Posts by Disillusioned JW

40

"Mankind's Search for God" book

this book was published around 1990, but was never studied (to my knowledge).

does anyone know the reason why?.

Disillusioned JW

Maybe I had used the book to conduct a few Bible study sessions with someone. If I had then that would explain the underlining I have in the first two chapters of the book.

40

"Mankind's Search for God" book

by My Name is of No Consequence in

this book was published around 1990, but was never studied (to my knowledge).

does anyone know the reason why?.

slimboyfat I now think you are probably right that the book was used in some service meeting group discussions (f that is what you mean by "service meeting items") instead of in congregational book studies.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Correction: In my prior post where I said "I no longer believe the account in the gospels of large numbers Jewish people calling for the execution of Jews ..." I should have said "I no longer believe the account in the gospels of large numbers of Jewish people calling for the execution of Jesus ...".

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

peacefulpete you might be write about the Joseph passage (and of Jesus not having had a brother named James) and I might end up believing it. But if I I do come to believe such, it likely won't be in haste. I would think about it quite about and consider how compatible the idea is with a number of ideas I already hold and think about if those ideas of mine have problems.

Regarding the account in Josephus which refers to Jesus as "called Christ" instead of saing "son of Joseph" or "of Nazareth", perhaps it was because that when he wrote the account (in the late 1 century CE), Christians were much more often referring to Jesus as "Christ" than as "of Nazareth" or "son of Joseph". We see such usage in the NT letters, including in Paul's.

A number of years ago, I read claims that James was both the brother of the Jesus and leader/bishop of the Jerusalem congregation of Christianity, was righteous/just in the minds of non-Christian Jews, and according to Josephus was killed (but with many non-Christian Jews saddened by his death). When I first learned learned that a great many non-Christians Jews were saddened by such a James I thought such was had to believe (due to the portrayal in the gospels of the Jews demanding the death of Jesus). But a few years ago (or so) I was wasn't, because I came to a different view about Jesus (and his likely teachings) and of the views and practices of his earliest Jewish non-Hellenistic followers, as a result of reading various articles.

I learned there were Torah keeping Jews in Jerusalem who believed in Jesus as the Messiah (not just the ones referred to in some of Paul's letters and in the book of Acts), but who did not believe that Jesus is God (or even literally the son of God), and who also didn't believe that Jesus was born from a virgin. [As you know, the earliest gospel account of the NT has no virgin birth account for Jesus, and as you know the book called Matthew portrays Jesus as being Torah keeping and urging fellow Jews to keep the Torah law.] Some groups with at least some of those ideas were ones called Nazarenes, Ebionites, and some other names (I don't remember right now the names of the other groups). I read claims that Jesus the brother of Jesus was a righteous man who was also a Torah keeping Jew (even after his brother Jesus died), and that he was very influential among Jewish Christians largely because he was the fleshly brother of Jesus. He would have known that Jesus had a biological father (one likely named Joseph). The Christianity of that kind of Jew was much more mainstream Jewish (though of a messianic type) than the gentile Christian type. It thus would have been much more acceptable to non-Christian Jews than Paul's type of Christianity would have been to them. I thus think that such a Jewish follower of Jesus, who was known as keeping the Mosaic law faithfully and for being righteous, and for not saying that Jesus was God, and for saying that the literal father of Jesus was a Jewish man, would be respected by many non-Christian Jews, and that his death (by murder) would be mourned by many of them.

I no longer believe the account in the gospels of large numbers Jewish people calling for the execution of Jews, nor the account of the Jewish religious leaders plotting to have Jesus killed, and the Jewish religious leaders had a sham trial conducted in a manner which broke many of their own rules. I have learned (from Jewish web sites) that throughout over 1,000 years the Jews have been saying they did not do the horrible things to Jesus which the gospels say they did. I remember that they say the accounts in the gospels slander the Jewish people (including the religions leaders) and has influenced many people over nearly 2,000 years to persecute them as a result. I read that the Jewish people have long had various rules about how a Jewish suspect is to be tried and that the rules forbid doing things the way the gospels accuse them of having done to Jesus. They give details of the rules, including going down the street asking is there is anyone who wishes to come forward and say something in defense of the accused. They also say that their courts would never condemn a fellow Jew to become crucified! According to their law back them, even if they had a Jew hung (such as upon a tree or a stake), he would not be executed that way, but would be killed some other way instead, and only after he was already dead would he be hanged/hung.

The NT gospel accounts portray Pilate as kind just ruler who tried to avoid having Jesus executed, but history shows that he was ruthless instead. The gospels try to make it appear that the Romans were not really guilty for the death of Jesus, by claiming that the Jews insisted upon his death instead. That scenario is unlikely.

Consider what is said at the following sites:

- https://outreachjudaism.org/who-killed-jesus/ which says the following (among making many other good points).

'In contrast to the gracious, benign caricature of Pontius Pilate conveyed in the Gospels, according to noted historians, including Philo and Josephus, the Roman Governor was renowned for “his violence, thefts, assaults, abusive behavior, endless executions, and savage ferocity”15 and as a “cruel despot who executed troublemakers without a trial and ordered his soldiers to randomly attack, beat, and kill scores of Jews.”16 Not surprisingly, this record of Pilate’s brutality is mentioned nowhere in the New Testament. A cruel tyrant such as Pilate would not have hesitated to execute any leader whose followers posed a potential threat to Roman rule. The notion that the Jews would or could demand of Pilate to crucify Jesus is preposterous.'

- https://antisemitism.adl.org/deicide/ which says in part the following.

"This narrative is patently false. While certain leaders in the local Jewish community felt that Jesus’ teachings were politically subversive, experts have gathered that Jesus was not perceived as particularly threatening or enraging to the Jews around him.4 Modern readers misinterpret the trial of Jesus as a conflict between Jews and Christians, but this does not square with the Jewish origins of Christianity or with the fact that Christianity emerged years after Jesus’ death. The only non-Jews present in the story of Jesus’ crucifixion were the Romans."

- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jesus-the-crucifixion-pontius-pilate-and-the-new-testament is a Jewish source presenting a Jewish view. It says in part the following.

'Concerning Jesus’ executioner, Pontius Pilate,* we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his “heart of hearts” really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity’s founder—indeed the reference to Jesus’ crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity’s only hope for gaining legitimacy was to “prove” to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, “Crucify him.” The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate’s power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.

Crucifixion itself, a Roman form of execution, was forbidden by Jewish law because it was torture. Some 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by the Romans in the first century. How ironic, therefore, that Jews have historically been associated with the cross as the ones who brought about Jesus’ crucifixion.'

40

"Mankind's Search for God" book

by My Name is of No Consequence in

this book was published around 1990, but was never studied (to my knowledge).

does anyone know the reason why?.

Disillusioned JW

I remember studying at least part of the book it in the congregational book study (which consisted of the entire congregation meeting in the kingdom hall instead of in homes). In my copy of the book I have answers (to the questions at the bottom of the pages) underlined in the first two chapters of the book. I would only have done that if the book was being studied in the congregational book study. Though the book is designed to keep JW's believing in the JW religion and perhaps to be useful to convert people to the JW religion, the book is interesting to me, as a guide to further research (since I can look up the sources and quoted in the book to learn more and since it gives some ideas which I can do further research about in other publications. I appreciate the chapter on Buddhism and part of the chapter on Modern Disbelief. By it mentioning the names of some atheists, it causes some reasons to think about atheism and it causes some of those to want to do research about the atheists mentioned. For example, I eventually obtained books written by Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche, and read some by Feuerbach. I especially appreciated two of Darwin's books about evolution (including On The Origin of Species). I have also purchased books which both describe and promote Buddhism. I also have a book by Durant called The Story of Philosophy.

I think that a number of the philosophical ideas of the Buddha have utility and also compatible with both Christianity and atheistic naturalism. Now there is something called Secular Buddhism.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

In light of what you said about "Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" this matter is now difficult for me to decide upon, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus says the following - and it agrees with what I said (including about the significance of the use of the phrase "who was called Christ").

'In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth (James the Just).[2] This occurred after a large number of Jews complained and petitioned the king. Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

While the authenticity of some passages in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews has been subject to debate, the overwhelming majority of scholars consider the discussion of the death of James in Section 9 of Book 20 to be authentic.[4][5]

The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, and scholars agree that Jesus the son of Damneus is distinct from the reference to "Jesus called Christ", who is mentioned along with the identification of James.[6] John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context.[7] '

After doing a search a moment ago for ""Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" I noticed that a Christ myth web page at https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html (of a site which many years ago I had read some other pages from) says something which agrees with you. There it says the following.

"When we remove Christian interpolation from the "Jamesian" reference in Josephus, it becomes clear that James was the brother, not of a non-existent 'Jesus Christ', but of Jesus bar Damneus, high priest briefly in the year 63. In the increasingly violent rivalry between the two major families that had controlled the high priesthood for a century, James was the brother of one contender. Together with his supporters, he was eliminated by the boss of the rival faction. Briefly, the 'aggrieved' family gained control of the Temple. But once the new Roman procurator was installed he put pressure on Agrippa II to replace Jesus bar Damneus with a more pro-Roman candidate – and Jesus, son of Gamaliel became high priest.

... If you drop the spurious clause about "being called the Christ", doubtless inserted by a Christian editor, then this James would have been the brother of the guy who eventually made high priest because of James' execution! "

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

That is Interesting.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

You might be correct regarding the idea of the word "called" being an interpolation by Christians.

Other than the passage which you quoted about James and Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest, is there a historical source which definitely says that Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest had a brother named Jesus?

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Peacefulpete I am not offended by what you wrote, though I was shocked about some of it (and maybe somewhat scared by it since it would mean a number of my strong beliefs need to be greatly revised, again).

Perhaps Richard Carrier did mention the idea you which mentioned. I haven't read a lot of what Carrier wrote in promotion of the Christ myth concept. I have read however that Bart D. Ehrman (who is no longer a Christian and who now identifies as being an agnostic atheist) says that the Jesus of of the phrase "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ... " was the Jesus Christ of the NT scriptures.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Correction: In the first paragraph of my prior post where I say " I and a number of scholar believe he says that way because he (a non-Christian Jew) did not believe ..." I should have said " I and a number of scholars believe he says it that way because he (a non-Christian Jew) did not believe ...".

Major Correction: The last two sentences of my prior post (in the Update section) should be replaced with the following.

'As a result, the Jesus, the son of Damneus (who became high priest) was a different Jesus than the one mentioned in the phrase "... the brother of Jesus, (who was named the (annointed) Christ,) whose name was James ..."! I have read and heard biblical scholars say that the Jesus who was a high priest (the one you mention) was not the one referred to as "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ...". This strengthens the case that the Jesus of the phrase "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ... " was the one whom Christians call the Christ and the son of God.