David_Jay

Joined

• started 23 topics
• posted 874 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by David_Jay

• 
  33

  The Second Coming of Christ

  by maccauk in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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 .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Vanderhoven7,

  Though I am Jewish, you might be interested to know that outside of the official Jewish-Catholic dialogue sessions, the Parousia was once discussed.

  Outside of a few scattered Evanglical Fundamentalist movements and end-of-the-world groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Christianity at large does NOT teach that the Parousia will occur during human history, but only after it culminates. This allows for the end of the physical universe as foreseen by some current scientific cosmological models.

  The Parousia occurs only after history has ended, according to mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, and especially Orthodox eschatology. It may occur concurrent with history's end, but will not occur as an element of or during history. The Parousia is an element of eternity and not time according to Christology. Time ends with the beginning of Christ's Parousia.

  The Scriptural references to the "nations" knowing about the Messiah's Parousia are not meant to be read as "nations" but as "goyim," or Gentiles. It is using old Jewish idiom about earthly Messianic expectations of the Second Temple era when the Jews believed the Gentiles would recognize their earthly Messiah's arrival (Parousia).

  Thus the Church reads this language as allegorical. Jesus never literally "comes" a second time anywhere, at any time. Every Christian will experience death. One day, says mainstream Christianity, the world will literally just stop. But when history ends, according to Christianity a new era begins under Christ. This is the Parousia, and this is what Christianity has understood for 2000 years.

  The literal "return" of Christ is an Adventist invention of the American Great Disappointment of 1844 from Baptist preacher William Miller. Witnesses are the result of a group fascinated by the formulas of those days, believing they could still work somehow, and that the group that got the date right was favored by Heaven.

  But there's never been such a doctrine of a literal return that would literally be witnessed by the nations, not from Christendom anyway.

  You're still buying Miller's snake oil. At least buy the real stuff instead of the knockoff, generic fool's gold.
• 
  10

  Biblical gems

  by venus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  though the trunk, branches and even most of the leaves of the bible tree make no sense, there are some leaves here and there which are like gems of high value, such as:.

  1) “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” often mistaken as the law of retaliation is actually a beautiful foundation of a perfect judicial system because behind the details the essence is that any loss caused should perfectly and proportionately be compensated.

  original writing of this law and its context are not relevant because jesus described them as those being orally transmitted (which makes random additions possible), not written (mathew 5:38-42).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  ttdtt,

  That's the same thing the KKK flyers said about my Jewish beliefs and culture that were spread throughout my Jacksonville, Florida neighborhood last week. It made the international news.

  Along with your words about my people's cultural works, the flyer read: "The only good Jew is a dead Jew."

  Do remember that when you call the Bible "bullshit" you are using language that anti-Semitic groups use. You may not subscribe to it, but it is part of my culture, like certain foods, certain type of dress, our history, language, etc. You aren't just talking about the mythology of a group long gone. Your talking about cherished literature of a culture still very much alive and living among you.

  How would you like me to label the things and people that you love with the same word. The difference between me and you is I wouldn't do that.
• 
  10

  Biblical gems

  by venus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  though the trunk, branches and even most of the leaves of the bible tree make no sense, there are some leaves here and there which are like gems of high value, such as:.

  1) “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” often mistaken as the law of retaliation is actually a beautiful foundation of a perfect judicial system because behind the details the essence is that any loss caused should perfectly and proportionately be compensated.

  original writing of this law and its context are not relevant because jesus described them as those being orally transmitted (which makes random additions possible), not written (mathew 5:38-42).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Actually, the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" from Torah is interpreted the opposite by Jews as it is by Christians, which as a Jew is very odd to me.

  Christians tend to see it as a "compensation" law, a "retaliation" permission system, or worse--a law permitting capital punishment such as the death penalty.

  Jewish law is designed with a complexity often poo-pooed by Christians, as if the Jews don't know what they were writing about when we wrote it and that Gentile Christians, foreign to our culture and language know far better.

  This law, in combination with others, has led Israel to outlaw capital punishment, retaliation, revenge, etc. Through the study of Torah, Jews have learned as it is written in the Mishnah: "Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world." --Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5.

  As for that Psalm in Hebrew, it reads:

  "So inherently sinful I am, that with sin my mother brought me fourth."

  The psalmist was not saying he was born "in sin" as Judaism does not hold to the view of Christianity and it's Original Sin doctrine. Instead he was poetically speaking of how deeply he felt guilty of sin. So great it was that he felt it was inherent, as if his mother conceived him not in a womb but in sin itself.

  The term "with" can mean "in" but in English that makes people think of Original Sin instead of sin being a stand-in for the womb as it does in the Hebrew.

  You are all reading it wrong, as if the Jewish composer was a Christian who accepted the Catholic teaching of Original Sin. It is "in sin my mother conceived me" as opposed to "in the womb my mother conceived me."
• 
  33

  The Creation of Jesus

  by berrygerry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.

  prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.

  so, what was jesus?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Ruby 456,

  To some extent you are absolutely correct.

  But the discussion is limited to the idioms of the expressions of the narratives. There is a methodology called philology that governs how far we can go with ancient language applications, and it even effects the etymology of the words involved.

  That "wide semantic range" you talked about is not possible here. The author of the gospel of John is speaking of the Jewish Messiah and his relationship to the God of Abraham. At the time of composition the writer still thought of himself as a Jew, but had new concepts in mind due to how Paul had brought changes to Christianity. It appears, some scholars say, that Jewish Christians did not agree or at least struggled with these Pauline views. The author of John seems to have an agenda to set some matters straight.

  Without Jewish words for incarnation, and with no intention to counter the Shema, the author composed the verses in the language of the Septuagint, following the pattern of Genesis in that translation. EN ARKHE are the first words there too, a translation of the Hebrew BERESHIT, which means "where."

  So according to the methodology of philology, we cannot say that any other concepts of "beginning" or "before time" apply. They weren't part of the original material.

  We cannot use them for any critical analytical translation or discussion. Critical methodologies make no room for such things. There are strict limits to critical thinking. Critical thinking employs the scientific method, and this method doesn't allow for just random thought that can be anything. It's a very strict method. It's a very strict discipline.

  I can't help at this moment to comment on how surprised I am. I have read constantly from posters everywhere on this forum how they state they are critical thinkers. Yet, how is it I am introducing philology into this discussion?

  You people do know that you have to formally study critical analytical methodology (called "forensics") in a school environment, right? You have to go to college or some school to study forensics and have a teacher or instructor. You can't learn it on the Internet. When you were all saying you were critical thinkers I thought you had formal training in forensic methods. Am I missing something?
• 
  33

  The Creation of Jesus

  by berrygerry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.

  prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.

  so, what was jesus?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Wonderment is correct.

  Also, Freeman, you are making a very limited argument from authority. That is known as a "logical fallacy."

  Critical thinking requires that the critical analytical answer be accepted, not the one that comes from someone just because they are a scholar of specialist.

  This methodology requires that the argument be tested by disinterested parties to ensure that the results are not biased. Once sufficient, disinterested parties have done so and their results have been published and accepted academically, the critical results can be accepted on their own validity as nominal.

  Also, Greek is quite easy to learn. It takes about a year of college level study to be able to read the New Testament text freely. The Greek Orthodox send their children to Greek school were they learn Koine Greek so as to follow along with their Sunday Liturgy. By the time they are 12 or 13 they can read the Scriptures and the Liturgy in Koine Greek unaided. The results are similar for Biblical Hebrew among Jews.

  These languages are not hard. I've been using them, praying in them since I was a boy, even while I was a JW. I am 50 now. Yes, Christians tend to argue over nuances, but they really are quite simple.

  I pray and read in Hebrew four times or more everyday. Scholars and Christian clergy have come to me asking for help in translation work over then years. The idea that these languages are the property of scholars only is poppycock!

  If you haven't learned, it's because some Christian scholars want to keep you in the dark. If Jewish children learn the Shema in Hebrew by age 5, then it's a fallacy of selfish clergy and Christian academics who purposefully keep people confused by the minute details so they have to rely on them and pay them for their Bible translations.

  Christians should be just as equipped as Jews, to read both Hebrew and Greek from infancy like we are so they don't have to rely on scholars or translations to read the Bible. I don't understand why your scholars and clergy and elders won't do such an easy work for you.
• 
  33

  The Creation of Jesus

  by berrygerry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.

  prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.

  so, what was jesus?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  As I said in a previous post, I don't like to debate anymore, but if you so desire, Dr. White does like to both teach and debate and does so all the time, often televised or recorded. And unlike me he is an excellent teacher. He can be reached at Alpha & Omega Ministries. I hope that helps.
  Freeman

  How do you know Dr White is correct?

  I on the other hand am Jewish. I don't even believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. I have no invested interest in any set conclusions as Dr White does. You value his word and recommend him to a Jew, why? To proselytize a Jew? Because Dr White supports your argument? Because academia is behind Dr White?

  Again, I have no investment in Christianity. I only know Koine Greek well enough to help and do know what mainstream academia teaches. I didn't offer my opinion and have no interest in having some Christian ministry attempt to proselytize me away from my culture, way of life, people, land, or religion.

  I was only offering some objective assistance.
• 
  33

  The Creation of Jesus

  by berrygerry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.

  prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.

  so, what was jesus?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Sorry, had to go and come back. So before I forget:

  This Word fellow is just as old as the Jehovah fellow and both of them are older then dirt!

  Actually this isn't what is being said in John 1:1.
  

  KAI HO LOGOS EEN HO PROS TON THEON KAI THEOS EEN HO LOGOS

  "...and the Word was set towards God, and God was the Word."

  Or, "and the Word was coming up to the side [rib] of God, and God it was."

  In Genesis chapter 2, the Hebrew word for Adam's rib literally means "side" as in a building's side wall. The Greek word PROS in this sentence describes a motion, meaning to comes to God's side, not merely to be with, to move towards God as to become one with God as Adam did with his wife.

  This explains the last part which Jehovah's Witnesses find unacceptable: "...and God was the Word."

  The verse is attesting that Jewish monotheism has not been abandoned in Christology. In fact, it would not be until the 4th century. The only difference during John's day is that Jesus was now identified with God as God's Incarnation.

  Again the age of Jesus is not being spoken of here. It is the nature of Jesus and his identification with God. There is no time factor in these words.
• 
  48

  Paradise? Was it?

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Terry,

  Expressing opposite and divergent views in question form towards me but merely saying it is "not argumentative" does not magically make something not argumentative.

  That's like putting poison in my drink and saying "there's no poison in it." Merely saying the words doesn't magically make it so and take the poison away.

  You were argumentative, regardless.

  Whatever you call it, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

  I thought you no longer believed in things invisible. Hmmm. Seems to me you do. Looks like you believe in something that doesn't exist--the fact that you were not arguing with me. Belief in the unreal is still alive and kicking in you, but it is just coming out when you find it convenient. Whatever.

  It's your life, and who am I to judge?

  I'm finished with this thread however.
• 
  16

  Ok I feel like a dumb ass. Men have one less rib than women..

  by James Mixon in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  why in the hell would we (men) have one less rib...help me folks the adam and eve story has screwed up my thinking...

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  The Hebrew word translated "rib" from Genesis 2:21 is TSELA.

  It occurs 61 in the Jewish Bible and does not really mean "rib" as in bone at all. It means "side" as in "wall" of a building.

  The narrative of Genesis 2 is the second of four origin stories in Genesis, the oldest of all of them.

  In Genesis chapter 1, the one developed during the Babylonian exile, man and woman are not named Adam and Eve, not placed in Eden, and are created simultaneously. But in the oldest origin narrative, the first human pair have names, Adam and Eve, and Adam gets created first. Eve gets created from Adam's TSELA, often rendered "rib" but really meaning part of his entire side of his body, his flesh and bone (compare Genesis 2:23).

  The narrative is allegorical, as are all the others (otherwise there would be only one if this were a factual history lesson). It explains why the man yearns to "cling" to his wife as mentioned in verse 24 and again become as "one flesh." It's a religious allegory, not a scientific or medical explanation of nature.

  The use of TSELA is appropriate since God "builds" the woman from the man much like someone builds a "wall" or TSELA for a literal building. It's Hebrew word play.

  I do laugh about the days when as a Witness teenager when we used to have the weekly congregation book study, I don't remember which book it was exactly, but this subject came up, and I remember a certain brother W___ who went into a long speech claiming he came across a "scientific article" that "proved" men had one less rib than women, "thus vindicating the Bible account of creation!" What baloney! Brother W___ always had a load of crap like that to sell when he had an answer to give at a study or meeting.

  I wonder if the conductor ever caught me rolling my eyes...
• 
  33

  The Creation of Jesus

  by berrygerry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.

  prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.

  so, what was jesus?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  I am well versed in New Testament (Koine) Greek. While the words can be constructed to be very exact, the language itself is very flexible and fluid.

  EN ARKHE was borrowed by the author of John 1:1 from the Septuagint from Genesis 1:1 where that phrase is used to render the Hebrew word BERESHIT. The word in Hebrew means "when," as in "at the outset" or "in the beginning."

  It is not original to Greek at all. It is a Mesopotamian idiom used in ancient mythology to start stories of folkloric cosmology, and does not have any reference to time or eternity. In the New Jewish Publication Society's translation of Genesis 1:1, as well as the NRSV and the Catholic NABRE, BERESHIT is translated "When" as in "When God created the heavens and earth." This because it has no reference to time, as in the traditional and less correct "in the beginning."

  In Koine Greek ARKHE means "foremost" or "first" as in "first in line." It is the Greek word for a chief, magistrate, or king. It also stands for the first person who gets to a place first, like a winner in a race. It doesn't, however, refer to a start of time.

  EN is merely a preposition which here can mean "in," "inside," or "at." EN ARKHE EEN HO LOGOS simply means "At the beginning [as mentioned in Genesis 1:1] was the Word."

  It doesn't say the Word was existing before time in any of this. None of the words in John chapter 1 in Greek are speaking of time because there were no such concepts back then as we understand them now.

  The concepts of eternity as understood in Christology today entered much later into the church around the time the New Testament was canonized, maybe even before that shortly after the death of the apostate Marcion of Sinope. But many scholars state it was not fully formed until the 4th century with the possibility that John 1:3 was a late editorial anti-Arianism change inserted into the original text.