the Adam and Eve story from the first century C.E., Eve declares, “The devil answered me through the mouth of the serpent” (Life of Adam and Eve 17:4).

In another work from the same general period, the Wisdom of Solomon, a scroll that is among the contents of the Apocrypha, the serpent is indirectly connected to the Devil: “Through the devil’s envy death entered the world” (Wisdom 2:24).

The most explicit statement of this identification of the serpent with Satan, an interpretation that has endured to this day, appears in the New Testament book of Revelation. As if to remove any doubts, the text of Rev 12:9 reads: “that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan,” and the text of Rev 20:2, “the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan.”

But this common interpretation of the Garden of Eden story, which associates the crafty serpent with the cunning Devil, is merely that, an interpretation.

In this study, we are moving through the Bible one text at a time, one era at a time, historically charting the development of the character Satan. According to that approach, we cannot say that Satan appears in Eden, any more than we can say that Eve offered Adam a bite from an apple. Both of these ideas appeared many centuries later, long after the scroll of Genesis was first committed to parchment.