Posts by David

14

I'm a bit worried about god!

by punkofnice in

it's true.

i'm a bit worried about god.. he seems to be doing some quite silly and frankly, insane things to prove he exists.. some bloke found words from the quran in a tomato.. jesus keeps appearing in toast and cats bums.. i'm worried about god.

i think he's gone a bit didlow..

David_Jay

First time on bath salts, dearie? That was my experience too.

18

The true essence of the Bible—there is some problem with it?!

by venus in

in the famous aesop fable, we read about a fox who unsuccessfully tried to get some grapes, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “i am sure they are sour.”.

someone made a second part to this story.

fox did some rehearsal in the night and came on to the scene next day, and jumped with difference and got the grapes from the vine tree, and he began to eat to his full capacity.

David_Jay

A footnote: while to some this might paint a picture of "a puzzle wherein all the pieces come together and fit quite nicely," as one Christian friend put it, it also illustrates why Jews cannot accept Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah even though a lot of us see the logic in Christian antithetical theological constructs such as the above.

Why not? It requires that Jesus of Nazareth be the incarnation of the God of Abraham or worse, as proposed by Marcion of Sinope (the inventor of the first Christian Bible canon) a different deity altogether.

In Judaism, the God of Abraham is greater than the concept of "deity" and therefore cannot become incarnate. To a certain degree (and some Jews and Jewish sages argue to the fullest degree) God is only called "God" because we Jews are still employing an ancient label. Thus there are no such things as gods. The God of Abraham is far greater than a mere deity. The Origin of the universe would have to be. God is mystery, ineffible. What Jews wrote about God in the Bible was mere chicken scratch by comparison with the Real Thing.

So such a "God" is far beyond becoming the subject of incarnation like the Greeks and Romans believed, nor does God offer others to become God by sacrificing himself as a human and then presenting himself as an invisible presence in bread and wine that you have to believe is there (against all evidence to the contrary) in order to receive the full benefits of the redemption offered in the elements of Holy Communion.

Also, the Messiah would not merely be designated to rule. The Messiah would rule, and from earthly Jerusalem. Messiah does not mean "anointed one" as in "president elect" but "ruler in office." It refers to a king, a priest, even a prophet who is OFFICIALLY ACTING as such, not merely anointed to the office to do the work in some distant future and get killed before that future occurs. If you get anointed but murdered before you sit on your throne, you are never the king. That's Jewish law. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law but obviously forgot about that one.

But again, the traditional Christian view makes far more sense than the Watchtower view. It holds merit in that it carries the Jewish tradition along with it.

8

Earliest Latin Commentary on the Gospels

by Earnest in

the earliest latin commentary on the gospels, lost for over 1500 years, has been rediscovered and made available in english for the first time.

the work, which was written by a bishop in north italy, fortunatianus of aquileia, dates back to the middle of the fourth century.

despite references to it in other ancient works, no copy was known to survive until a researcher from the university of salzburg identified the commentary in an anonymous manuscript copied around the year 800 and held in cologne cathedral library.. it is reported on here and an english translation and information about the commentary and the bishop can be accessed here.. this commentary tended to allegorise scripture in order to explain it.

David_Jay

A weird footnote to this amazing find is that the information in the commentary is not all that new to modern eyes and ears.

Much of it is still found to this day in the footnotes which appear in approved Catholic Bible translations found in any Catholic home, church, or bookstore (Canon law demands explanatory notations in each and every Catholic version of Scripture), and even critical Catholic commentaries lean heavily toward explaining some texts using the very same terms as found in this ancient allegorical exegesis. It is just new to many of us who may have been locked away from such information in Watchtowerland.

I have read loads of ancient Catholic allegory, and though some of it is truly very weird, what I noticed was that some of it reads as if Franz and other former Governing Body members merely lifted some of it and made personal applications to themselves and their situations. The type/antitype model comes from the early Christian commentators, and almost everything was seen as "type/antitype" in those ancient works, especially regarding the coming Last Days and Parousia of Christ.

Some illuminated Catholic manuscripts both old and even modern-day (see The Saint John's Bible for an example) rely on some of these traditional and very ancient exegetical teachings for their imagery. Some of the "weird" Catholic imagery comes from these old allegories and can be found drawn into the first letters or "initials" (sometimes called "drop caps") of these illuminated texts.

18

The true essence of the Bible—there is some problem with it?!

by venus in

in the famous aesop fable, we read about a fox who unsuccessfully tried to get some grapes, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “i am sure they are sour.”.

someone made a second part to this story.

fox did some rehearsal in the night and came on to the scene next day, and jumped with difference and got the grapes from the vine tree, and he began to eat to his full capacity.

David_Jay

That's close but not exactly what I am saying.

While Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah, they do recognize that the orthodox Christian view is that Jesus offered his life to humanity much as God gave the Passover lamb to the Jews for food though it was as an offering made by the Jews to God.

The Passover lamb, unlike other offerings to God, was not shared with Levitical priests nor were its organs or shanks removed and burned as offerings upon the altar as were other communal sacrifices. As Psalm 50:13 explains, God doesn't even partake of the blood poured out of sacrifices and offerings. So while the Passover lamb was an offering to God, it was a sacrifice that was given over for the Israelites to consume. Unlike other sacrifices of communion, this was one that, though offered entirely to God, was for the total consumption of the person being redeemed.

The same, supposedly, goes with the orthodox teaching of Jesus Christ's sacrifice. It is a redemption offered to God but it is a sacrifice designed to be consumed by those who are being redeemed. Jesus offers a perfect life not because God needs it but because humanity needs to be nourished by it. Adam could not "feed" his offspring a divine life as possessed by Jesus. But as 2 Peter 1:4 states, Jesus died that "you might become partakers of the Divine nature." Jesus came to give not perfect human life but to free humanity from mortality to partake of this "Divine nature." That's the traditional, non-JW Christian gospel.

While generally speaking Jews do not question the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, the meanings Christians have attached to this event are not a part of my Jewish religious or cultural paradigm. That being said, whether or not Jesus literally uttered those words you point out or whether or not he intended to "die for anyone" I leave for Christians to say. What I stated was that the Watchtower view is incompatible with the traditional view cherished by Christianity for almost 2000 years.

18

The true essence of the Bible—there is some problem with it?!

by venus in

in the famous aesop fable, we read about a fox who unsuccessfully tried to get some grapes, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “i am sure they are sour.”.

someone made a second part to this story.

fox did some rehearsal in the night and came on to the scene next day, and jumped with difference and got the grapes from the vine tree, and he began to eat to his full capacity.

David_Jay

The problem with this argument is that it is looking at Scripture backwards, from the present, and it makes the same mistakes we condemn the Jehovah's Witnesses for making.

1. Original Sin is a post-Biblical concept introduced by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon of the 2nd century. You have to read that into Pauline theology as it is not native to it. There is no "original sin" native to Scripture without Irenaeus and the Catholic Church.

2. The "Bible" is not one "book." It is the library of two separate religions who use it for two separate purposes and have two different and very unique interpretations of the Hebrew portion of the text (which is the majority of the Bible). One therefore cannot claim there is any particular "theme" or "essence" without first supplying a Jewish or Christian background for the assemblage of the separate canons: the Old Testament on one side and the Tanakh on the other.

Even from my Jewish point of view, the New Testament is not claiming that Jesus has ransomed people from death by his own dying. This is a peculiar Watchtower teaching taken from Adventist ideas. The New Testament is teaching that Jesus has offered his Divine Life as "food" not to God but to humanity, much like God offered manna from heaven to people, to supply "divine life" to those who partake of his sacrifice as a communion or Passover meal.

The ransom idea of the Watchtower is an odd focus and holdover from Russell's era. The word does occur in the Greek text but it is a play on the Hebrew word "redeem" in reference to the Exodus. The Jews were redeemed from slavery, figuratively "purchased" from one sovereign by another. The "ransom" was the miraculous hand of God and the events of the Exodus that redeemed the Jews from slavery.

This is the meaning of Christ's "ransom" in the New Testament, a redemption from slavery to sin's captivity to death. The Watchtower theology is a twisting of this that is sometimes found in other Adventist branches but never in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or mainstream Protestantism. One would even be hard-pressed to find the Watchtower view in Fundamentalist churches.

The Watchtower teaches that a life was offered to God to balance the scales of justice. The New Testament teaches that Jesus sacrificed his life as an offering for humanity, that they might partake of it and gain the eternal life that it is endowed with and he gives to any who eats of it.

Like the Jewish prophets of the Hebrew Bible stated, God does not require the blood of sacrifices or needs to be appeased with any gifts any human can offer God because everything already belongs to God.

33

Hollywood messed up another one

by hothabanero in

i am a big superhero fan and was looking forward to "the defenders".

the first two episodes are great but then ... liberalism happens.

one of the heroes (luke cage, big black guy) goes on this crazy rant, like a liberals wet dream of the bravehearth speech.

David_Jay

I will give you that one: I am, as you say, wasting my time on you. You are very correct there.

And if you say there is "marxist bullshit" on "modern tv shows," as you put it, I wouldn't know that either. So I will give you that too.

I for one don't go around complaining on how the quality of the Marxist TV programs that you watch are "bullshit." But then again I am not wasting my life watching Marxist TV programs like you are, and so I am therefore not in a position to make such a call.

You win.

33

Hollywood messed up another one

by hothabanero in

i am a big superhero fan and was looking forward to "the defenders".

the first two episodes are great but then ... liberalism happens.

one of the heroes (luke cage, big black guy) goes on this crazy rant, like a liberals wet dream of the bravehearth speech.

David_Jay

Thanks, liberals, you ruined TV....

Again, this speech was based on a story that came from a comic book...a COMIC BOOK! Comic books are for the immature. I was five when Luke Cage gave that speech in the comics that you are talking about. I am 50 now!

You're not only wasting your life away by watching television, but you're watching a show based on kiddie comic books from the 1970s, and instead of contributing something more productive to society you waste even more time whining about it on the Internet from an armchair.

Fine. Just keep posting. Keep arguing. Keep defending your point of you to prove yourself right.

Let me know when you've grown up...

...when your life no longer consists of wasted days of watching shows that consist of stories that come from kiddie comics that make you complain about them on the Internet.

Until that day comes, I can't take anything you say as serious or worthwhile.

33

Hollywood messed up another one

by hothabanero in

i am a big superhero fan and was looking forward to "the defenders".

the first two episodes are great but then ... liberalism happens.

one of the heroes (luke cage, big black guy) goes on this crazy rant, like a liberals wet dream of the bravehearth speech.

David_Jay

Hothabanero,

Apparently you never read these comic books when they came out in the 1970s of know nothing about Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and the origins of the current series "The Defenders."

Luke Cage and Iron Fist were the first black and white superhero characters to team up in a comic book together (Iron First will eventually cause a rift in their relationship by filling in love with Luke's girlfriend, or so the comic book goes).

Luke Cage gave almost the exact speech (called a "monologue" in comic book speech) before the two got together. Danny has always been the privileged rich "white boy," as Luke called him, and Danny has always tried to distance himself from his privilege by fulfilling his role as the Iron Fist. They would become "The NEW Avengers" but Marvel decided to choose "The Defenders" this time around to avoid confusion.

The two characters eventually teamed up in their first marvel comics in 1972, which was historical because it featured bi-racial participation. The only other prominent comic book at the time that did this was "Josie and the Pussycats" that featured one of the first main characters of African descent ever in a American children's comic book (also in the Saturday animated version).

So the "crazy rant" is not a "liberal speech," but a sign of it if ignorance on your part...and a peculiar odd lean to the "right" by a group who don't realize that atheists are not (unfortunately and unfairly, for the most part) welcome by most anyone else on the "right" side that values belief in God, the Bible, prefers Protestantism (but will accept some Catholics).

I have been reading this site during my recovery. Good gravy! What's all this rubbish about the left versus the right, especially you anti-religious. Don't you know that outside the safety of your Internet bubble world you live in, outside in the real word, the right hates atheists. Liberals accept you, and you are hating them from this site?

No wonder you are too ignorant to know the origins of something as silly as a comic. Sure, what I just wrote here is (in the grand scheme of things) insignificant, but sheesh! You jumped from your lack of education on the subject to blaming liberals!

This site is filled with some of the same empty-headed thinking that filled Watchtower land. You blame the world for your lack of knowledge, and crown your misinterpretation of things as truth. It's just about a stupid TV show, but you've taken a tiny thing and made a vehicle for hating a group of people...all because you were too lazy, ignorant of even just stupid to know something idiotic about a comic book series from 1972.

This ex-JWs site is messed up with some messed up people (who will probably go on a hate-filled, rage against my words because that what Jehovah's Witnesses...excuse me, some people who can't move on with their lives do).

332

The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name

by slimboyfat in

jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.

but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .

i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.

David_Jay

Oy vey! Someone has called me out of my retirement from this forum, pleading again and again via email. So okay. Just this once, and do with this comment as you wish.

Reading though this thread over the past two days (it is very long), generally speaking, Cofty is correct.

The book by Shaw that the OP makes reference to is only a hypotheses and does not agree with either Jewish tradition or Biblical criticism, both Jewish and Christian. It has not made any dents or waves in either Judaism or Christianity in general. No one I know knows about really, either in synagogues or churches, Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant.

Remember folks, you all claim to be CRITICAL THINKERS now that you've left the Watchtower. But reading some of these posts, I am not so sure about that. Along with a review of how the critical method works, it should also be brought out:

1. The conclusions of one expert do not a working theory make. A working theory is one that has gone through the rigours of testing by disinterested and often opposing parties to a hypothesis. Has the hypothesis been proven to stand when analyzed critically by others? Who were these others? What is the name of the working model theory? Even Biblical criticism has names for its accepted theories like the "Document Theory." The Watchtower is not right, nor is Frank Shaw because there has never been sufficient data to support a working theory based on his conclusions.

2. There is no central governing body in Judaism as the uniform acceptance of creed or theological concept among Jews is both unnecessary and in some aspects rebuffed by Halacha (the administration and application of Jewish law). This Frank Shaw book covers the use of the Divine Name in reference to the LXX, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that Jews actually reject.

3. Last, but not least, Shaw is concerned with applying a pagan custom to the Divine Name: uttering it. As a Jew I explained it over and over again, but apparently it never sank in. One more time (Cofty, please help repeat this for me): Pagans make images of the gods, Jews don't. Pagans utter the names of their god to emphasize their holiness, Jews do not utter God's name because of how holy it is. Get it? Pagans put their holy things on display for all to see. We hid our holy things deep inside chambers separate from the eyes of others. Shaw and Jehovah's Witnesses want to apply pagan customs to a Semitic cult system that worked desperately to do everything the opposite way pagans did with their cults. There might have once been some way to pronounce the Divine Name, but eventually the Jews decided to make that ineffable.

There's no magic to it. I know Christians and especially Fundamentalists want it all to be something super literal, but my people have merely been attempting to shed off superstitions as humanity evolved. It's not that the God of Abraham is not Real. It's just that God isn't the idea most have been sold on. We're not talking some painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. We're talking Someone you'll never have a handle on and, like in the Book of Job, will just answer all your most important questions with more questions. Sorry, but there's no verse in the Bible that says: "Hi, I'm God. I'm YOUR idea of an all-perfect, all-loving, all-just Deity, and all that." Nope. If your mad at God for not being that, you only have yourself to blame.

Those of you applauding this Shaw book show why you got caught up in the JWs in the first place. You will believe anything that sounds good because you think you're a critical thinker but fail to check if what you think about yourself if true.

Don't worry though. I think sometimes we can get caught up in the moment wishing there were definitive answers like the Watchtower used to tell use there was. It all seemed so much easier back then, right? So someone comes along, posts something that sounds good, and all the critical thinking we learned goes out the window because something suddenly sounds sweet.

Don't let this happen. You know better. Wake up, my critical thinkers! Even if the Divine Name was pronounced and placed by Christianity into the New Testament, then that would have been weird. How did Jesus' name stay preserved (Yeshua) but the Divine Name get lost? If it is more important, where is it? Where is the critical data to back up Shaw's work? Wouldn't Jews and Christians have accepted it by now? What is the name of this Biblical critical theory Shaw discovered? Who are the other academics who support it and what universities do they work for and teach at?

Oh wait! None of that has happened. Why not? Biggest reason. The LXX is not an accepted Jewish text. It is corrupted, as are all the texts he works from, according to a Jewish perspective (the Qumran texts mean little to us, if you think about it). So his hypotheses don't work from the start. That's why it's 2017 and almost 2018 and still nothing of any significance has happened since his work has been published. I'm a Jew. It's almost a month away from Rosh Hoshana, 5778. Shaw changed nothing.

(Now, I have to go. Still recovering. Diagnosis: Epilepsy with cluster seizures. Really can't stay. Cofty, good work as usual.)

32

What was Jesus last name???

by James Mixon in

jesus in hebrew means "savior' and christ in greek means "messiah".

these are identifiers --not names in jesus case.. where did the name christ come from, his parents???

?i can see the name jesus (first name) but christ.

David_Jay

Jews did not take "last names" until very long after the Roman Diaspora divided the Jews into Ashkenazi and Sephardi groups. "Surnames" are a Gentile practice. The Roman Diaspora began after the Bar Kokhba revolt ended in 135 C.E.

Because of the resistance to this Gentile practice, Ashkenazi Jews were the last Europeans to take surnames. While there is a record of some German-speaking Ashkenazi Jews freely taking surnames as early as the 17th century, they normally did not do so until compelled to do so by law. Some merely kept their tribal name like the Cohens (kohen means "priest" or refers to a Levite in Hebrew).

This was the rule-of-thumb for the Sephardic Jews who lived in the Iberian peninsula, though it appears some, like their Ashkenazi counterparts did take up surnames freely (the last name “Marroquin” comes from Moroccan Jews who had come to see their home as their new “Promised Land” and thus named themselves after it). During the Spanish Inquisition, many of the Sephardic Jews made up names during the forced conversions that “sounded” Catholic like “de la Cruz” (“of the Cross”), or even created names that sounded like patriotic names. For instance, “Hernandez” is one of the most famous Sephardic Jewish names in the world. It was made up to sound like “Fernandez,” which means “of the sons of Ferdinand,” in honor of the king Ferdinand. They may have done this to sound like they were supporting Ferdinand and Isabella, the king and queen behind the Inquisition, but at the same time avoiding the actual name because they were the ones behind the forced conversions and persecution.

Before this, however, Jews did not have last names. Therefore Jesus of Nazareth did not have a last name. In fact, he may have been called things like Jesus (or to be more exact) “Joshua, son of Joseph,” or his name would be followed by his profession, his father and mother’s name, the name of family members, the town he was from, etc. It would depend also where a discussion about him was going on. If it was in Nazareth, he would not be called “of Nazareth” there. If no one knew Joseph or Mary or his family, these would not have been mentioned. He would probably have been called merely a teacher, preacher, or rabbi when there were no other ways to identify him as Joshua/Jesus was a common name at the time.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay