Posts by David

13

Who is "The" Creator ? Jehovah or Jesus ?

by smiddy3 in

is jehovah the creator ?.

apparently jehovah created the "word" or "logos" ( jesus).

and he never created anything else according to bible scripture.. however the first born of creation the logos /jesus was used to create everything else in the material world.. so then isn`t jesus also a creator ?.

David_Jay

This question is flawed as it doesn’t leave itself open to true critical discussion.

It appears you are limiting the question to Christians as you are including Christian texts in the discussion.

But if this is so, you are too late to try to formulate a new answer. The same authority that set the Biblical canon and decided which books would make up the Old and New Testaments for Christians is also the one that set this answer too.

Nominal, orthodoxy in Christianity teaches that Jesus is the same as YHWH, so the question is not moot and already settled, at least for those who are Christian. Only those who are generally regarded as belonging to cults from a Christian perspective think otherwise. You’re too late to raise the question again and make up new rules, unless you want to go back to the Jehovah's Witnesses and see them win.

But nicolaou raises a most important point. As a non-theist, he does not believe there is a creator. While you did say you would like to hear the “input” from others, you did not set parameters. What makes an answer valid to the discussion as well as suitable for testing by independent and disinterested parties so that it can be critically analyzed to ensure its validity?

I’m Jewish. Like nicolaou I don’t have the views of “creator,” “God,” “deity,” Jesus and the Bible that is held by Christians. How do I answer who is the creator? Even if Jesus is left out of the picture, Jews don’t approach the subject in such a naive manner. Even though I fully accept God as real, my answer sounds similar to nicolaou’s to be honest.

The question is very narrow. It’s like making medical bandages, Band-Aids, that are all peach-colored and selling them to people of darker colored skin types, like from Ethiopia. Not everybody is white. Or like selling wedding cakes that have decorations with only grooms and brides on the top. There are gay and lesbian couples, you know.

If you consider yourself a critical thinker, your questions have to be designed critically too. If they aren’t, then you aren’t thinking critically.

8

Faith and the Bible.Is it all Just An Illusion ? With no basis in the real world ?

by smiddy3 in

jw
friends

the bible states that :.

"faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for"...." the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" heb.11:1. looking at the "true" history of the wtb&ts and not the sanitized version jehovah`s witnesses like to portray nowadays ,nothing the jw`s put faith in ,in over 103 years of their prophecy`s , expectations ,whether it related to the world powers , the king of the north or the king of the south ,the united nations (which they joined for 10 years ) as the disgusting thing that causes desolation,their now acceptance of things they accused christendom of doing such as using atm`s for donating funds,(they never solicit for money){ excuse me while i puke} .all of the failed prophecy`s of the the end/armageddon/great tribulation and the end of false religion babylon the great and the list goes on and on and on.. 1914 , 1919, 1925 ,1975 ,the year 2000 ,and of course since 1914 any day soon , just around the corner ,its imminent ,in our day ,it cant be any more than 5 years away .. 6000 years of human history ended in the late 18th century .

oops sorry ,6000 years of human history didn`t end till 1975 and that is a date that would be appropiate for jesus christ to start his 1000 year reign.. excuse me , faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for ?.

David_Jay

"Faith" and the Bible don't necessarily go together. "Faith" and Jehovah's Witnesses do, however.

Judaism didn't introduce this concept until the Middles Ages, when Maimonides taught Jews to incorporate it as a translation of some of our words to defend against Protestant proselytizing efforts. The actual word "faith" doesn't appear in the Hebrew Bible. Since the Holocaust, Jews have begun to return to pre-Maimonides vocabulary.

Interestingly, the word "faith" isn't actually in the New Testament either. A product of the Jewish world, there wasn't a concept for "mental assent to a religious concept or doctrine." The word in the Christian Scriptures is PISTIS, which means "faithfulness."

"Faith" is completely static and doesn't require much more than assent from a person. But "faithfulness" is not a static word.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have Jesus saying: "If you have faith the size of a mustard grain, you would say to this black mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea!' and it would obey you." --Luke 17:6, NWT, 2013 revision.

It sounds ridiculous. Just believe and it will happen?

But note that the word there for "faith" is PISTIS. Also, take into account something about the mustard plant and Jewish law during the Second Temple era in which Jesus lived. Mustard plants are destructive. Their roots burrow and seek out the roots of other plants beyond their own boundaries and suck the nutrients and life of other trees and vegetation. One mustard tree plant can wipe out a neighbor's garden, vineyard or orchard if planted in the wrong spot.

So there were laws devised on where and how mustard grain could and could not be planted, and how they were to be constantly tended with their roots constantly supervised less they destroy other crops and trees. They could literally "tell" another tree "where to go plant itself," so to speak.

Taking this into account, including the right way to translate PISTIS, the verse should read:

If you were as faithful as a grain of mustard, you could be the one saying to a mulberry tree, "Get out of my way and jump into the sea!" And it would have no option but to obey you.

Big difference, right?

Now, the reason for this little lesson in Greek language and Jewish background is to help you see that your question is based on a limited scope: the tiny Watchtower view of the Bible and it's definition of faith.

Is the faith you are questioning really the "faith" mentioned in Scripture? The type practiced in religions? If so, why no introduction of it into Judaism until the Middle Ages and then an abandonment of it after the Shoah? How does that work since the Jews penned the majority of the Bible? That would leave you with a paradox instead of a question.

Then there's the actual meaning of the word "faith." It doesn't mean "a static mental assent to a doctrinal concept or belief." No, the New Testament word means "faithfulness," an action word, to be trustworthy in one's work or way of doing things. How does one have "blind faithfulness" in this sense? Remember the mustard seed illustration? Jesus was teaching people not to go forward blindly, but to have a plan, and to go forward with it "faithfully."

So are we talking faith and the Bible or Watchtower doctrine about faith and the Bible? I think the latter.

25

Jehovah is Satan

by VW.org in

i found a very convincing youtube video showing that jehovah of the old testament is satan and the god of the new testament is god the father.. https://youtu.be/-eyp4n0xkxk.

David_Jay

MeanMrMustard,

Of course you must realize that as a Jew I don't even accept Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, so I am merely speaking about how the argument of the YouTube producer works.

The YouTube video producer advanced Jesus as different than Satan, while at the same time advancing the idea that Satan is the God of the Old Testament.

That is the paradox the producer had made for himself: The claim to be for Jesus but against Satan, while Jesus claims to be the Incarnation of the Old Testament God. If this is so, the video producer has created a paradox in which they are therefore making an argument in favor for worshipping Satan, albeit unintentionally.

Whether a person considers Jesus to be YHWH was not the point exactly. The point was that the argument was actually self condemning without the author realizing it.

48

Paradise? Was it?

by TerryWalstrom in

paradisewas it really paradise to be in paradise?adam and eve never were held by a mother, never cuddled and sung to with a lullaby nor nursed or coddled with tenderness or any human familial embrace.

the first humans (adam and eve) never learned to toddle surrounded by brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles and grandparents cheering them on.

the entire experience of childhood was excised surgically like a trauma patient awakening from an accident with amnesia.adam and eve were never in a neighborhood with other kids forming friendship bonds for life and exchanging dreams and hopes for a future they were building in their community.

David_Jay

How do YOU know what we Jews have is not worth anything?

Because you believe what you do or feel what you do or have experienced and researched what you have, are you saying I should just give up my Jewish culture and leave it all behind, not light my candles for Shabbat this evening, not go to Temple?

Should I let those who tried to smash the Jewish people into nothing during the Holocaust win?

Should I just let it all disappear like those from the KKK who littered my neighborhood with flyers the other day that read "THE ONLY GOOD JEW IS A DEAD JEW" want?

It's all just Tom Foolery to you, right?

So what if the Catholic Church tortured my family during the Spanish Inquisition and chased my family out of Spain and into Dutch Africa and across the Atlantic and later tried to murder each one of us when we reached Mexico? I should just listen to you, right, and give it up because of how you feel, right?

It's all just hooey. You have it right, correct? You know what you're talking about.

Let's let the Neo-Nazis win, and the bigots and the people who spray painted a swastika on my door have their way. At least I won't have to worry about those 12 bomb threats my Jewish Community Center got this past year or my Temple because now I will follow your fine example and just give it all up, because you have all the answers.

If you are so sure about the way you are living your life right now, then advise me to live my life just like yours, to give up everything generations of my family have fought to preserve. If it's all just crap, if it's all just imagined, and you're so sure, surely you would have no problem recommending me, pleading me to give it all up.

The lives of all my family in the concentration camps, the people who walked to Israel across Europe after the war, family members who gave their lives to save family members, sacred Torah scrolls, our culture, our way of life...fine it means nothing to you.

How can I be so sure?

How can YOU be so sure? Where are the generations and generations and generations and generations and generations of family and blood supporting your views and your standards and what you are cherishing right now?

I will show you the shoulders of everyone I stand on to show you why I am so sure. You show me yours.

48

Paradise? Was it?

by TerryWalstrom in

paradisewas it really paradise to be in paradise?adam and eve never were held by a mother, never cuddled and sung to with a lullaby nor nursed or coddled with tenderness or any human familial embrace.

the first humans (adam and eve) never learned to toddle surrounded by brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles and grandparents cheering them on.

the entire experience of childhood was excised surgically like a trauma patient awakening from an accident with amnesia.adam and eve were never in a neighborhood with other kids forming friendship bonds for life and exchanging dreams and hopes for a future they were building in their community.

David_Jay

For those wondering what the Jewish and the general academic critical take on Gan Eden is:

The Garden of Eden (Gan Eden) is modeled on the lush gardens of the Babylonians, most closed off to the public, protected by armed guard.

Gan Eden is allegorically Solomon's Temple. Gan Eden is described as a floorplan, much like the Tabernacle and Jewish Temples in the Bible.

Like Solomon's Temple which first had a large basin to wash in, Gan Eden is described with a prelude, beginning with river water (Ge 2:10; 1 Ki 7:23); immediately gold and precious jewels are mentioned, as if the land is laden with them, much like the Temple was (Ge 2:11, 12; 1 Ki 6:22); there are fruit trees there as there were carved into Solomon's Temple (Ge 2:9; 1 Ki 6:29), and the angel that holds the sword is a cherubim to guard the entry as was used heavily in the art of the Temple (Ge 3:24; 1 Ki 6:29).

The Most Holy was symbolized by the place in Gan Eden where Adam and Eve could speak to God during "the breazy time of the day,"* (Ge 3:8) meaning Evening Prayer at the Temple when a new day would begin. The Jews believed they lost their Temple and their King and Promised Land becaused they failed to keep the Law, especially the Sabbath, stealing from God what was not theirs, trying to be like God in a sense by doing even what God did not do, that is go beyond their own limits (symbolized in God "resting" on the Seventh Day).--Ge 2:1-3.

While Adam and Eve (who symbolized the nation of Israel) therefore lost admission to Gan Eden, their precious Temple, God still cared for them outside (see Ge 3:21). This symbolized the hope that Israel would one day be redeemed from captivity to Babylon, restored to their land and would one day rebuild their precious Temple again.

*--This phrase in Hebrew refers to the late afternoon when the day would cool off with the setting of the sun. This is also when one Jewish day ends and the next day begins and Jewish evening prayer starts.

48

Paradise? Was it?

by TerryWalstrom in

paradisewas it really paradise to be in paradise?adam and eve never were held by a mother, never cuddled and sung to with a lullaby nor nursed or coddled with tenderness or any human familial embrace.

the first humans (adam and eve) never learned to toddle surrounded by brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles and grandparents cheering them on.

the entire experience of childhood was excised surgically like a trauma patient awakening from an accident with amnesia.adam and eve were never in a neighborhood with other kids forming friendship bonds for life and exchanging dreams and hopes for a future they were building in their community.

David_Jay

Terry,

You are still working from the viewpoint that the Jehovah's Witness paradigm is both applicable to the original story and the culture that formed it and that this has any import to the end God concept. It is only "dehumanizing" because you're reading it unfairly, so to speak.

The Gan Eden narrative in Genesis was purposefully composed as Jewish allegory and folklore, and the figures of Adam of Eve are set upon a literary tableau of Hebrew style genre, not something historical. The story is meant for a Jewish culture, for the preserving of itself during the Babylonian exile while it faced the danger of cultural assimilation under Nebuchadnezzar's rule. The idea was about delivering Adam (symbolizing the Jewish people in captivity among the enclosed hanging gardens of Babylonia), but you aren't reading it with it's original intent .

We don't have devils or demons or Original Sin or see this story as "paradise lost," etc. You are viewing the story through a Christian lens, a Gentile lens, a viewpoint it was never intended for.

Jews never imagined that the world would ever be reading the Bible, our Liturgy. This isn't a history book. It's not the history of the world. It's not a crystal ball with a future "march of the nations" inscribed in it. It's not a Magic 8 Ball that has an answer to every question you have.

It is one of several works, along with the Mishnah, the Talmud, and other works that make up the wisdom of the Jewish culture. It can't stand alone, but it's like Western society and especially Christians demand it to do just that.

It's like you tore out the first few chapters of Gone With the Wind and are blaming the author for the story not making sense. But you are the one who took only the first few chapters.

When someone points this out and offers you the rest and tries to tell you that you are holding fiction (but you are claiming it supposed to be fact and it fails at doing so, so therefore the whole work must be faulty), it becomes very hard to convince you that you are missing the point of Gone With the Wind in the first place.

I'm definitely not trying to make a Jew out of you. We don't convert people. Though I accept the reality of the God of Abraham, technically speaking I don't believe in God or have any use for things like "faith" in the Christian sense.

What I am saying is that you are still a believer in some Watchtower concepts, at least the ones in connection with this subject about the Garden of Eden. You need to let go of these. You need to at least acknowledge what academics and scholars know about Genesis. It's about the same that Jews have.

Objective analysis means always making sure you have people check your viewpoint, test it, make sure it works, disinterested parties, sometimes people you know who have a habit of not telling you what you like, who aren't going to let things go the way you want it to, who are going to give you the facts even if you aren't ready for them and even if they make you feel badly. The real truth is what you want.

Objectivity means your viewpoint doesn't matter and you have to give up fighting for what you believe. It means you got to let others try to punch holes in what you say. If they do, then you got to admit your current belief system is faulty or current theory has to be abandoned and you need to start again. You keep doing it again and again until no one can punch holes it. Then you got it.

You're not far from that, however. And again I'm not after you. I'm trying to point out there's some "Watchtower" that's still latched on. It will screw around with your attempts at being truly objective.

25

Jehovah is Satan

by VW.org in

i found a very convincing youtube video showing that jehovah of the old testament is satan and the god of the new testament is god the father.. https://youtu.be/-eyp4n0xkxk.

David_Jay

MeanMrMustard,

That is even a better question to ask.

Even though the early Christians were not strictly Trinitarians in the modern sense, they did see Jesus as the Incarnation of YHWH.

In Hellenistic and first-century Roman thought, a "son of" something was "one and the same with" that thing in the Greek idiom, and even sometimes in the Hebrew.

For instance, calling someone "the son of David" meant "you are the Messiah," in Second Temple era theology. This explains why people are shushing the blind beggar at Luke 18:37-39. The JW explanation is that there was a social caste system in Judea and the poor and blind were not allowed to speak up. But that wouldn't be the case as the crowds that followed and listened to Jesus generally are said to have consisted of almost entirely poor and lowly people.

No, the reason the blind man was hushed is that he publicly made a declaration that, according to Jewish law, could only be made by public consensus and announced in Jerusalem after formal assemblage of the Sanhedrin. He called Jesus "son of David."

Jesus was "son of Joseph," not "son of David." Jesus was merely a descendant of David. The term "son of," however means you are the "son" or equivalent to that which you are being spoken of. The blind man was calling Jesus of Nazareth the promised Messiah.

Jesus called John and James "sons of the thunder" because of their thunderous disposition at Mark 3:17, refers to a peaceful person as a "son of peace" at Luke 10:6, and calls Judas Iscariot the "son of destruction" since he had destroyed both his own life and that of Jesus. Do you see the idiom? (Note how Pilate, a Roman, reacts when he hears that Jesus is called a "son of a god" at John 19:7, 8 due to its implications based on the idiomatic expression.)

Calling YHWH his Father and claiming that he, Jesus, is the "Son of God" does not mean he is a creation or descendant of God but the Incarnation of YHWH, the Father, one and the same.

Just as "son of David" meant Jesus was Messiah, "sons of thunder" meant the brothers Zebedee were boisterous, and that the "son of destruction" was a person who brought destruction upon himself and others, "Son of God" means Jesus was calling himself the Father, calling himself one and the same as YHWH, the Incarnation of the God of Abraham.

Therefore the creator of the videos has created a paradox. As John 1:1 states, John not only believed Jesus was with God in the beginning but was one and the same as that God. Therefore the video creator is essentially claiming himself a Satanist if he upholds his own teaching. The "son of" God is God, and, according to the video maker, Satan, the video author's god.

25

Jehovah is Satan

by VW.org in

i found a very convincing youtube video showing that jehovah of the old testament is satan and the god of the new testament is god the father.. https://youtu.be/-eyp4n0xkxk.

David_Jay

You are welcome, Wake Me Up.

25

Jehovah is Satan

by VW.org in

i found a very convincing youtube video showing that jehovah of the old testament is satan and the god of the new testament is god the father.. https://youtu.be/-eyp4n0xkxk.

David_Jay

Anony Mous,

You are closer to the way Jews explain their own theology than you might realize. It's actual somewhat of a complimentary point of view you are expressing. But there are also some serious misconceptions you cling to.

Jews don't actually "believe" in a "God." The God of Abraham isn't a deity at all. Since we are alive in a universe, this is an "effect" of a "Cause." The "Cause" came to be expressed in ancient terms borrowed from Mesopotamian society, like "god" and other such terms, but Abraham rejected the idea of gods in their entirety.

Monotheism in Judaism is not merely that there is but one God, but also that God is ineffable. In other words, God is not even a god. Deities don't exist.

The stories of the Hebrew Scriptures were not used as you describe. What you mention is a Christian take, roughly what is taught by the Watchtower. The Jewish Bible was written during the Babylonian exile.

During the exile small communities assimilated and lost their identities. Without our land, with king or shrine, we would have lost ours too. But our religious priests did something clever. Their gave our customs and folklore a religious meaning and turned it into Liturgy for the synagogue system.

The stories were for systematic readings to for a yearly calendar, to be repeated on Sabbaths in public worship, especially to give new religious meaning to festivals we had celebrated for millennia. The narratives had a basis in history but were more like modern American legends, like the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, George Washington chopping down a cheery tree as a boy, Betsy Ross creating the first American Flag, etc. These are not factual American tales, but they harbor important truths Americans hold dear.

The Jewish Bible was created to preserve Hebrew truths to preserve our cultural identity through the exile so we would not disappear, and it worked. It's not what you say it was. It had a very definite purpose. That's why we Jews treat much of it as folklore...because we know it was designed to be just that.

You are still holding on to some idea the Watchtower taught you, that the Bible is some history book. Knowing it can't be, you mix that fact up with the idea that it has been changed and rewritten over the centuries and so mixed up that nobody can be sure what it originally meant, or that it got all it's ideas from a "pantheon of gods."

Again, if you are going to ever be an authentic critical thinker, you are going to have to learn authentic world history. You might want to go to college and take a few courses. At least study the history of the Jews if you are going to criticize the Bible so you can at least get it right when you discuss why we Jews put the thing together in the first place.

I mean think about the conversation you are having with me right now. You are telling me, a Jew, what the origins of my culture and my peoples' scripture is, a text that I, as a 50 year-old Jewish man, have spent my life studying, that I can read in Biblical Hebrew, who has lost ancestors in the Spanish Inquisition, grandparents and aunts, uncles, and cousins in the Holocaust, studies the Mishnah, the Talmud, prays in Hebrew, keeps Jewish customs, knows Jewish history and philology, and you are saying that you with...what background and credentials in Hebrew and Jewish studies?...that what you've written in your post is not only correct but has the backing and acceptance of academia, Jewish, Christian, and secular?

Is It really the result of authentic critical thinking that you are going to tell learned Jews that they don't really know anything about their own Scriptures and history of its composition? Sure sounds like the Watchtower to me. Sure you are not still affiliated with them?

25

Jehovah is Satan

by VW.org in

i found a very convincing youtube video showing that jehovah of the old testament is satan and the god of the new testament is god the father.. https://youtu.be/-eyp4n0xkxk.

David_Jay

For the sake of argument, let us say all Jewish Scripture is mythology. (To be honest, most Jewish scholars and Jews tend to view it as folklore and allegory. It seems that only Christians and Westerners have the impression that it is supposedly held as fact by Jews, when in reality it is only held as fact by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and other Christian Fundamentalists.)

But, let's just go with the pure mythology stand for argument sake here.

I found a very convincing YouTube video showing that Jehovah of the old testament is Satan.

The Hebrew term "Satan" appears only 13 times in the Jewish Bible or Old Testament. In all these instances it never refers to a devil.

The word HA'SATAN means someone who comes or stands against you, even at times in helping you work out a solution by helping one to see all sides to a problem.

The best example of this is the angel that God assigns to watch over earth's affairs in the folklore story of Job. In it, God decides to stop him from doing his regular work and has him work as this type of problem-solving troubleshooter in Job chapter 1 and 2.

Christians interpret and read this angelic being as evil, but Jews do not. Here this angel works much like what happens in the scientific method. Once a scientist discovers something, he finds another party to test or disprove his theory. This party must be purely disinterested, not invested, adversarial for the sake of truth. This is how Jews have written and read the story since its inception.

The other occurrences of HA'SATAN refer to either people or circumstances that stand in people's way, even angels that are at God's service to stop humanity from falling into sin. But there is no mention of a "Satan the Devil" in the Hebrew text. That particular phrase never even appears.

Even the serpent of Eden is never connected with Satan or referred to as such anywhere in the Jewish Bible or in Judaism.

And there you have it. Just 13 uses of the word without a reference to "Satan the Devil." In fact, there is no such being in Judaism as I pointed out before.

But in the New Testament, a collection of books that all together is about the size of the Psalms of the Jewish Bible, the character of Satan the Devil is spoken of, described, and referred to 36 times, 18 in the Gospels and the book of Acts alone.

Again, the entire Christian Scripture collection is tiny compared to the size of the Hebrew Bible, and Satan (not to mention Hell or Gehenna and the Lake of Fire and other torments in the afterlife) as well as evil spirits and demons get referred to constantly, in almost every book of the Christian Bible, on almost every page. Satan the Devil is a favorite subject of Jesus who is described as personally having discussions with this creature.

It would appear that the mythology of the New Testament is Satanic in competition with the mythology of Judaism, borrowing the terminology and twisting it to make new characters. It is Christianity mythos that is obsessed with Satan upon examination, not Jewish folklore.

The video presentations are quite lacking in the most basic of scholarship. There are no signs of critical methods, no group work supporting the theories to ensure they are sound (again the use of disinterested parties to ensure your work is solid), and a failure to point out the above material which any of you (who often claim to be learned in critical thinking) should be well practiced in by now.

The problem is that people who leave cults seem to be anxious for anything to fill the void of knowing something that feels as definitely sure as that promised by the cult. There is nothing is in reality that feels like that...except for another cult or stupid cult-like teaching.

Don't fall out of the frying pan just to get burned in the fire. If there was something truly academic about the Bible, do you think it would be in a cheaply produced video on YouTube? Really?

Come on, people. Either you are a critical thinker like so many of you claim to be or you are still cult bait. Don't be cult bait.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay