Posts by David

33

The Second Coming of Christ

by maccauk in

the second coming of christ was in the 1st century at the destruction of jerusalem the temple the law and the old covenants.

so the new eternal covenant came into force in which people of every tribe tongue and naation would enter into.

the new jerusalem not built by human hands nor with bricks and mortar its spiritual cannot be seen but people will stream to it the sin issue is done there is no more judgment for those in christ .

After the Holocaust, Christendom formally rejected this idea of "the law, and the old covenant...dwells in those who love Christ," as you wrote. For over 50 years, beginning in the Roman Catholic Church and then spreading throughout most mainstream Protestant and Evangelical movements, formal dialogue began between Christianity and Judaism.

By the year 2000, all formal proselytizing efforts of the Jewish people ended in the Catholic Church, and in 2015 the Vatican released the landmark document entitled “The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable,” stating that the covenant between God and Israel had not, was not, and would never be broken. The document also recognized that while Catholics could not denounce its primary belief that Jesus Christ was the means of salvation of the world, it equally recognized that a personal acceptance of this was obviously not part of the covenant arrangement for the Jews. Therefore it has not been granted to the Church just how the full redemption of Israel is meant to play out in the economy of salvation.

In December of 2015, Judaism responded with the Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity in which it acknowledge Jesus and Christianity as part of God’s purpose for history and the nations, referred to Jesus as one of the Jewish sages, and even though recognizing that Judaism cannot accept him as the promised Messiah, nevertheless called Christianity a providential partner in God’s plan for world redemption along with the Jews.

The only religious movements that currently refer to the Jewish Covenant being supplanted by the Covenant in Christ are some Fundamentalist Evangelical movements and most groups like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Nominal Christianity generally views supersessionism as anti-Semitic.

The idea of supersessionism has been suggested by some to create a paradox to the Gospel itself. To illustrate, Paul argues that Christians are wild olive branches affixed to the roots of the Olive Tree of Israel. Most suppersessionists claim that Israel is the cursed, fruitless fig tree of Mark 11:12-14.

But if Israel was truly rejected, then Christians are affixed to a rejected root system, with no life to it. But as Paul writes:

If the root is holy, so are the branches...Consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you!--Romans 11:16-18.

Obviously the tree and branches were holy and living, even branches that were cut off. The root system could even "support" others. A withered, fruitless system could not do that.

Regardless of any personal views you may have or arguments you may come up with on this, this issue is now generally settled by the mainstream churches of Christendom. It is not my personal view that I came up with. So any further points you have to raise or object to would have to be addressed not to me but to ecclesial authorities of the churches who took 50 years to come to this decision. Especially since the Axis Powers fell without Israel having an army to defeat them and then Israel being restored to its land, and with the Holocaust being a result of Christianity’s theology that the Jews had been abandoned by God (which was at the root of Hitler’s “Final Solution”), Christianity has acquiesced to what it sees as divine providence.

As to the "Second Coming," well, I'm Jewish. For us the term "Messiah" means something like "King" or "President," not "someone who WILL be king" or "president elect." The Messiah in the traditional sense in Judaism was supposed to be a person who was not merely anointed, but someone who actually ruled from a throne and literally was a King in Jerusalem. The person had to be accepted by the Jewish public at large too, because if your subjects don't accept you as king then you aren't a king. And if you die before that happens, your followers can't make up a story and say: "Well, it's supposed to happen when he comes again."

Yeah, right. And the New World of Jehovah's Witnesses has been just around the corner since 1874, uh-huh. Come on! It's 2017 right now, just about to be 2018. If 143 years waiting for this "corner to be passed" is enough time waiting to say we shouldn't trust what the Watchtower says, what does 2000 years say about the Second Coming idea?

Besides, today the idea of the Messiah in Judaism has changed greatly. It isn't likely that anyone in Israel will accept rulership by a monarch. The days of being ruled by kings is long gone. But the idea of humankind finding redemption is still promised and pictured in the figure of what the Messiah represents. Many Jews now see the Messiah as the personification of redemption for all humanity, that time when all peoples evolve beyond selfishness, hatred, war, and move towards peace, love, and work to end suffering in the world and care for their neighbor. It's not so much an individual as it is humanity ruiling over and becoming champion over all of our worst enemies and those things that have plagued us throughout our history.

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

Then you should know very much where I am coming from. Why argue with me?

And if you know enough about Judaism to remember Tikkun Olam, then you should also remember that God is not actually invisible, not to us.

Every encounter with everyone and everything good, every action of redemption, every mitzvah that produces one facet more of Tikkun Olam is Divine. You can touch it, feel it, see it, sometimes taste and eat it if it is something practical like the food someone desperately needs.

That is besides the point. I am not your enemy. Regardless of how you feel, regardless of how spent and done you are with anything spiritual and with God, you let Jehovah's Witnesses win every time you focus your negativity on someone like me. They hope ex-JWs will become hateful and negative.

I'm already the subject of a lot of hatred, prejudice, bigotry, misunderstanding, negativity, and you're just adding to it. Why? Because of what life did to you? I'll bet I got more abuse, raped worse, been the subject of more of bullying, received more death threats, had to run for my life more times that you ever did.

Like I said, just this year alone I had to endure 12 bomb threats, a swastika painted on my front door, my neighborhood covered with flyers last week by the KKK (during Sukkot, I might add) saying Jews should be shot in the head, had family graves turned over and ruined three times, been hit in the head with produce, and told by friends not to go to their homes any more because they had just realized I was a "filthy Jew."

That was just this year alone! You want the whole story of the last 50?

Spent or not, you don't have any reason to make me the target of your emptiness. I am what I am. Apparently you should know better.

I don't think that we are only born with so much capacity to "love the invisible," as you say. If that were so, then I would have given up a long time ago.

Please, move on to someone else if you have the need to pick on someone for accepting the reality of the God of Abraham. It seems it Jehovah's Witnesses are good at one thing, it's making former members persecutors of religious people.

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.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay