Posts by David

20

How can the WTS call themselves Christians when they have no Christian church?

by TTWSYF in

so was jesus a fool or a liar?

he said that his church would last all ages, didn't he?.

math 16:8and i say to thee: that thou art peter; and upon this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

David_Jay

LoveUniHateExams,

You are actually correct, except you a describing how the word ended up becoming pronounced in Middle and Modern English.

I was describing the philology behind how the C went from being the K sound of a transliteration of the K in KYRIOS to the eventual CH in "church." We are actually describing the same things, just that I am talking about how the word started and you are talking about how the word eventually was pronounced.

The old English is based on the Dutch and German words. In Dutch the word was KERK and the German was KIRCHE. All three words are transliterations (which are different from translations) of the Greek KYRIOS. The old English CIRICE has also been found as being written as CYRICE or even CYRCE to be better match KYRIOS.

Originally the C was intended to be pronounced as a K sound, as in KERK, KIRCHE, and KYRIOS. But you are correct, that didn't stick which is why we have the current pronunciation. But the C originally had a K sound, as even the Old Saxon was written as KIRKA. In fact, the modern English word "curriculum" retains the old English pronunciation of C as a K (though the words are not related).

You are welcome to double check my claims as we can only benefit from that, but in the end you would only be showing that I made an error which, being human, is always possible and clearly quite apt to happen by me on a regular basis. It will not be the first time nor the last for imperfect ol' me.

The really important thing is the issue of how the Watchtower has made claims of being the true "church of Christ" when it is opposed to such vocabulary at the same time. That is the real "camel" that should be strained, not my "gnat" of whether a C was pronounced one way or another in a transliteration of the word KYRIOS. Any mistake I may have made, if I have, is quite insignificant by comparison to the falsehood of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

20

How can the WTS call themselves Christians when they have no Christian church?

by TTWSYF in

so was jesus a fool or a liar?

he said that his church would last all ages, didn't he?.

math 16:8and i say to thee: that thou art peter; and upon this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

David_Jay

Oppostate,

I am not sure what you mean. I have taught Biblical languages on the collegiate level for over 10 years and, though Jewish, have even done translation work for the Roman Catholic Church.

But I am definitely not beyond being mistaken, of course.

What I have learned and taught...The etymology of ECCLESIA, for instance, goes back to the invention of the word in Greek, used to describe the assembly of Athens, specifically as a political entity. The periodic meetings of Athenian citizens gathered to conduct public affairs is where it comes from, and thus is the origin of the word ECCLESIA as a body under a political figure or movement.

In English the word "church" does not mean an assembly but comes from the Old English transliteration of the Greek word KYRIOS, the title given to Jesus as Christ in the New Testament. The old English word is pronounced KI-RAY-SEE but spelled "cirice" in Old English. In Middle English this became spelled with a "ch" for the K sound, and eventually the spelling "church" became pronounced dropping the K sound for a sound as the CH in the name "Charles."

The word was KIRKE in Saxon and similar in Germanic beginnings, and it was either a reference to the "body (house or group) of the Lord" or some other connection to KYRIOS.

But if you say that's wrong, okay. I am open to that. Feel free to give us the correction as we will be better off for it. What is the actual etymology?

20

How can the WTS call themselves Christians when they have no Christian church?

by TTWSYF in

so was jesus a fool or a liar?

he said that his church would last all ages, didn't he?.

math 16:8and i say to thee: that thou art peter; and upon this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

David_Jay

Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the groups that developed from the Second Great Awakening era of American religious history.

The Second Great Awakening developed among uneducated or unlettered Christian preachers, with a great hatred for the Papacy. As a shared earmark, almost all the movements that arose from this era claimed to be either restorations of the Church established by Christ or the replacement for the Church, especially the Roman Catholic Church which these groups believed was false, even demonic. The Bible Students movement (which came from this American phenomenon and splintered into the Jehovah's Witnesses) saw things and themselves no differently.

The Witnesses believe that during the final generation of human existence, God will introduce them as the restoration of true Christianity that would supply those who accept this restored movement with salvific entry into the coming Kingdom which would replace the current world at any moment. Many practices of Christianity of the past, including the use of the English word "church" was rejected by the Witness leaders. Seeing themselves as the restorers of original Christianity, they felt they had the authority to make such "changes." Switching the "ownership" of the congregation from Jesus to "Jehovah" was quite easy for a group that sees themselves chosen by God to make such changes.

Those other groups, the SDA and the LDS, made similar claims and "changes" like the Witnesses. Believing that we are in the last of latter days of human existence, they each saw themselves as the assigned "restorers" of "true Christianity" and as such changed whatever they felt needed to be "adjusted" as part of their "assignment."

All three groups share another earmark, that of claiming the right to deny anything from history or even Scripture on the grounds that it is their job to 'set matters right' in these final days.

20

How can the WTS call themselves Christians when they have no Christian church?

by TTWSYF in

so was jesus a fool or a liar?

he said that his church would last all ages, didn't he?.

math 16:8and i say to thee: that thou art peter; and upon this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

David_Jay

The word "church" is a translation of the Greek word ECCLESIA, which refers to a group of people belonging to the same political party, or in this case following the same "king."

The English word "church" comes from the old English CIRICE (the first C pronounced like a K), a transliteration based upon the Greek word KYRIOS, which means "Lord." It is an interpretation of the word ECCLESIA, meaning "group (or "body") of the Lord."

From what I understand, Protestantism is not a denial or rejection of the exercise of Petrine authority by the Bishop of Rome, but the protestation of how that authority is exercised and/or what the Bishop of Rome teaches. Petrine authority is historical and generally not debated by most. Luther did not deny the need for ecclesial authority or where it came from, merely how that authority was being exercised.

Religious movements that claim to be Christian but do not believe in the historicity of Petrine authority are not Protestant, such as the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), Seventh-Day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses. A group that is Protestant has some historical connection to both the See of Peter and Apostolic authority, but these groups have no such connection. As such they cannot protest against an authority which was never over them nor can they claim to have removed themselves from historic Christianity.

Orthodox Christianity is not Protestant, however, but it is Apostolic. While it does not deny Petrine authority, it does deny its exclusivity (mainly over politcal grounds). The Orthodox community (as well as the Oriental church bodies of old) are in a semi-communion with the See of Peter.

8

The Syrian Dan-El

by schnell in

i started reading deceptions and myths of the bible by lloyd graham tonight, and graham mentions that the book of daniel, like the story of joseph, is ripped off from a syrian poem about another hero named daniel (or dan-el).. a cursory google search doesn't pull up anything.

is this accurate?

has this ancient poem survived?

David_Jay

Jews understand the Book of Daniel as a retelling of the legends about one of our greatest national heroes (much like Paul Bunyan of American folklore with a little Uncle Sam thrown in for good measure).

From our history we understand that there was probably an actual Jew who, prior to the Babylonian exile, lived among the Gentiles and set such an example of Jewish religious life that he developed into a legendary hero. Because he lived among the Gentiles he is always spoken of in Scripture as somewhat separate from the Jewish nation. You will note him being mentioned as a well-established figure of virtue in Ezekiel 14:14 alongside Noah and Job.

While there is a possibility that the name is not original and purposefully made to sound like the name of another heroic figure from neighboring cultures, the Biblical Daniel of the book bearing his name is neither the Gentile hero or the actual "Daniel" mentioned in Ezekiel (or even the real person all this is based on).

After the Babylonian exile and well after the Second Temple was rebuilt, the Greek-Syrain oppression began. There was much political intrigue involving other powers as well as struggles within Israel until the invasion of Antiochus IV (Ephiphanes) that led to the repression of Judaism.

It was during this period that the Book of Daniel was composed. The Jewish hero figure was transported into the circumstances of the Babylonian exile as a religio-political treatise work of propaganda countering the anti-Jewish measures occurring in the Jewish world under Antiochus.

Daniel in this book is a youth that keeps to Jewish custom despite pressure from the Babylonians that have captured him to work in King Nebuchadnezzar's court. His faithfulness to Jewish life is rewarded by God in the form of making Daniel a prophet to the Babylonians. His messages are not favorable to the Gentiles however, forecasting their eventual downfall before God's anointed. However the actual "prophecies" therein are really apocalyptic commentary about the repression of Antiochus. The author uses a series of visions as a means of telling Jewish readers that the invading Gentiles will be conquered, that God will raise a new king in Israel, and that the new kingdom will crush the oppressors. This of course happened in the uprising orchestrated by Judah Maccabee and the eventual liberty of the Jews under the Hasmonean dynasty. This allowed the Book of Daniel to be preserved.

29

Actions and consequences of Lot’s wife vs. David

by Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu in

actions and consequences of lot’s wife vs. actions and consequences of david.

genesis 19 talks about how sodom and gomorrah were destroyed.

david under any law: yes, under the law of moses crime: adultery and murder consequence: nothing but blessings from god.

David_Jay

Steve2,

Whether you realize it or not, you just expressed why the Jewish approach often results in such a different result from the JW.

As scholar Amy Jill-Levine often points out to her students (an Orthodox Jew who teaches collegiate New Testament theology), 'if it didn't bother the ancient writers or Jewish people of old to compose and collect stories that defy historical reconciliation, then we are the ones causing a problem when we read them to make modern sense out of them.'

In other words, as Steve2 points out, if they don't reconcile or make sense to modern logic, the the stories weren't meant to be reconciled or interpreted employing logic.

No one complains that Aesop's fables cannot be reconciled with history or are unscientific. His work, "The North Wind and the Sun" is totally impossible. But does that mean that Aesop doesn't teach truths? He definitely does teach truths, very universal ones. He just doesn't use factual reports to teach truths.

Judaism and Catholicism often agree that literalist interpretations of Sacred Scripture have done more damage than good. Demanding blood from turnips never results in blood. Sometimes it's not the fable that is at fault for being a fable, but the reader that demands that truth can only be reaped from the literal who creates the real problem.

29

Actions and consequences of Lot’s wife vs. David

by Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu in

actions and consequences of lot’s wife vs. actions and consequences of david.

genesis 19 talks about how sodom and gomorrah were destroyed.

david under any law: yes, under the law of moses crime: adultery and murder consequence: nothing but blessings from god.

David_Jay

Yesu, it can be done. But what to accept (or "trust") may not ever happen. You may be looking for something JWs taught you needs to be searched for that isn't there at all. And learning how Judaism processes it's religious teachings is a tall order.

You might want to begin by making an Internet search on Judaism's take on Lot's wife. Make sure the sources you are reading from are not Christian reiteration of Jewish thought of even Messianic Judaism. This will require that you do research on the sites themselves to guarantee that they are authentically Jewish.

Then you are going to need to learn how to decipher the references. There will be attributions to Jewish sages and rabbis, the Mishnah, the Talmud, critical scholarship and conventional. These will have their own references. It will not be easy as it will take learning not only what the various sources are but why they are of value.

Lastly you are going to have to get a Jewish friend, someone who either practices or teaches, someone that can lead you through this world of Judaica. This means you will have to leave the security of the Internet and hidden identities to meet people. You will probably need to go talk to a rabbi of two, preferably get views from the three main branches of Judaism in the process. You have to do this face to face as it will entail learning how to think Jewish and understand how the logical building blocks fit together in Jewish thinking.

And in the end you are going to have to accept that Jews may recognize multiple and even contradictory explanations as there are no definitives in Jewish theology. It is not about coming to the one, true answer as much as accepting that you might never get it or even need it.

15

Can you live with your self?

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

i think if we are to fully delight in life we must live without detachment.

because when we become attached to a beliief we feel a desire that we are right.

the problem with being right, even if we are right is that our beliefs then try to attach themselfs to virgin snow, and change people to our thinking.

David_Jay

I have often commented with what looks like to Jews as an "obsession" with what one "believes" (or doesn't believe, for that matter). Your comments are the closest I've seen to what I've been trying explain.

Belief is merely a static, mental assent to a concept, usually an abstract one. Belief in God is such a thing, and even disbelief in God. It's all about whether or not one grasps an abstract concept of something transcendent in the mind or not.

Gentiles will argue, debate, and literally get violent over what one claims they do or do not mentally assent to. To many Jews this is ridiculous.* It's like how denominations draw membership lines based on what you "believe:" How can you ensure that a member properly grasps an abstract theological definition of God (take the Trinity as an example) in just the right way as to warrant membership and salvation? And isn't the theological definition always claimed to be limited by human frailty? How does demand that one assent to an abstract and inefficient theological concept as a requisite for communion and salvation if there is no way to validate that the claimant correctly mentally grasps the incomplete yet transcendent abstract concept?

And then, what big thing is it to say you don't believe in such a concept? If you can't prove what one truly mentally assents to, then how can you prove what they don't? And even if we could, what great accomplishment of proof of logical superiority is not exercising the mind to grasp an abstract belief? One might argue that not attempting to believe suggests mental laziness more than mental efficiency.

No, I'm NOT saying that atheism and theism are stupid. What I am saying is that what you mentally assent to and what you don't matters little if it doesn't affect the world around you in a positive way. One can claim belief in the most virtuous of gods and doctrines and still not be virtuous themselves. Likewise someone can be free of religion and be greatly just, honest, and not merely sanctimonious about it either.

Even in the Gospels, Jesus commends righteous living over true doctrine. The Good Samaritan proves to be right with God even though he, as a Samaritan, holds doctrinal beliefs that are wrong compared to those of the priest and Levite who pass by. (Luke 10:25-37) And the Eschatological Discourse of Matthew 25:31-46 has Jesus granting eternal life to those who serve strangers, the poor, criminals in jail, and other marginalized members of society as they would Jesus, not to those who make more converts to Christianity.

The point is that somewhere we may have become lost in the "belief" game, debating and attempting to convert others to our "way of thinking," while never being intelligent enough to consider how impossible it is to ensure how another does or doesn't grasp abstract concepts like we do. It's a waste of time, even for "believers" as Jesus illustrates.

Your illustration of dealing with children is perfect and can be applied to all. It's not what you claim you believe that matters as much as living out the best of what you believe in your treatment of others.

*Footnote: To be fair, some Jews have been as obsessed with the "belief" argument to the point of violence as well. It may be far less apparent however due to belief not being a requisite for status in Judaism, but Jews cannot claim complete freedom in their history from the problems caused by fighting over the issue of mental assent.

29

Actions and consequences of Lot’s wife vs. David

by Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu in

actions and consequences of lot’s wife vs. actions and consequences of david.

genesis 19 talks about how sodom and gomorrah were destroyed.

david under any law: yes, under the law of moses crime: adultery and murder consequence: nothing but blessings from god.

David_Jay

Also, I am not advocating "faith" in the Scriptures as much as giving you the context of the stories that "fills in the holes" created by the failure of JW theology.

My objective is to show that the Watchtower religion is lacking, not to advocate a religious solution. By offering the Jewish view I am merely hoping to show how limited JW teaching is.

Many here do not believe in God or the Bible, and my comments are of NOT meant to challenge their views, only to demonstrate the inefficacy of Watchtower doctrine. Jews do not proselytize.

29

Actions and consequences of Lot’s wife vs. David

by Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu in

actions and consequences of lot’s wife vs. actions and consequences of david.

genesis 19 talks about how sodom and gomorrah were destroyed.

david under any law: yes, under the law of moses crime: adultery and murder consequence: nothing but blessings from god.

David_Jay

Remember, the word "tradition" means "teaching" or "doctine" in a theological context (very different from what Jehovah's Witnesses teach).

This is the meaning of Tradition even in Catholicism. For instance, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states: "Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement of by a letter of ours." Whether the teaching of doctrine come from Scripture or otherwise, Judaism and religions like Orthodoxy/Catholicism use the word "tradition" to describe it. It simply means "that which is handed down" as a teaching or doctrine from a teacher to a disciple.

JWs interpret "tradition" to mean that which originates with humans and not God, which of course makes 2 Thessalonians 2:15 unreadable. An oral "tradition" all Christians observe is that the New Testament contains only the 27 books of the canon. There is no written revelation which backs up the list not sets a criteria for such.

As to the traditions of teachings I mentioned, remember the religion of Judaism is older than the Scriptures as later produced. We did not produce or finalize most of the Scripture texts until returning from the exile to Babylon, and we did not have a "canon" until well after the Marcion heresy issues were settled. (The "canon" concept is a Gentile invention started by Marcion, as the Greek word KANON is also.)

Our stories came first, not the Scriptures. These stories of ours were set into written liturgical reading portions (you can actually see these divisions in our scrolls), designed for public recitation according to the liturgical calendar. The Scripture texts encapsulate our story and retell our history using religious narrative devices. These stories of ours are not based on the Bible. The Bible is based on our stories.

The sources are very numerous as they cover secular and Jewish history, include comments from both the Jewish religion and secular archeology. How would you like to proceed? We are talking thousands and thousands and thousands of years of history.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay