Posts by David

59

Common Figure of Speech/Colloquialism?

by rstrats in

1. the messiah said that three nights would be involved with his time in the "heart of the earth".. 2. there are some who believe that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.. 3. of those, there are some who believe that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb.. 4. however, those two beliefs allow for only 2 nights to be involved.. 5. to account for the discrepancy, some of the above say that the messiah was using common figure of speech/colloquial language of the time, i.e., that it is was common to forecast or say that a day or a night would be involved with an event when no part of the day or no part of the night could occur.. 6. in order for someone to legitimately say that it was common, they would have to know of more that 1 example to make that assertion.. 6. for the purpose of this topic, i would like to ask if there are any 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates who think the messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language of the period?.

David_Jay

1. The Messiah said that three nights would be involved with His time in the "heart of the earth".

Having been raised for a few years by my aunt as a JW, but being born a Jew and today back to being a practicing Jew, I can assure you that as many times that I've heard that "heart of the earth" is supposed to be some Jewish idiom, it is not.

There is no such saying or expression in any Jewish language like that which is an idiom of any sort, not in Hebrew, not in Ladino, Yiddish, Aramaic or Arabic. We don't have such a common expression in any of our modern languages or in modern Hebrew either. I am a Sephardic Jew, and I speak Ladino and Hebrew throughout my day (and some Yiddish). I have verified this with many a rabbi and scholar, and there is no such idiomatic expression as many a Fundamentalist Evangelistic Christian claims.

It should be noted, however, that the contrast is with Jonah not being in the belly of the fish, but Jonah recognizing that the fish was swimming deep into the depths of the waters, which Jews viewed as the Netherworld of the Dead or Sheol. Jonah thus refers not to the belly of fish as Sheol but to traveling down into Sheol by means of the fish's belly.--Jonah 2:2.

Jesus is saying he, like Jonah, would spend three days and nights (according to Jewish reckoning) in the Netherworld.

4. However, those two beliefs allow for only 2 nights to be involved.

While I am not a Christian, and I definitely do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and on top of that reject the idea of the Resurrection of Jesus, Jews can say "three days have passed" but only two nights have occurred. This has been common speech for Jews for thousands of years and still is to this day.

For instance, tonight is the start of Chanukah. Jews, like me, are celebrating by lighting their first candles in their windows all around the world. But your calendar may say different if you're a Gentile. It may say Chanukah starts tomorrow.

Well, that is true too. You see the first day of Chanukah is tomorrow because our days start at sundown and end at sundown. If you use a Gentile calendar, the first day of Chanukah is December 13. If you use a Jewish calendar it begins on December 12.

If you use the Gentile day of reckoning and count three days of Chanukah, let's say December 13-15 you get three days but only two nights of candle lighting. Why?

Because the Jewish candle lighting for the 13th was on the 12th and the candle lighting for the 15th counts as the Erev or eve of the 16th of December. According to Jewish counting there were three days but only two nights. Get it?

So if Jesus was the Messiah, and if he did rise from the dead, he could have died on a Friday and risen Sunday. The colloquial speech works with Semitic dialogue about counting days. All the other stuff you wrote is just Gentile/Christian/Gregorian calendar fluff.

People always want to make Jesus of Nazareth fit into a Christian mold. If he was the Messiah, remember, "messiah" is a Jewish concept. To understand it fully you have to let go your Gentile self.

12

Lead us not into temptation

by eyeuse2badub in

'lead us not into temptation': why pope francis is wrong about the lord's prayer.

m j c warren, lecturer in biblical and religious studies, university of .

pope francis recently announced that he thinks the common english translation of the lord’s prayer is mistranslated.

David_Jay

...the reason maybe that Luke and Matthew give a different version is that they are talking about Jesus preaching on two occasions, a year apart.

A closer focus on this point: this was often an argument advanced by the Watchtower when I was associating with the Witnesses during the 1980s. It hasn't much critical scholarship to stand on.

Matthew's gospel appears to be a Jewish liturgical account, meant to be read in a synagogue of Jewish Christian worshipers who were Torah-observant. Along with their Torah readings on the Sabbath (Friday night or Saturday morning), they would read from Matthew's text. They saw no alteration to their Judaism in accepting Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, neither did they change their Jewish practice.--See Acts 21:20ff.

Luke's gospel was once a single volume with the Acts of the Apostles. It was an evagelism tool, read in Christian meetings that took place once the Sabbath had concluded, usually on Saturday night (as Jews could not assemble with Gentile believers or assemble at all outside of synagogues or Temple according to the Law as long as it was Sabbath--and Sabbath ended on sundown Saturday). This might explain Paul's discourse on "the first day of the week," why it occured late at night, and why it lead to the death and subseqent resurrection of Eutychus. (See Acts 20:7-12) This text of Luke's became used for the new "Lord's Day" services as liturgy of a new type, meetings which were held "on the first day of the week," the day after the Jewish Sabbath, or our Saturday night or Sunday mornings. Eventually the two services would merge on Sunday once Christianity became Rome's state religion.

At the canonization of the New Testament, the gospels were separated into their own section, and Luke was split from its second half with the gospel of John dividing it from Acts.

The discourse in which the Lord's Prayer occurs in both Matthew and Luke is the exact same event. The difference is that Matthew records it as Jewish liturgy and Luke records it as Christian evagelism to the Gentiles.

As Jewish liturgy, Jesus is the New Moses to whom his disciples "climb the New Sinai" to hear the "Sermon on the Mount." From there they hear "the Torah" explained, receiving the Beatitudes much like Israel received the Ten Commandments: "Blessed are the meek...Blessed are the..." etc. This Jesus in Matthew claims he comes not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and curses those who teach against it. He then teaches his followers how to pray. The prayer is not unique, however, but very much in line with common Jewish themes along the line of rabbincal teachers of Jesus' day.

Luke does not compose the event as does Matthew. He does not draw the event as if the people are all Jews. He writes for an international audience, in a way that the reader can see themselves as part of those approaching Jesus. Instead of a mountain, Jesus is on a plain and approachable. Instead of a figure like Moses, Jesus is very human. He does not speak of the Mosaic Law. Instead of fulling the Law, Jesus is seen as comming to redeem and teach the world, not merely the Jews. Luke is foreshadowing the events that will lead to Paul's ministry in the Acts of the Apostles.

Pope Francis' discussion about the Our Father is a little skewed in the press because most reporters don't know the history of where Christianity got the prayer in the first place. In fact, Christianity prayed the Our Father/Lord's Prayer first before the Gospels were written. It was an oral instruction and part of memorized instruction among Christians. Only later was it inserted into Christian Scripture. Most of the gospels we have come from "saying sources" like M and Q and L. Q, in fact, may have been the Aramaic sayings source that Papias identified as "Matthew's gospel," in theory.

All nomative academia agrees that none of the narrative in the gospels comes from the original authors but was added much later to these sayings that the Christians attributed to what they claimed to be oral teachings attributed to memory from Jesus of Nazareth. This includes the Lord's Prayer which had been recited by this time by memory in a liturgical setting prior to the Communion service in Christian services before anyone had written it as gospel.

12

Lead us not into temptation

by eyeuse2badub in

'lead us not into temptation': why pope francis is wrong about the lord's prayer.

m j c warren, lecturer in biblical and religious studies, university of .

pope francis recently announced that he thinks the common english translation of the lord’s prayer is mistranslated.

David_Jay

Actually, prayers were the first liturgical compositions, meaning the first formulas of recitation in address to God.

The Book of Psalms is the official book of prayers for three religious groups: the Jews, the Catholics/Orthodox, and the Anglicans/Episcopalians. The Psalms are recited daily usually three or four times a day at set hours on a set schedule, often chanted or sung, until all have been covered over a period of so many days, and then the cycle repeats. This has been occurring since these religions began. It is the reason for the Psalms existence.

By the Second Temple era when Jesus was living, the Jews said all prayers by rote. The reason Luke and Matthew's account of the Lord's Prayer differ is not because they are attempting to advance freedom from the Jewish standard but because the two are attempting to match. If they were advancing freedom to pray as one wished they would have differed greatly, not matched in general expression. They differ because they come from different sources, Matthew coming directly from an established Jewish Christian community's liturgy.

The first Christian Liturgy is attributed to the Jerusalem congregation prior to the Bar Kokhba revolt. It contains the version of the Lord's Prayer that resembles Matthew's and what appears in the Latin Liturgy of the Catholic Church. While there has always been room for spontaneous prayer, the "Our Father" has been a formula prayer of Christianity since its inception.

12

Lead us not into temptation

by eyeuse2badub in

'lead us not into temptation': why pope francis is wrong about the lord's prayer.

m j c warren, lecturer in biblical and religious studies, university of .

pope francis recently announced that he thinks the common english translation of the lord’s prayer is mistranslated.

David_Jay

Feeling much better, so thought I can help out with this one.

Pope Francis is speaking NOT about changing BIBLE translations but updating the LITURGICAL translations of the "Nostre Patre," the Lord's Prayer as it is translated into the vernacular in English and Italian for the Mass.

Both English and Italian still use very old, outdated vernacular forms of the Nostre Patre in Mass. For instance, the English translation of the Mass was just updated a few years ago, but the Lord's Prayer still reads the same way it did in 1610: "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name..." The Italian version is similarly outdated.

The Liturgy, or official prayer service, exists in Latin in order to have a universal version from which to translate the Liturgy into various languages. Each language group (episcopate) is responsible to translate the Liturgy as it sees fit based on a set of recently set, simple guidelines that allow each episcopal body autonomy.

But one of the demands from that Vatican upon each local body is that modern, critical, and easy-to-use language be chosen for renditions. Traditionalists have not liked this new directive of Pope Francis, and some have found themselves removed from their positions because of it. The Pope even stopped the Vatican from having control over all translation projects and gave this power back to the local bishops and to the critical language scholars just earlier this year.

What the Pope is talking about is that the renditions in English and Italian LITURGY are both old and give the wrong impression to readers of today. They do not even match the new approved Catholic translations of the Bible released in these countries. For instance, where in the Mass the Liturgy still reads in English: "...And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil," the Catholic NRSV reads: "And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one."--Matthew 6:13.

This is outstandingly different. The Liturgy makes it sound like God can lead people into test, but in reality this is only because it is olden vernacular. In 1610 it meant the same thing as the NRSV rendering means today. But if we keep the words for tradition's sake, we get a different meaning because today's idiom has changed. That is what the Pope is saying. The Liturgy must and will change for Catholics. Their Bibles already did, 20 to 30 years ago. It is time for the Mass to catch up.

While the current Liturgy is based on the Latin text, it itself is being critically updated with the best critical Greek scholarship. Also, only the English and Italian versions of the Liturgy read in such archaic forms. All other language groups have already changed. Pope Francis is announcing that the Liturgy in these last two areas will be standardized with the rest of the world to match the best critical Greek readings.

As for Bible translations, Catholic Bible versions are translated in the vernacular for each language group independent of the Vatican by scholars from various religious traditions, Christian, Jewish, and sometimes even Muslim and atheist linguists in order to avoid bias. The end result receives approval for Catholic use by the bishops that oversee the language group of their area, especially if that version is to be used for liturgical purposes.

45

So, is God a rapist!?

by stuckinarut2 in

ok, i apologise in advance if this seems irreverent to those who believe in god.. but, the bible says that god (jehovah) impregnated mary.

without her consent.

so that would seem to be rape...right?.

David_Jay

Hi, folks. This is David.

Despite my brother-in-law's best intentions, I apologize that he has been a bit too zealous on my account. Forgive his use of profanity.

To outsiders this forum is not well understood. The pain of others that we often project towards one another (since we don't have the Watchtower to directly confront) can come off as bullying. Sometimes it does cross that line, and we ourselves can be the last to see it as that. But who else can we get mad at and with?

I am following everyone's advice and staying away after this, but I wanted to end on a good note and apologize for Chuck. He is overly protective.

As for Anony Mous's last words: You are wrong. I am a post-rabbinical Jew. You can also read any of my comments here or ask anyone like Cofty that I do not nor have ever claimed to have all the answers and have never stated that Judaism or religion has all the answers. I don't believe anything along the lines of what you have written. That was a false statement about me and a personal attack. I will leave it at that.

Farewell to everyone else. Again my apologies for Chuck's behavior.

45

So, is God a rapist!?

by stuckinarut2 in

ok, i apologise in advance if this seems irreverent to those who believe in god.. but, the bible says that god (jehovah) impregnated mary.

without her consent.

so that would seem to be rape...right?.

David_Jay

David had been acting very anxious for several weeks, especially after hurricane Irma struck us here in Florida. As part of an adult Asperburgers/Autism support group, his therapy leaders and I went searching for the cause. We found it: this forum.

Just because some here didn't read the comments we found aimed at David, doesn't mean they weren't there. We read them all, the ones where he was taunted repeatedly with the phrase "getting your panties all twisted in a wad" or where he was repeatedly called "stupid...insane...brainless" and countless times where various posters attacked his culture, his race's traditions etc. If you would like I can even list the names of all the posters and the personal insults and curse words that various people called David as he posted. We copied everything down.

On top of that, if I have to keep on reminding you, David is atypical. He doesn't understand each time something is meant to be a simple lampoon or get jokes as easily as the rest of you. To be honest, you folks don't make it clear at all, and in some cases we had a hard time seeing a difference on this site... And we don't have autism!

The front page of this site claims it offers support and tolerance. Instead, what I am reading here from JP1692 is that what you really offer is only distrust, challenges, and fiery heat to everyone who passes through. If they don't measure up to these standards, you spit them out.

Congrats. You just replaced one high control group with another that practices shunning and excommunication just like the group you left. And just like the group you left, you blame the victims for not fitting in. Good job guys, you've invented a new online cult.

I'm moving on now. Enjoy lampooning, putting people under "the heat" and then blaming them if they cannot stay in your "kitchen," but lying to them on your front page on how this is a welcoming page of support and tolerance. You really learned how to be just like the Watchtower cult, didn't you?

45

So, is God a rapist!?

by stuckinarut2 in

ok, i apologise in advance if this seems irreverent to those who believe in god.. but, the bible says that god (jehovah) impregnated mary.

without her consent.

so that would seem to be rape...right?.

David_Jay

David is on the high functioning end of the autism scale, as I mentioned prior a few days before. I am his brother-in-law.

There was a letter in David's box here, and he wanted me to pass a message to someone named Cofty and Simon and say thank you and close the account. As I mentioned before I read quite a few of the threads before asking David to leave, and in the process I thought I would mention the above information since I saw the question in passing and had the information.

As for me sounding like David. I know we don't, definitely not in real life. But should we sound similar in writing to you maybe it is because we went to the same university, roomed together, and he married my sister. After she passed I have been watching him.

But while we may have similarities due to education, I am quite different than him, I promise you. I know how to call out weak-minded, chicken-shits who like to think people are fucking with them by pretending to be two or three people. You're just saying that because I present a good argument. It's an easy out for you, and I don't give a shit what you've written, Anonymous or whoever you are (with a screen name like that, you shouldn't be talking).

Now. if no one wants to help, and since I can't find a way to get his account removed, forget it. Apparently Jehovah's Witnesses are just as mean, untrusting, judgmental, and abusive to my brother-in-law outside their cult as they were when they were in it.

To those who made it hard on David: Shame on you. If anyone should be acting unlike those fucking Watchtower assholes it's you guys, but apparently you only left their doctrines behind. Their hatred for other religions, their enjoyment of judging others, their intolerance and bigotry, none of that washed off. Instead, from what I can see that you did to David, to an autistic man and with no shame, you revel in and improve their techniques of meanness like a sport.

And If you, Anonymous, still think I'm David, I'm gonna say something just to you that David would never say: Screw you, you cunt, and go to hell!

Forgive me, to you others that David liked, but I was merely looking for help and to help and now I even got a little taste of what he went through. Excuse my language too. But this is one of the most horrible places disguised as a support group I've ever seen!

45

So, is God a rapist!?

by stuckinarut2 in

ok, i apologise in advance if this seems irreverent to those who believe in god.. but, the bible says that god (jehovah) impregnated mary.

without her consent.

so that would seem to be rape...right?.

David_Jay

I am Mr. Dunn, David's friend. I'm searching for a way to get his profile removed.

I'm an atheist. I'm 50 years old, holding several degrees from three universities, never grew up in a religion, especially not one such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

But even I as an educated atheist man know that this entire thread is actually highly problematic in its arguments.

I respect others right to disagree with the thread, but can they offer a better explanation of the "facts" about Mary's conception?

Yes. There is. Even though I hold no belief in Christianity or Jesus or the New Testament myths, this story from the Gospel of Luke (the only place it occurs) is called "The Annunciation." It is all about Mary saying "yes" to God's invitation to become the mother of Jesus.

In fact, it is so much the opposite of a rape, that the "yes" Mary gives to God in this short story is theologically celebrated as a Holy Day of Obligation in the Roman Catholic Church (a day where all Catholics MUST attend Mass regardless of what day of the year this day falls on).

On this day Mary's "yes" is contrasted to Eve's "no" in following God's invitation to obedience. One woman is asked to not eat of a certain tree that leads to death and she says "no." Another woman is asked to become the mother of a child who will bring life to all humankind and this other woman says "yes." (See the following information on the theological contrast between the two women, though this article is about the Immaculate Conception.)

In my view as an atheist, it's a myth. But I'm also an EDUCATED ATHEIST. That means I know the myth, just like I know the Greek and Roman myths. To get the myths wrong would make me sound like an ignorant asshole. I'm not an ignorant asshole. I know my mythology.

Now I'm not saying any of you are ignorant assholes. This idea for this thread is likely due to being exposed to nothing but the limited world of your Jehovah's Witnesses cult. You folks wouldn't be writing this thread if you had heard of The Annunciation. It's probably printed as a day on your secular calendars too but you've never noticed it or knew what it was. That's what living in a deep, dark hole in the ground, cut off from the real world does to you. You don't even learn the mythology of the world correctly.

The Annunciation is not a story of a rape. It's a story of a woman who said "yes" to a deity when asked if she would act as that deity's handmaiden. She bravely and honorably gave her consent in contrast to Eve, and that's the point of the myth.

Now if someone can tell me how to disconnect David's account. I won't bother you again.

39

Why pigs???

by stuckinarut2 in

why did jesus supposedly cast the demons into a herd of pigs?.

(matt 8 / luke 8).

and, how were there so many demons inside one man, that when "released" by jesus, it took a whole pack of pigs to contain them??.

David_Jay

My name is Charles Dunn. I am David’s friend.

He left very upset to his synagogue tonight. For the past two days he has been posting feverishly on this site after an absence on it for some time. I was hoping he would never go back as it makes him upset. David has some challenges, which he has told me he has shared with this site for the first time tonight.

I have finally got him to agree to stop coming on this site. Whatever it is you folks do to him, it’s not good.

David is a highly intelligent, successful individual and professional. He has spent his life in community projects on a national and international level. At 50 he has much to show for it. He is also on the autism spectrum, highly functioning, what people used to call having Asperger's syndrome.

People on the spectrum can become obsessive. People like him are highly logical and rational. They can see things others can’t, especially when people are lying to themselves. So they can be a little too blunt with us and say things to us we don’t want to hear. That is David. It frustrates him that others don’t like to hear the truth. He doesn’t this.

I apologize if his bluntness has upset anyone. That is his main flaw. He doesn’t realize when he shouldn’t point out another’s problem. Normally people gloss over another’s faults and just move on. David expects people to appreciate being corrected. He enjoys being told where he made a mistake and fixing himself, but you better be right when you do this otherwise he will correct you about your correction.

But I’ve been reading what he’s been writing for the past two days too. And I’ve been reading through this site. I’m sorry for all the hurt you folks have gone through as Jehovah’s Witnesses. I recall David’s own experiences. The hurt shows.

However, there is a lot of unnecessary hate that comes through. A lot. And I hope some of you do something for it because it shows that you need healing.

The reason I got David to promise to never return is because the way his comments about religion gets him treated by some of you here. It get him more than mocked. It him and his words treated with hateful disrespect.

I am an atheist. I have no need for religion. But that type of speech is very, very wrong. I know hurt from your experience as a Jehovah’s Witness is at the basis for most of it, but you direct it at a person and his culture. His religion of Judaism is tied to a people, so every word you say about his religion is about his people and culture. I would never do that. Reading some of your words here is definitely a sign that there is a lack of connection with propriety and social responsibility.

My main concern in David. He doesn’t understand that some of you are being hateful towards him because he’s the easiest and closest thing to hate now that you are out of your cult. But I do. So I am taking him away. And he’s not coming back.

I wish you the best. I hope some of you heal and realize there’s more to being an atheist than hating and mocking religion and religious people.

I will post this in two of the threads he had open tonight to make sure all is settled.

39

Why pigs???

by stuckinarut2 in

why did jesus supposedly cast the demons into a herd of pigs?.

(matt 8 / luke 8).

and, how were there so many demons inside one man, that when "released" by jesus, it took a whole pack of pigs to contain them??.

David_Jay

I didn't say people couldn't be humorous, Sparky1.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay