Posts by David

42

Did Jesus really suffer? Really?

by purrpurr in

jw
friends

so over the course of three days he had a trial which doesn't seem to have bothered him much.

he got whipped ok that would have been agony and then put on a torture stake/ cross/ whatever yes that would have been hell.

but he was on it for a day and the whole thing lasted for three days.

David_Jay

The intention is to show how bankrupt the Watchtower Christology is, first and foremost.

While there is no intention to advocate that what I wrote somehow recommends that non-theists adopt something along the lines of my post, I cannot take credit for the "happy-clappy spin," as you put it.

Having thoroughly imbimbed and promoted the Kool-Aid of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses for two decades, from the 1980s onward, I was totally of the opinion that the JWs had the correct and generally accepted view of the Jesus story, that as the JWs served it, this version of the Christian mythology was generally accepted as a ransom story, about providing a dead victim to set the scales of justice aright before the mighty God Jehovah who was doing this becuase someone ruffled his feathers by challenging his sovereignty.

Around ten years after disassociating from the Jehovah's Witnesses, I came across the annual Christmas prayer of the Catholic pope, who at that time was Pope John Paul II. I believe it used to be printed every year in newspapers, if memory serves me right.

Far more poetic than what I described above, the prayer mentioned these points I touched on and more. He said something along the lines of "God became man in order to sacrifice his life so that man can have the eternal life of God," or something along those lines.

I had never been a Trinitarian, not before becoming a Witness or after leaving. So I only knew what the Watchtower had taught us about the subject. But the prayer of the Pope had me curious. What was he talking about? That was nothing like the Incarnation I had learned from the Watchtower (I still held that some of the views of the Witnesses were true, so at that time I had not bothered to revise my education on what Trinitarians believe).

I wrote the above post because it is what the Trinitarian doctrine is about. I learned that the Witnesses were very off base and liars about even that. Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants don't believe that Jesus gave up his life as a sacrifice to cover Adam's sin, as a sacrifice to appease God, but as an act of redemption, as an offering to humanity.

The theology is very ancient, but it goes like this: Adam's life led to the death of humanity, but Jesus' death led to their life. Adam died by eating fruit from a living tree, humanity lives by "eating the flesh and blood" from the dead tree of the cross. Adam, in an attempt to be like God, gave death to his children, but God, in his attempt to become human, gave life to humanity. The sacrifice of the Jews were animals offered to God, but the sacrifice of God was the life of his Incarnate Son as an offering to humans.

Again, I am sure many of you believe it is nonsense, either way. And I would not argue with you nor claim your view wasn't right, I was merely pointing out that what the Witnesses believe is so backward and empty compared to actual Christianity, that their exegesis is more ignorant than the mythology. They can't even understand what many consider little more than a fairy tale right. They are like poor readers, unable to understand even the most rudimentary of simple children's tales.

Essentially they have turned what others see as a beautiful story into one of a bloodthirsty divinity who, becuase of his pride being hurt, has to have the most perfect of humans suffer and die. I came up with neither "spin" on the tale, but I am rather embarrassed that for almost 20 years I peddled the stupid version.

42

Did Jesus really suffer? Really?

by purrpurr in

jw
friends

so over the course of three days he had a trial which doesn't seem to have bothered him much.

he got whipped ok that would have been agony and then put on a torture stake/ cross/ whatever yes that would have been hell.

but he was on it for a day and the whole thing lasted for three days.

David_Jay

I have to agree that the whole thing sounds silly when we use the Jehovah's Witness exegetical approach.

And before I say this, I want to make it clear I am not encouraging anyone to adopt religion, reject religion, or anything else by the following...

The non-JW view is very different when you consider that most Christians believe Jesus was the incarnation of YHWH. While it was a popular pagan and heathen concept that gods in their incarnate form would rule as kings, the idea that the incarnation of the Jewish God and King would end up experience excommunication, torture, and death as a criminal by the hand of Jewish enemies (they regularly called Gentiles "sinners") is an outstanding invention, if nothing else.

When the theology that Jesus was YHWH in human form is used as a key, the story takes on a different meaning. In it the God of all the universe deigns to be born into poverty, to a woman who conceives this incarnation in morally questionable circumstances.

The birth goes unnoticed except by those marginalized in Jewish society, such as shepherds, and by heathen astrologers. When the Jewish ruler of the time learns of the child, this incarnate God is hunted as a target for slaughter.

Eventually the incarnate God of the Jews gets rejected by his own people, his own leaders of those who worshipped him. He gets excommunicated as a blasphemer and handed over to "Gentiles sinners" to die in nudity, hung on a new type of torture device invented by the Romans, the cross, on the date of the most important anniversary of Judaism, the Passover.

When the story is read from this vantage point rejected by the Jehovah's Witnesses, it is the story of a God that chooses to live among and identify with even the most insignificant among humanity. He purposely chooses a course that would lead to his experiencing suffering that even the worst criminals of the time experienced. God choose to experience what it is like to be poor, to be disbelieved, hated, rejected, as well as loved, to be part of a group, to have friends, to experience hunger, good food, joy, and the fear of death, as well as death itself.

God becomes human in order to raise humanity. He undergoes rejection to stop rejection. He experiences mortality in order to end mortality. God shares the life of man that man may share in the life of God. It is no longer a story about a sacrifice to appease a God who demands a death to cover Adam's sin, as the Witnesses teach. It becomes a story of a God sacrificing his life in order to give it to all his children.

Again this is not a plea to turn people into Trinitarians or get atheists to accept Christian mythology, no. But I do want to show up how poor a story the Witness theology makes of the Christian tale. According to the JW reading, the story is about a blood thirsty Jehovah who demands life for life, blood for blood. The other story is about a God who gives over his life, chooses to suffer, in order that life can be given to people, to end suffering, to stop the demand for sacrifice.

At least one story seems remarkable. The other, the Watchtower version, is a poor cousin, no different from the bloodthirsty demands of the heathen deities.

6

Why bring God when you can do it yourself?

by elbib in

when under temptation, one can easily deflate it by simply changing his thoughts and choosing his associations wisely.

(philippians 4:8, 9; 1 corinthians 15:33) then why did jesus teach us to pray to god: “lead us not into temptation”?

(mathew 6:13) .

David_Jay

You are correct, elbib. Employed in the fashion employed by the Witnesses, the Scriptures are confusing.

The Witnesses, as you are likely aware, follow a popular principle that many of the other New Religious Movements of America's Secong Great Awakening adopted. Invented by the bishop-turned heretic Marcion of Sinope, they read the Bible as if it is God's ultimate, final, and exhaustive authority and form of revelation. This gnostic principle is opposite of Christinaity which in contrast views Jesus Christ as the basis for their religion, and the Scriptures as a product of this revelation.

Marcion taught that the Gnostics were correct that only a select minority was chosen by God to be saved from the evil world, but that the Gnostics were equally wrong in saying that no one else could gain salvation. The Gnostics claimed that "salvific knowledge" or "gnosis" was hidden in the holy writ of religions, and only the chosen minority could understand these secrets. Marcion believed the holy writ was limited to Paul's epistles and an edited form of Luke's Gospel, but that this select group could teach this "gnosis" to followers who would need to follow and hang on to every word of the chosen ones less they perish with this world.

Oddly, Marcion was reportedly "surprised" when he was excommunicated and stripped of his position for his teaching. But his ideas and followers never really died off. The Church Fathers eventually had to develop an official canon of liturgical and teaching texts in response to Marcion's challenge, but the idea kept rising up over the centuries.

The American era of the religious awakening revivals rejected traditional religious ideas, including those of the Reformation. Marcion's ideas became popular once again, with the Bible being used as if it was an exhaustive, all-encompassing revelation from God. The problem was that each new group saw themselves as "chosen" by God to bring the only truth that had been "hidden" in the holy writ of Judaism and Christianity...until their new "chosen" group appeared that is.

Read disconnected from the original relgious liturgy and traditions by which the texts were created, the Bible gives quite an incomplete picture. These groups took advantage of the resulting incomplete picture created by disconnecting them from traditional religion, claiming the traditions that shaped the text were all of human or evil origin, and that without following the select chosen leaders of these "Last Day restorationists," the hidden and saving knowledge of the Scriptures could never be discerned.

6

Why bring God when you can do it yourself?

by elbib in

when under temptation, one can easily deflate it by simply changing his thoughts and choosing his associations wisely.

(philippians 4:8, 9; 1 corinthians 15:33) then why did jesus teach us to pray to god: “lead us not into temptation”?

(mathew 6:13) .

David_Jay

While the way these texts you quote are precise formal-equivalent or word-for-word translations, these types of renditions can cause readers problems if they read them as if they were written using English idiom. This is all that is causing confusion.

For instance, if I were to say: "What is the count of years in your possession?" That is an accurate word-for-word translation of a Spanish phrase. But it might confuse English readers because it follows Spanish idiom. We don't say the phrase this way in English. Instead we say: "How old are you?" Note the vast difference?

Whereas word-for-word Bible translations lend to great study, they often lend little to comprehension for readers, especially those who know little about the idiomatic terms unique to the cultures, eras, and languages of the Scriptures.

In ancient Hebrew culture, prayerful speech attributes all things, good and evil, to God. It is not a literal means of expression, but meant to imply that divine providence can allow evil only for the eventuality that God will deal with it at the proper time. Idioms are forms of speech often hard to fully appreciate outside of understanding the original language, and even by the time Jesus uttered the words of the famous Lord's Prayer, this type of speech was somewhat archaic. Judaism had already begun to stop attributing evil to God in its theology during the Second Temple era, but the liturgical language of prayer still reflected Biblical speech of pre-Babylonian exile which still did that.

"Do not lead us to temptation," actually means "do not let us fall prey to our temptations" or "give us the strength to face our tests successfully." The expression could actually be rendered "spare us from the hour of test" in reference to what some in Judaism called the "Messianic woes," times of testing that would come from the evil one or persecutors expected by some Jews in the Messianic era.

A similar vein is understood in reference to the use of parables by Jesus. Some of the Hebrew Scripture accounts, while apparently based on historical figures, are actually parable-like morality stories that often take great liberties with dramatic license for teaching purposes. The first few chapters of Daniel are such an example as is the entire book of Jonah. When people read these as literal accounts they come to wrong conclusions in the end, like the Watchtower has for 100 years.

Jesus used the same type of teaching genre, offering stories which obviously could not be literal which were designed to make people ask questions of him. For a person to be a disciple in Judaism, they often had to approach a rabbi several times with a question before a direct answer was given them (some in Judaism do something similar today). The teaching technique demonstrates the student's seriousness of resolve to find an answer and the rabbi's desire to teach the disciple how to think for themselves to find right answers.

The parables are the same. If people were not serious about learning from Jesus, they would not inquire and follow him to ask for an explanation. Those that would, Jesus would often act like many rabbis still do, acting surprised that the student didn't understand. It's just a Hebrew teaching technique, like methods used at the college level in universities which are used by professors to weed out true students from those who are just warming seats, so to speak.

The expression about why Jesus speaks in parables that you quote is also a Semitic idiom. It can be rendered: "I teach in parables to teach them that they don't currently look deep enough into things, nor do they listen with deep enough intent, nor do they really use their brain to think." Jesus wanted unity, but not followers who had little more interest than "passing the class," to use a current modern idiom.

36

Faith, where now?

by Theburstbubble in

so for the first time ever i went to a church service at my local church (coe) and i have to say it was awful!

it was just like a ritual.

the vicar would say something and then the congregation would all say a phrase in unison back to him.

David_Jay

Cofty has raised a very important point.

The "humble Bible study" of Russell and his companions was flawed from the start. Like Mormonism, which is a religion that sees writings as the starting point and measure for Christianity, Russell was influenced by Adventism's similar view of religious revelation.

Christianity (and its father religion Judaism) is not based on writings. Christianity produced writings. The books that became the New Testament were not the basis for its religious doctrines but selected due to their use in liturgical worship over the first 350 years of Christianity's existence.

The Christian canon developed because of Marcion of Sinope, a bishop that turned to Gnosticism, who taught that holy writ was the ultimate form of spiritual enlightenment or revelation and thus the only true measure of Christian doctrine. His canon, limited to a few of Paul's epistles, an edited-down version of Luke, and a rejection of the entire library of Hebrew works, moved Christian bishops to use their authority to set a standard for books that aligned with official use. The process would not be completed until the 4th century.

Judaism is (allegedly) based on a series of theophanies given to the patriarchs, to Moses, and the Great Theophany at Sinai, or so the claim is made. The Jews later composed the books based on the religious interpretation of their own history (a work that did not take shape until after the Babylonian exile ended).

Christianity originated in a similar manner. Based on a series of epiphanies based on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christian movement was born. Like Judaism before it, Christianity was not based on writings, rather it produced writings. Christianity, according to its own historical claim, is based on Jesus being the ultimate and final revelation in God, not the Scriptures. As so-called religious "truth" was found in the people of Israel, Christian "truth" was deposited in the community or "church" of Christian believers.

The Bible is merely a product of these movements, considered inspired and a revelation in and of themselves, true, but a testimony to something greater nevertheless. Russell's mistake was that of Joseph Smith. They, like Marcion of Sinope, believed and advocated the Gnostic teaching that the ultimate revelation of truth was found in the written word of religious movements, and not anywhere else in the community of believers that originally produced them.

Limiting themselves to the scope of what is composed on paper, all three men came up with odd and "unique" doctrines contrary to those taught by the communities that composed the texts. Without noting a deposit of faith that consists of both theological practice and written works, and accepting only the written texts, peculiar religions resulted. (In Smith's case he went one step further and claimed that an additional written text was also necessary.)

Limiting oneself to the Bible independent of the religions, cultures, peoples and theology that composed them is dangerous. It would be like taking the writings of the Dalai Lama and following them but rejecting his religion. It would be like basing a religion on Hubbard's "Dianetics" but claiming that Scientology did not have to be studied or followed. That is absurd, but it is what Russell did when studying the Bible and claiming that the Christianity that composed it and canonized it should be rejected, to curse the religion but praise its product, its book.

One does not have to be a theist to see the insanity of following the Gnostic rule that ultimate truth is found only in the written texts of a religion, but not in the religion itself. If the religion is false then its writings can't be true, especially when the religion came first and produced the writings, using its own authority to canonize them.

7

What is the Modern Christian's Role, According to the Bible

by jacobm in

if any other christians can answer this:.

what is the role of the believer in this day of the church (the body of christ, not the building)?.

is preaching a main goal?.

David_Jay

I have to agree with Jan's great reply.

In my Roman Catholic tradition the role of the Body of Christ, the Church, is to make God's Kingdom a present and practical reality for people.

Being more than a mere static government, God's reign is expressed by Christians not by making doctrines into unfeeling stones to judgmentally throw at others, but by an active participation in God's love for humanity and the physical world around us. It is less about making new members or even demanding that people adopt our theology or religion, and more finding ways to meet the real needs facing individuals today.

People are often marginalized, suffering in systems that keep them poor and wanting, stripped of their dignity, or told that they would be loved by God only if they changed this or that about them. But God loves people whether they believe in God or not. All people deserve freedom from want, freedom to exercise their conscience as they see fit, and freedom from isolation. One cannot merely offer Bible education or demand that people convert as a requisite to your caring for them. And we often have to put our personal conflicts and doubts aside in order to genuinely love others in ways that move us beyond our personal conceptual boundaries. People are far more important than inner church doctrinal debates and political conflicts.

The modern world is composed of more than believers or those who are searching or even want to believe. All these people are, as Christianity teaches, children of God regardless. And as such all need to be treated with the love that the image of God in each person demands be given of us.

While it is vital to teach the Gospel through accurate instruction, it is far more import to live the Gospel by loving your neighbor as the image of God they truly, really are. Without that, there is no Gospel or Bible to teach.

36

Faith, where now?

by Theburstbubble in

so for the first time ever i went to a church service at my local church (coe) and i have to say it was awful!

it was just like a ritual.

the vicar would say something and then the congregation would all say a phrase in unison back to him.

David_Jay

Correction on my last post: In describing the earliest of liturgies, my post should read that it is ascribed to St. James the Just.

As to how people in churches with ritual learn Scripture, did you know that the Watchtower never told you that we would not have Scripture if it were not for these ritual liturgies?

The canon of Scripture, both Jewish and Christian, were determined by their use in liturgy. (For those of you who were kept in the dark about religion history while in the Watchtower, "liturgy" is a formal worship service; it is like a script to follow, stating what prayers get said, what psalms get sung, what Scripture texts get said, and on what day of the year this happens.) The Jewish Tabernacle/Temple liturgy consisted of prayers which became the psalms. Some of these were chanted or sung between a leading priest and the worshiping audience, often in responsorial antiphons where the audience repeated a chorus in reply to the worship leader, such as found in Psalm 136.

The Temple service became adjusted for smaller synagogue service. This liturgy used an annual cycle of readings from the Torah and the other books of what would become the Jewish Scriptures, read on a schedule that marked the annual festivals prescribed by the Law.

The earliest Christian liturgies, like the above mentioned, adapted the synagogue service. But they introduced two new facets: Justin Martyr, writing in the 150s CE, stated that "on the day called after the sun there takes place a meeting....The memoirs of the apostles are read, as are the writings of the prophets...When the reader has finished, the president, in his speech, admonishes and urges all....Then we all stand and pray together aloud. When the prayers are ended, we greet one another with a kiss. At that point, as we have already said, bread is brought, with wine mixed with water."

These items were used for a weekly Eucharist/communion service. Justin wrote that "none is allowed to share unless he believes the things we teach are true....For we do not receive them as ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but as Jesus Christ our Savior."

The texts used in common around the world in this liturgy eventually became the Christian Scripture canon, originally consisting of the Alexandrine Septuagint for the canon of the Old Testament and establishing the New Testament by the end of the 4th century. People learned the Scriptures by hearing them read on a cycle similar to the synangogue service, except these cycles became based on the birth, life, ministry, Passion, and resurrection of Christ throughout the year instead of the Jewish festivals.

The Bible was not available to individuals either in ancient Israel or even the first centuries of Christianity. Besides the canon being unsettled for Christians until the late 300s and literacy levels being low, widespread ownership of the Bible did not occur until the famous barefoot walk of the poor Welsh girl, Mary Jones, inspired Bible societies in the mid 1800s throughout the West to find a way to invent a way to provide Bibles for all.

Russell was born into a world where a loud minority of Adventists (and other new movements from the Second Great Awakening era in the USA) promoted an ignorant history that made it sound as if all people have always had access to a copy of the Scriptures since the first century, but had been oppressed from free Bible study by "papists and liturgical Protestantism." The truth is that individual Bible ownership is a relatively modern phenomenon that was born about 80 or so years before World War I. Prior to this there were almost no means to provide Bibles to anyone except mostly churches and the rich, and most people learned the Bible in church groups or from the liturgy and catechesis (as well as Protestant Sunday schools).

American New Religious Movements which discarded the liturgy (most due to simple ignorance), developed religious "services" based on Protestant Sunday school settings, and not due to historical research on how Christians originally worshiped. The Watchtower religion came from these uneducated groups who made up an impossible first century "history" where "true Christians" went about preaching and studying from their personal copies of the Bible...despite the fact that such a history was totally impossible, false, and a fantasy of the stupid.

36

Faith, where now?

by Theburstbubble in

so for the first time ever i went to a church service at my local church (coe) and i have to say it was awful!

it was just like a ritual.

the vicar would say something and then the congregation would all say a phrase in unison back to him.

David_Jay

And I almost forgot...

Ritual can be a means to this transcendent contact that leads to belief and faith. Ritual played an important part in the Jewish worship at the Tabernacle and later the Temple. The first Christian services were based on a type of ritual called "liturgy," portions of which are found in the New Testament. All modern liturgies are based both on the Jewish tabernacle/Temple service and the oldest written liturgy or Mass composed by the first bishop of Jerusalem, St. James the Greater. The JW meetings are just classes in Watchtower theology, dry and devoid of spiritual experience as they are of ritual. One has to receive catechesis in the ritual of these services to see their ancient connections and meanings, and why they have been preserved for generations.

36

Faith, where now?

by Theburstbubble in

so for the first time ever i went to a church service at my local church (coe) and i have to say it was awful!

it was just like a ritual.

the vicar would say something and then the congregation would all say a phrase in unison back to him.

David_Jay

Thereis a significant difference between "faith" as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and what non-JW Christians generally experience. Knowing the difference may help you make a decision, one that may help you find a religion that adds to your life, or like Cofty states, discover that a non-religious path fits you better.

Jehovah's Witnesses see faith as a response that believers are totally responsible for. For them it is based on a scholastic approach: studying the Bible and linking texts to come to conclusions that demonstrate a particular logic, one generally supporting Wachtower concepts. The study produces conclusions that are called "evidence" upon which to create or support beliefs. Mental acknowledgment and heartfelt devotion to these conclusions is what is called "faith" among the Witnesses. Any doubtful thoughts must be readily dismissed and are often seen as a sign that one is not a "true believer."

In mainstream Christian theology "faith" is a supernatural virtue. While like the Witnesses it consists of a personal response that includes assent of the mind and the will, according to religious people it has a divine dimension that without makes it totally impossible. Unlike JW doctrines which require belief based on the study and research and complete action of the devotee, the other type allegedly results in belief through an action of God which the devotee does not personally generate.

Scripture and Christian doctrine refers to religious faith as a product or "fruit" of contact with the Holy Spirit. (Galatians 5.22) Unlike Watchtower "faith" which is supposed to be the result of study and contact with the Governing Body, this other "faith" comes from some sort of contact with God. The contact allegedly results in revelation that allows persons to arrive at conclusions or assent to religious "truths" that could not fully believed in by pure human effort. (Compare Galatians 1.11-12 with Matthew 16.15-17) Whereas Witnesses often claim that they believe in their unique doctrines through their own efforts of study, beliefs backed by "evidence" and reason, the other type is said to be a stand-in or personal resolve when there is no evidence or reason to work with, even when there is nothing but reason for doubt.--Hebrews chapter 11.

So for those looking for a church or religion along Christian lines, one's choice is generally made depending on which path may aid in bringing about this response. For them it is about coming into contact with something that is transcendent, generally defies reason, and causes a person to respond with "leaps of faith," courageous steps which generally would not be done by the same individual alone.

This in no way means that a non-theist way is any less courageous. Not all persons take a path that adds to the community of humanity by a religious practice. If you find that nothing speaks to you in the religious world and that you are more taken to adopt convictions based on more humanistic effort, a fulfilling life can also be found according to the testimony of many atheists.

Again, if religion seems to be the path that calls to you, unlearn the Witness way of doing things. Religion is supposed to be the embracing of something greater, that transcends, that recognizes that we can't know everything or expect to be totally right about everything. Belief in this send becomes the result of some spiritual contact, not the manner in which one makes themselves religious.

If you wish to be part of a religion, be sure it is a way that helps you be free to be yourself, not something that takes that freedom away from you or makes you think you can judge others for taking paths exercising similar freedom but holding different convictions.

33

Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

by Half banana in

i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.

can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.

David_Jay

Cofty, you know there is a question involved. That's what this thread is about, asking believers to supply an answer to the OP's question about their stand.

The majority of Christians claim to have a response in their critical approach, an approach you said you immersed yourself in and claim "it was much ado about nothing."

If a believer said the same thing in response to the OP's question or even just your own well-thought out views, namely, "I've immersed myself in your views and found them much ado about nothing" that would be seen as a failure on their behalf to respond.

The same goes for us when we don't respond to their answers to the question as supplied in their voluminous works. We might win arguments on this forum in the settings we create for ourselves, but they won't work in a real world setting with people who base their belief on these critical analytical arguments. We need to help equip others who may be faced with this in order to prove successful against even the most "challenging" religious "rhetoric" which you call it.

I am sure your views would demolish any argument any theist could throw at you, but if you kept it to yourself it does nothing. You and your views are far more valuable than to be merely kept locked away.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay