Posts by David

11

Were leading characters in the history of Judeao-Christianity suffering from psychotic symptoms?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

i don't think i've seen any reference to this academic study on this site.

the analysis in question was published in a serious academic journal, the journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences, in 2012, with the title, the role of psychotic disorders in religious history considered.. the authors were evan d. murray, m.d., giles g cunningham, m.d.

ph.d, and bruce h.price,m.d.. it was published online october 01, 2012, reference link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11090214.

David_Jay

As a Jew I am very bothered by the term "Judeo-Christian."

It is like Christians can dictate how Jewish Scripture is to be translated, but what we say doesn't matter. So if Christianity teaches that the stories of the "Old Testament" are literal, we get blamed because, "after all, it's all a part of Judeo-Christian culture."

So you end up believing that my forefather Abraham literally attempted to offer up his son as a sacrifice.

You end up viewing our narratives about Moses as history.

You lump Jesus and Paul into the same group as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...even though those who followed the teachings of Paul and Jesus later apologized for the part they played in the pogroms, the tortures of the Inquisiton, and the genocide of the Jews in the Holocaust.

For centuries we have declared our stories as legends and moral plays or history retold as religiously reconstructed opera, but off you have gone ignoring all this. Then when you learn the truth about these writings, you blame us Jews and our stories for lying to you.

Sorry, but we didn't tell people that the Hebrew Scriptures required a lens named "Jesus Christ" to understand them.

Some among us might see more history in them compared to others, but we never promised anyone that they were supposed to be read at face value. If you read our works through the eyes of those who can't even read our texts unless they are translated out of Hebrew into another language, why are we to blame?

The term "Judeo-Christian" is nothing but a farce. There's nothing Jewish about it except what has been taken from us and interpreted without us.

Sorry if you listened to Christians and they gave you the wrong ideas about Jewish tales, but why blame Jews or the stories themselves? If you really wanted to understand them, why did you go running to non-Jews and folks of a different religion? If you want to know what Buddhists believe, would you ask Mormons? Should people learn the truth about atheists from Jehovah's Witnesses?

Don't point the finger at our legends and mythology. We weren't the ones who told you to read them out of line with Jewish thought.

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

David_Jay

Vidqun,

See if you can read this correctly.

The comment I made was that the "Daniel" mentioned in Ezekiel is not the author of the Book of Daniel. You wrote: "Scholars insist that the persons mentioned in above scriptures are examples of the past and has nothing to do with the writer of the book of Daniel." I totally agree, and that is my argument. I don't know why you are finding a problem with a point upon which we both agree.

My words do not concern whether Daniel was historical, whether or not he was faithful or an idol worshiper, or whether the current legends of Daniel in Judaism have value. I was countering the JW views regarding the Book of Daniel, not making an argument for a real Daniel or claiming he was a good man. For all I know the Daniel you are speaking of was an idol worshiper. I don't know if there was a historical Daniel, personally speaking.

So I still don't know how you came up with conclusions that I was speaking against the conclusions you have come up with. I wasn't. They are quite identitical. All I can think of is that you were not reading them in full context, perhaps mistook that my position was supportive of something else and this colored your reading to misunderstand the whole thing.

16

Sin Inherited Humankind

by looter in

so jws believe all humans have faults, problems, birth pangs, etc., because we all inherited sin from the original human being adam.

like i would like this to make since but why would jehovah do this to future humans who have done nothing wrong at all?

i think of it like if a parent has one child and that child really disobeyed her before then when the parent has a second child, she punishes that child because of what her first did.

David_Jay

Judaism finds the teaching that Adam's sin is inherited as impossible to reconcile with Ezekiel 18.20 which states that God does not count the sins of our ancestors or parents against us.

I've used this with Christians who were so certain I was headed to Hell for "not being saved," as they say. They either get very angry, go into denial of the importance of Ezekiel's words (my favorite is: "Well, you Jews can't understand Ezekiel correctly because you don't have Jesus!") or storm off declaring I obviously can't be reasoned with.

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

David_Jay

Vidqun,

I had to walk away due to a telephone call. But I do have one thing to add in conclusion.

Appreciating your convictions and points, I also don't want you to see this as a cop out on my part. To illustrate how some of your points you presented may not stand under scrutiny, let me demonstrate a mistake you have been making in how you read my statements. You wrote:

Although Daniel is here included with Job and Noah, this does not mean that Daniel lived in their day. He was a contemporary of Ezekiel who had great respect for him.

The Scripture texts I cited do not claim that Daniel lived during the time of Job or Noah, nor could that be considered the point. None of these persons listed are considered contemporaries in Judaism or their Scriptures, so how did you arrive at this interpretation of my words?

Neither did I claim that they were contemporaries in my writing. I merely stated that Daniel is a Jewish hero, and was considered to be one of those heroes before the Babylonian deportation according to Jewish history, Jewish legends, and the Scripture texts from Ezekiel.

You concluded something due to your point of view. That is natural, but this caused you to project these mistaken views onto my comments and you have reached incorrect conclusions.

Ask yourself: why did I conclude that David was saying Daniel was a contemporary of Noah and Job? How did I miss the actual point? Could views or habits learned while a JW still be lingering and keeping me from reading texts or comments colored by a particular approach? Could anything else I've concluded be based on a similar misreading, regardless of the cause, and could a more objective reading help me at least comprehend what was originally written and its aim?

Try to be a little more objective next time to avoid making conclusions never suggested by the material of others. It will help you understand them better, even if you never end up agreeing with them.

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

David_Jay

Vidqun,

Thanks for your critique.

Do note that though I am a Jew, I do not necessarily share the views I've posted that you have worked through. They represent a very brief explanation of certain Jewish theological theories and views but not necessarily my own. They are also not in any to be taken as exhaustive.

Because of this your very well-written comments have little effect on what I wrote as they aren't original personal views or convictions that I can change. There is, however, far greater explanations with even more pertinent and far more reliable data in multiple Jewish sources, as well as conflicting views.

Believe me, there are far greater minds than mine who developed such thoughts as I expressed, and your arguments can only be with them as only they can change them or declare you have a point. I cannot change views that aren't my own or that I don't even possess.

The information was presented to show there are counterpoints to consider. Unlike the JWs who see things in extremes, Judaism acknowledges that there is likely to be alternative views and those yet undiscovered that can only add to a better understanding regarding theology. Things are rarely "one thing or the other, but not both" as in Watchtowerland.

20

WT Article - David Versus Goliath—Did It Really Happen?

by ttdtt in

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-no5-2016-september/david-versus-goliath-real/.

the article ends with this:.

there is no real basis for doubting the truthfulness of this historical account.

David_Jay

In Judaism we do not treat this account as literal history. It is more like legends told in American heritage history, like Washington chopping down a cherry tree and confessing it as a youth. The literary device used in Jewish Scripture is somewhat identical in purpose.

The text shows redactions added over the generations until the section was finalized into the form accepted as Scripture. The size of the enemy is obviously a narrative device to compare him to the "tiny" David, but it's creative liberties used to teach reliance on the Hebrew God gets lost when they are minimized or ignored by calling it literal history.

The legendary account actual contains a "legend within a legend." While originally meant to be a story like the young George Washington, the way the original story came to be repeated in Judaism was later added as a secondary addition within the original text. The later redaction is found within the original story, set by the latter author(s) at 1 Samuel 17.12-31, with details added in vss. 50-52 and a conclusion added in 17.55-18.5.

20

UPDATE: My existential crisis comes to a close

by Freeandclear in

jw
friends

in case you read my other thread regarding my existential crisis and how it was making my life miserable and left me feeling hopeless, purposeless and joyless i though i'd share what's recently happened to me and my way of thinking and have i've for the time being resolved my existential crisis.

i write every day in a journal.

i've been doing this for years.

David_Jay

I'm a religious man, and while what I practice may be quite opposite of a lot of people, I don't think I ever thought that without belief in God there would be "no hope, despair, and misery," as you put it.

I have a lot of friends who are atheist, I love them dearly, and I don't know any who are without hope, who are in despair or miserable. They have different convictions, yes, but aren't any less happy as I can tell.

Now I am very glad you have found peace with your state in life. Don't get me wrong. I myself am at peace on the path I walk.

But I am not a theist because I felt having this belief would bring me hope or end despair and misery for me. I don't walk in the path I do because I thought it was a 'better alternative,' as if being an atheist is somehow worse on any level or in any respect. I am not now somehow gifted with greater hope and freed from misery because I hold that God exists. Hope is not the exclusive property of theists, nor is it an automatic virtue of belief in a higher being.

I know we all go through things in life that bring pain, misery, despair, and rob us of our hope. Granted, but atheists are no less incapable of such hope or freedom merely because they have a different view on the existence of deities.

If you truly believe in God, then do more than merely believe. Imitate God. God doesn't give life and breath only to believers. Belief is not a requisite for these things. With each heartbeat there is hope for another. With the end of one day there is always the hope of another and seeing the end of misery. If this is what God gives to all, as you believe, and God does it without a sermon or requiring one accept a certain creed, then being in God's image you must not see your neighbor on a path different than yours. Your neighbor is on the same one. Same world with you, same planet, same path.

Stars are faithful in following the courses mapped out by God for them to follow. They are more faithful than you or I could ever be. Yet they have no belief in God, and compared to us they live virtually forever, almost it seems. So do not judge the way others go down the path set for them by their Maker. They may be more faithful in following it than you, even if like the stars they have no belief in God.

Do not see your atheist neighbor as without hope or in despair or without a future. And do not mistake your belief in God as something that guarantees such things either. Instead be grateful for the hope and peace you have and share the comfort it brings you with others, without a sermon just as God gives us gifts. For if there is a God, and God is love, then you are likely to be surprised with eternity and who you will find sharing it with you.

27

Proof that Daniel was written 400 years after the events it describes and how much it gets wrong

by purrpurr in

i've been studying the bible anew and have just realised that the writer of daniel gets the kings of babylon completely wrong and confused.

he says that nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son belshazzar .

then along comes good old cyrus the great who liberates the jews.. yet this is wrong!

David_Jay

Perry,

The Septuagint is not regarded by Jews as a valid representation of Scripture.

It's version of Daniel in particular was one of the reasons the LXX was rejected (and to this day the Septuagint holds no place of importance in Judaism). There are huge additions in the Septuagint version of Daniel which, when the formalizing of the Jewish canon occurred in which Daniel was eventually placed among others in the Ketuivm (Writings), these Greek additions were excised.

The idea that Daniel was a prophet is incompatible with our history for, as noted in my previous post, the historical Daniel is supposed have died many years before the Babylonians invaded. (Ezekiel 14.14, 20; 28.3) Daniel is an important historical figure to us Jews, and the conclusions you have come to, while popular with Fundamentalist Christianity, is at odds not only with Judaism, but Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, teachings of the Church of England, Methodists, Presbyterianism, and most others mainstream Christians for this very fact regarding Jewish history.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, recognized the Alexandrine Septuagint and its contents as the Old Testament. Because the Book of Daniel appears in the Prophet section of the LXX, the Catholic Church has kept its placement where it appears in that Greek version, including the Greek additions found in the LXX (The Song of the Three Jews, which are additions to chapter 3, the story of Susanna and the Elders, which is marked as chapter 13, and the tale of Daniel, the priest of Bel and the Dragon, which makes up chapter 14).

When Protestants decided to reject the complete Alexandrine canon of the Hebrew Bible honored by Catholics, they did not immediately remove the texts from their Bibles. Instead they moved them and their additions to a section between the Old and New Testaments, marked "Apocrypha." They left the remaining books in the LXX order however, and some mistakenly made the claim they did this because they were following the approved Jewish canon (which has a different book order). Leaving them in the Catholic book order, many have mistakenly assumed Jews have viewed this book as prophetic since the Catholic order has the book among the prophets.

There was no "shift" of the book of Daniel to the Writings section around the 5th - 8th century C.E. "as confirmed by Koch" as there has never been formal codification of the books that follow the Hamesh Megillot. These "last books" following Megillot are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. They has never been a formal place or order for these last books, so they could never have been moved to a different section as you cite.

Also, the Qumran texts represent collections of Hebrew texts preserved by a Jewish sect that existed on the outskirts of Judaism. While the find of these texts is quite phenomenal on the philology side of Scripture study, they play little more significance as they also contain a lot works not recognized by mainstream Judaism about the End of Days and how those who originally owned the Qumran texts believed they were God's only true religion that would survive to see paradise restored on the earth.

Their texts, remarkable as they are, are also the equivalent of someone finding preserved copies of the New World Translation among a few JW publications some 4,000 years from now. It would be remarkable, yes, to find them at that point, but hardly representative of what the rest of Christianity really believes nevertheless. Thus pointing to a version of Scripture, the LXX, that Jews don't find authoritative and the Qumran scrolls to support conclusions that clash with Jewish history of its own figures and the development of its own works of religious literature is an odd way to prove a point.

30

This is Why I Will Keep Explaining Evolution to ex-JWs

by cofty in

.

David_Jay

Regardless of any differences of opinion we have had on other subjects and the exchanges, I rather admire that you are doing this.

I am sickened by the numbers on this chart, in particular in reference to the JWs, and though a part of me has always known their stand it is still shocking to me to see it when it is presented in such an important perspective.

I tip my hat to you. Keep up the good work.

8

When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything - G KChesterton

by slimboyfat in

i have been reading rodney stark's new book triumph of faith, where he makes his argument afresh that religion is alive and well.

in fact he says it's doing better than ever, and we are in the middle of a revival of faith.

above is a particular quote he likes to use when refusing secularisation.

David_Jay

To add one more note (as if I haven't pontificated enough), to believe that God is not present in voids made by mere mortals is to belie a theist's claim of belief in God.

If one believes in the God of Abraham, one also believes that God is everywhere. One who believes that the Almighty can be fully excised by a mere mortal is one that doesn't really believe in God.

(This isn't saying that the atheist view that there is no God to begin with is wrong.)

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay