Posts by David

18

Changed Wording in February 2017 WT Article

by Ding in

the february 2017 wt had stated that the gb is "neither inspired nor infallible" and that it can make errors in doctrine.. the language of the online wt issue now says, “the governing body is neither inspired nor perfect.

therefore, it can make mistakes when explaining the bible or directing the organization.”.

why the change?

David_Jay

This was an odd statement either way. The Governing Body is saying they are not lead by God nor capable of being right when it comes to doctrine.

The theological term "inspire" as in "inspired by God" means to be "guided by God." To say the Governing Body is not inspired is to say it is not "guided by God. "

The theological term "infallible" does not have anything to do with perfection. In reference to religion, the term means to be "incapable of teaching false doctrine and morals." The term was coined by the Roman Catholic Church and describes not the Pope (as Witnesses so ignorantly mistake that it does) but the authority a Pope can take to speak on behalf of the Church when it, as a whole, comes to a decision on doctrine of morals.

For instance, if a matter never explicitly defined in the Church as doctrine becomes a matter of question in the Church, the Pope can assign theologians, lay persons, and experts on the matter to research and come to a conclusion. If the debated subject is proven to be a matter of faith or a moral stand the Church has had since its beginning, though not explicitly so, the finding will be presented to the Pope to declare it dogmatically to preserve it from further question. This DECLARATION that the doctrine or moral teaching is true or valid as a dogma of the Church is then considered infallible by the entire process when announced by the Pope. The Pope himself is not infallible nor can be teach or invent new doctrine, but can only pronounce such matters of faith and morals as dogma when the Church agrees it is so. In 2000 years this has only occurred twice.

Thus to say they are not "infallible," the Governing Body is saying they cannot be right nor ever possess the faculty for being right on matters of morality of doctrine.

Seeing the simplified version demonstrates that they don't know the actual meaning behind either term.

Why join a religion like that? It has absolutely nothing to offer.

44

The Jewish perspective of the OT according to poster David_Jay

by deegee in

i note your comments in the following threads regarding the jewish perspective on certain old testament (ot) events:.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5700922233585664/when-you-stop-think-about-why-would-gods-chosen-people-old-testament-need-army?page=1&size=10 ,.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6065451475927040/why-didnt-god-also-reveal-himself-canaanites-just-he-did-moses-burning-bush.

David_Jay

To begin, here's a brief overview of where we are going:

Would love to hear from you regarding the following:
1. What is the origin/source of the OT scriptures? Were any of the OT scriptures communicated to the Israelites by God? If so, which ones?

In order: We, the Jews, wrote them (and no one can do better than that on that question). Yes, the Scriptures come from God, but our definition of what this means doesn't mean God was necessarily literally involved in the way Jehovah's Witnesses teach. And "which ones"? Any and/or all of them. (Most Fundamental Christians won't like any of these answers, so I am sure I will hear about it once I explain more.)

2. Did God appear to Moses?

The Theophanies are historical events, but there again you have to understand that the Scriptures likely didn't record these in literal terms.

3. Did God appear to any other person, spoke to them, telling them to form the Israelite/Jewish religion?

Jewish religion is a response to the God "concept." It's unlike what "religion" means in Watchtower terms, and can include and even exclude the rites and rituals most people connect with religion. Some Jews believe this "response" came from following a direct command, some think that this "response" is an actual holding of the God "concept."

4. Are the Jews/Israelites God's chosen people?

Jewish theology teaches God has chosen each national group, each tribe, ethnic body, and individual people to play a specific place in the order of things we see today. The term "chosen" is generally understood as being "chosen" for the particular purposes set aside for Israel, just like God had plans for other nations for which he chose them.

5. Was there a literal Exodus from Egypt to the promised land? If so, how many persons were involved?

Historians believe there was, but unfortunately there was no "guest book" to sign on the way out of Egypt (besides the fact that most of the slaves could neither read nor write anyway--which means there would have been a lot of "X" marks). So if you really want that number, you're going to be very disappointed.

6. Is there any part of the OT that should be taken literally?

Yes.

If so:
- Can you specifically state which parts?

Yes.

- How do you know that these OT scriptures are to be taken literally and not figuratively?

Because Jews wrote the book. Duh!

If you write something in the language of your people, using idioms specific to your language, etc., you kinda know what it means. If not, the best you can do is an educated guess. For all those other things that you just can't figure out (because the original writers have been dead a really long, long, long, long time and didn't leave any footnotes to explain some of the really confusing stuff they had the audacity to write anyway), eh.

What criteria do you use to determine this?

Usually a critical approach, even to a degree in Orthodoxy. This is mostly because the Bible is the product of our religion, not the foundation of it like for the Jehovah's Witnesses. Our religion was practiced, taught, and passed down for generations before the Bible was written. Our religion was eventually put down in writing in a book we call the Mishnah (this was later codified into the Talmud). The Bible is actually based on what you read in the Mishnah, so in other words our religion which produced the Bible explains what it means. That kind of comes with the territory when you write your own book.

7. Are there any Jewish scriptures outside of the OT which were communicated directly by God to the Jews/Israelites?

Sorry, but Judaism is not a religion based on books. Before we wrote anything, we still had a religion. For the most part they were dragging our Jewish asses into Babylonian captivity by the time our people thought: "Hey, we should write some of this stuff down." Most of "the Bible" had already happened by then. So, when we got back from that "holiday," we put it together as you now know it.

Again, apologies, but this ain't that religion called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." We don't believe that a religion should be based on a book. Even if God directly communicated with someone and dictated something word-for-word, it hasn't much to do with stuff. Jews find it funny how obsessed Gentiles are with holy books and what is written in them.

Yeah, we got our books (go get yourself the Talmud, and you will see what a real manly book look's like--and you thought the Bible was big and long! HA!). But our religion is not based on them. Our religion wrote them.

If so:
- What are these scriptures?

I dunno. Maybe God did write "The Book of Mormon" and just made Joseph Smith look into that hat as a joke.

- How do you know that these scriptures were communicated to the Jews/Israelites by God?

I don't know if there are any books like that. Personally, I have found that almost all Jews are very fond of the books in the Twilight saga, but as a consequence most Jews hate the way Bella was interpreted by Kristen Stewart. If God wrote these books, I don't think he was fully satisfied by her personal take on the character either.

- To whom among the Jews/Israelites did God communicate these scriptures?

Stephenie Meyer.

Okay, those last parts got away from me. But I will explain in my answers. Some of the questions you are asking don't really mean much to Judaism, so you won't find an answer from us. A lot of what Jehovah's Witnesses (and some other Christians) teach about our Scriptures has given a lot of people a lot of wrong impressions of what our holy Scriptures are, what they mean, and what part they play in Judaism. So some of the questions are not the right ones to be asking.

I will add more over the following week, and should have everything answered by Friday, December 2.

44

The Jewish perspective of the OT according to poster David_Jay

by deegee in

i note your comments in the following threads regarding the jewish perspective on certain old testament (ot) events:.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5700922233585664/when-you-stop-think-about-why-would-gods-chosen-people-old-testament-need-army?page=1&size=10 ,.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6065451475927040/why-didnt-god-also-reveal-himself-canaanites-just-he-did-moses-burning-bush.

David_Jay

I will happily comply but with the following understandings:

1. I think most of us have had enough of religion being touted as a panacea, the answer for everything, and having this forced down our throats. So instead of approaching this as merely an explanation from Judaism (which you can actually do on your own by buying a book on the subject, searching Google, or, yes, visit your local temple or synagogue), I am doing a comparison between the general Jewish understanding and the Jehovah's Witness view. This will make what I am writing useful for anyone visiting this forum.

2. Understand that Judaism, while holding to a certain set of tenets, does not really have an official dogma on anything. And I do mean anything, from the concept of "God" all the way down. There is no standard, official, ultimate doctrine on anything, just generalities. That might throw some who are used to the authoritarian way of teaching the Governing Body provides for a loop. So if (or when) that happens, just remind yourself not to ask "why" so much. Why is Hebrew read from right to left? Why do Jewish men cover their heads to pray while Jehovah's Witness men remove their hats? Is it because there's some Scripture? Some rabbi told you to? Why? Sometimes there is no "why." Judaism is like the Book of Job: It ends up giving you questions as answers to your questions.

3. Lastly, I will stay as objective as possible. Forums and social media in general are about posting what you feel, what you personally believe, letting your opinion out to others. This is good, I think. But it won't help when you are searching for answers to questions. So keep it in mind that unless I say something is my opinion or my personal view, I may not subscribe to any of what I am writing. That is true of what happens when you ask Jews and even a rabbi a question (sometimes even when you ask for an opinion, if you can believe that). Sometimes you get a "truth" that the person supplying you that "truth" does not personally accept or acknowledge as true. If you don't like that, see above point number 2.

Hopefully I can be a bit lighthearted in the process too. I will make each question a post. For further information, I recommend Judaism for Dummies as a good start. No, really.

19

Jesus and the fig tree, what are jws taught?

by Crazyguy in

in the story in the gospel of mark, mark writes that jesus is hungry and comes across a fig tree.

mark explains that it not in season yet jesus upon finding the fig tree has produced no fruit kills the tree.. this story makes no sense if literal so do the gun teach that it literally happened?.

David_Jay

To avoid further hijacking of this thread, if you have any more specific questions about Jewish views and how they differ from and contrast with those of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can start a new thread.

If you have questions in general about Judaism and it's interpretation of Scripture, however, it may be best to seek direct contact with a temple or synagogue in your area or to consult publications like the Jewish Study Bible.

The main reason is that outside of helping fellow ex-JWs find answers they may be looking for in connection with our current status outside the Watchtower, I don't desire to advance my religious views or choices in this forum. First and foremost, Jews don't proselytize, but second I think we've all had enough of people telling us that religion is "the" answer and having religion served up as a pancea, sometimes to the point of it being shoved down our throats.

Even though I am a practicing Jew, I personally don't believe that religion has all the answers or is the answer for everything or everybody. In fact, you might say it goes against my religion to even believe that.

19

Jesus and the fig tree, what are jws taught?

by Crazyguy in

in the story in the gospel of mark, mark writes that jesus is hungry and comes across a fig tree.

mark explains that it not in season yet jesus upon finding the fig tree has produced no fruit kills the tree.. this story makes no sense if literal so do the gun teach that it literally happened?.

David_Jay

Jews, Catholics, and other mainstream Christians recognize the quake as a literal earthquake that occurred during the reign of King Uzziah (ca. 783-742 B.C.E.). The mention of it in Zechariah 14:5 is an allusion to it or a remembrance, and it is recorded in Amos 1:1 and later used as a backdrop for Amos' final vision at Amos 9:1.

The mention of it in Zechariah 14 is not that there will be an earthquake in the future but that people will flee as they did because of the quake in Uzziah's day.

19

Jesus and the fig tree, what are jws taught?

by Crazyguy in

in the story in the gospel of mark, mark writes that jesus is hungry and comes across a fig tree.

mark explains that it not in season yet jesus upon finding the fig tree has produced no fruit kills the tree.. this story makes no sense if literal so do the gun teach that it literally happened?.

David_Jay

That I can't say. I can only offer Jewish commentary as it is up to those Christians who feel they have a vocation to interpret such things. What Christians decide these verses mean is what they mean.

That being said, it is the interpretation of some literalist Orthodox Jews that the current re-establishment of Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy, and even how this is so has no general accepted agreement among these literalists.

Interestingly, I side with the last three Catholic popes as an opinion of mine (and merely a possibility ). Un-dogmatically, St. John Paul the Great, Pope Emeritus Benedict, and current Pope Francis believe that the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 ended with the recapturing of Jerusalem by Israel at the end of the Six Day War.

Since then the Gentile nations have indeed become more or even exclusively secular while a resurgence in Judaism and even an interest in reclaiming Jesus as a Jewish sage (though not the Messiah by any means) is the current and foreseeable status of Jewry. But for them it is a wait and see moment. Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses or some Christians who take it upon themselves to say something is happening when it is not, these religious leaders take a humble second seat and do not claim insight where no affirmed insight from Heaven has come.

Finally, Jews in general take a similar view. We cannot say. There is no prophet to explain what is happening. Jews usually don't take it upon themselves like Christians to make such interpretations without a prophet. This explains why there is currently no central leadership in Jewry. And, of course, the views of Jesus are not accepted by Jews as prophecies for Israel.

19

Jesus and the fig tree, what are jws taught?

by Crazyguy in

in the story in the gospel of mark, mark writes that jesus is hungry and comes across a fig tree.

mark explains that it not in season yet jesus upon finding the fig tree has produced no fruit kills the tree.. this story makes no sense if literal so do the gun teach that it literally happened?.

David_Jay

The first thing that comes to mind on that verse from a Jewish reading is the outright connection to Jewish language about the Messianic Age.

As in the many references to the prosperity to be enjoyed under the Messiah (for example Micah 4:4), Jesus links a fig tree to the approach of "summer," which by no coincidence is being used as an example of the approach of his promised Parousia. Summer is when the fig is in season, and having one's personal source of in-season figs is the symbol of the Jewish concept of Messianic rule.

Recall that God during the Exodus promised the Israelites that they would be brought to a land "flowing with milk and honey"? The "honey" is not what most Westerners or Gentiles think it is. The actual Hebrew word refers to a syrupy jelly that was used as the main sweetener as sugar and syrup is used today. While the same word was used to describe the honey made by bees, it's main meaning is this sweet jelly. You can make it from fruits like grapes, but especially for the Jews in the land of Israel, this "honey" was made from figs.

From the very beginning, life in the Promised Land was to be idyllic, and the honey of figs was symbolic of the prosperity God wanted for his people. As Micah 4:4 states, in the Messianic Age each Jew shall "sit under their own vines" from which they make wine "and under their own fig tree" from which this main symbol of "honey" was produced.

While Jehovah's Witnesses are apt to say that Jesus is telling people to interpret world events to know when the end is near (which has caused them much egg on the face for constantly being wrong), Jesus might be saying something far more simpler. It seems like he his saying that once his followers find themselves in the thick of the time of the end, they should be at ease for this is a sign that "summer is near." The "fig tree" is in bloom, symbolically speaking, when it becomes undeniable that the world has reached its end. In other words Jesus is saying to be hopeful.

Unfortunately, the Witnesses have taken a symbolism of hope in the midst of crumbling world events to be a measure of time. Because verse 34 about the "generation" follows immediately after, they assume that Jesus is saying that when you see all the signs of the end, it is like seeing that a fig tree has all its leaves. That doesn't seem likely because Jesus spoke and taught like a Jew. Using a fig tree is not a coincidence. A Jewish sage would never do that and switch a symbol of Messianic prosperity and suddenly make it a symbol of a time indicator measuring how close we are to the end.

While I can't say for sure if there is meant to be a way to understand "generation" as a literal measurement of time (there might be), there is likely no literal connection between the fig tree and the time factor. It is just the Jewish way of saying what Luke (in his gospel for Gentiles) adds: "When you see all these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near." ( Luke 21:31) The direct reference to the kingdom is not there in Matthew. Why not? Because the fig tree is used, and Matthew was written mainly for Jewish Christians who understand what the symbol means.

9

My plans for Christmas this year

by UnshackleTheChains in

1. attend a charity christmas party which my wife (active jw) helps to organise each year 😀.

2. buy a very small christmas tree with lights for the living room (which can easily be hidden away if jw friends are coming up).

3. buy some nice presents for my family.

David_Jay

Oh, you better watch out. You better not cry. You better not pout. I'm telling you why. Armageddon's coming to town.

Jah sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows if you've been bad or good. So if you don't want to die like depictions in Watchtower publications show it and be carrion for the birds, you'll be good for goodness sake!

Everybody, sing along!...Oh, you better watch out. You better not cry....

Actually, been so many years since I been around actual JWs, I no longer worry about what I celebrate and who sees. But I did get a kick out of a few JWs when they learned I was back to lighting a menorah. It's not a Christmas tree, so they can't say it's pagan.

Chanukah: the ORIGINAL reason for the season (celebrated annually before even Jesus was born, so there!)

Keep Han Solo in Chanukah.

OY to the world!

19

Jesus and the fig tree, what are jws taught?

by Crazyguy in

in the story in the gospel of mark, mark writes that jesus is hungry and comes across a fig tree.

mark explains that it not in season yet jesus upon finding the fig tree has produced no fruit kills the tree.. this story makes no sense if literal so do the gun teach that it literally happened?.

David_Jay

Crazyguy,

As a Jew, the account does not surprise me. It reads like something I would expect a Jewish sage to say.

The language and symbolism is almost trite, as the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures so commonly employ the fig tree as a symbol of adverse judgment upon the faithless that Jesus' own words seem hoary. (Compare Isaiah 34:4; Jeremiah 8:13; 24:1-10; Hosea 2:12 [or 14 in some versions]; and Joel 1:7.) But it isn't a tired usage. It is just very Jewish, and very, how can I say "prophet-y" for lack of a better term.

As such it would not likely be an invention of the later Church, not directly anyway. By the time the Gospels began to be written there was too much of a Gentile influence for Hellenism not to influence the language. They were composed in Greek, after all, though the Jewish world of the Second Temple had not ever completely embraced the Septuagint (to this day, the LXX has little to no influence in Jewry).

That the the fig tree incident occurs in Matthew is significant. It makes sense to see it in Luke 13:6-9 and even in Mark 11:12-14, both heavy with Gentile and Roman influence. But even with traditions like that of Papias aside, Matthew is rich in Semitic idiom and seems bent on establishing Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, fulfilling Jewish hopes both Scriptural and traditional. The language is equally untouched, with some Christian scholars wondering if the final version isn't a translation into Greek from Aramaic.

Whatever the case, that Jesus condemns the Temple leaders and the people of Jerusalem as faithless via withering a fig tree to do so is an illustration Jews understand all too well. The texts from the Tanakh I mentioned above have connections to the First Temple's destruction and the faithlessness of the people that led to the Babylonian diaspora. It isn't far-fetched that Jesus used it to describe how little faith Jerusalem had in him. It is still an honest description of my people's faith in Jesus--practically zilch.

But is this a statement that "the Jewish temple was useless and no longer needed" and thus part of the rhetoric that colors other parts of the New Testament that arose from the competition between Christians and Jews in the Roman world? While the interpretation thus stated colors it this way, I would lean to say "no."

Again the image is highly Jewish, borrowed too closely as to be a product of a community breaking away from its Semitic roots. The "fig tree" is a Hebrew symbol of receiving judgment, like tossing away a fig you didn't like (something all too common in Jerusalem where the fig commonly grew so abundantly). Like any inhabitant of the city that had a plethora of figs to choose from each season, the Hebrew prophets used the fig to symbolize how easy God could dispense with or choose to keep those who serve him.

That isn't clear if you only have the New Testament to read. If not for the Hebrew text, the whole reason for a fig being used can get lost. Why stop at a fig tree out of season regardless of how it looked? Who would want an early fig anyway? Do you like to eat fruit out of season or fruit that is in season? The whole scene is a purposeful action of a Jewish sage, going to a fig tree on purpose. The symbolism and the connection are not meant to be lost.

How quick were any of you to note (or recall) the connection between the fig in the Old Testament or where those texts were? If this is a story describing how God is getting rid of the Jews permanently, then something is wrong. A lot is lost on the Gentile mind.

The Gospels were also completed after (or at least near the end of) the Pauline epistle era. In Paul's letter to the Romans it had already been established even to the Gentile Christians that "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable," (Romans 11:29) that God had not and would not treat the Jews as forsaken as a whole or forever.

So the text probably is more an opinion of Jesus of how he viewed Jerusalem, its people, and the Temple leaders. They were worthy of his judgment. They had no faith in him. While all three gospels that report this do seem to play off this to connect these words to the fall of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., this play suggests the words were there to begin with. While the connection with the events of 70 C.E. may not have been immediate by Jesus, in view of Paul's statements it can only be taken that any interpretation that these actions of Jesus implied a rejection of Jewry as a whole were probably quite later, likely far after the original apostolic college had passed on.

45

Official Increase in the Number of Jehovah's Witnesses You Shouldn't Trust

by David_Jay in

reports are coming from witnesses that, once again, the number of memorial partakers has risen considerably this past year, 2016. while confirmation is still to come on the exact numbers, the current explanations given for this increase surely causes a dilemma.. imagine the roman catholic church publishing each year the number of members who it felt were mistaken about what they believed in, that this same number of members was likely suffering from problems such as pride or even mental disorders or something along this line.

this number, by the way, was in the thousands too and growing annually.

what would you conclude, therefore about the catholic church and its admission?.

David_Jay

I am adding new information to the original post: The "leak" of the increase in partakers is beginning to sweep the Internet among Jehovah's Witnesses even before the number is fully confirmed.

From a Witness connection I have, among the ranks people are recognizing that too much rationalization is having to be used to become settled with the news.

My connection stated: "While we know that the latest change from the Governing Body is that the number of partakers is no longer to be viewed as an indicator of anything, people still recall that for most of our history it was. You can hear that it is worrisome while we outwardly usually don't admit it. But some people are starting to plainly say that something is wrong. I've never heard people say this so openly before. We know that this number should not be so high. It doesn't add up."

My connection added that the rationalizations being offered by some who are still defending the current new stance are being picked apart by others in a manner that she has never seen before: "The way some are trying to explain misgivings away are being quickly challenged by those in discussions. One brother outwardly told another in my hearing that his rationalization was just simply that, an attempt to excuse away the unusual growth."

If these numbers do prove to be true, I am sure we can expect to hear the Governing Body's own rationalization on the subject sooner than later.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay