The Jewish view goes even one step further, Vidiot, than that applicable Star Trek allusion: Why would humans need to read and study a story about God and his "starship"? If God is real, he should be accessible without reading the story. People who tell you to concentrate on the "detail" of the starship will lead you astray.
David_Jay
JoinedPosts by David_Jay
-
29
When you stop & think about it ,why would Gods chosen people in the Old testament need an army ?
by smiddy inas the op states why would israel /jewish nation need to have an army at all ?
if they were the chosen people as the bible states under a theocracy , why would the men of israel need an army .?
to protect them ?.
-
-
-
29
When you stop & think about it ,why would Gods chosen people in the Old testament need an army ?
by smiddy inas the op states why would israel /jewish nation need to have an army at all ?
if they were the chosen people as the bible states under a theocracy , why would the men of israel need an army .?
to protect them ?.
-
-
David_Jay
The Jewish approach to this matter leaves out the need for faith, belief, and delusion. Why? Because we don't see these texts as historical reports.
They are liturgical narratives, texts designed specifically to be read aloud in formal public worship. They overlay a religious interpretation over our history in order to provide a moral lesson from reflecting on our past, but they are never understood as being either the true story or even the complete one.
Case in point: ever join any of your Jewish friends for a Passover Seder? At the dinner we retell the Exodus story from a book called the Haggadah. You might have noticed that the details of the Exodus differ not in a few ways in the Haggadah compared to the Bible book of Exodus. Why Moses himself is never even mentioned!
This is because our history and even our theology are separate from our liturgical texts, the Scriptures. While Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Hebrew Scriptures are the theological and historical basis for religion, Jews see things in a completely opposite way: our religion is the theological and historical basis for the Scriptures.
Our theology, doctrine, and religious practices developed separately before, during, and even after the composition of many Bible texts. The Hebrew Scriptures are the "story" of what we believe, not the basis. What we believe was carried via the ancient practice of oral transmission, and this set of beliefs, doctrine and theology became the Mishnah. The Mishnah was later codified in the Talmud. The Bible contains the stories based on the religion in the Mishnah, not the other way around.
Because of this Jehovah's Witnesses have done you a disservice by teaching you that the battles and other narratives in our Scriptures are literal reports and thus the basis for theology and doctrine. Because the intention of the narratives in Jewish Scripture are to give a setting for the lesson to be preached at the worship service, battles of the past are retold in ways that teach what happens when we obey God and what happens when we ignore God. As you have noticed, sometimes the separate stories contradict one another. This is because they are divided into liturgical portions, the divisions of which are never included into Christian translations, and you are left without realizing that what was meant to apply just to the previous portion and battle does not necessarily have anything to do with the following one.
Lastly, most of the battles and genocide didn't happen at all. Our actual history as well as archeological research and DNA studies all agree that we gradually merged with the people of Canaan. We didn't conquer them. The battles and great slaughters are often symbolic of our desire to say we rooted out all that was heathen from our midst (though we really didn't). Sometimes, however, we were just as violent to some of our neighbors as discussed in the Bible and we probably did even worse a few times and likely left that out possibly as not to make us look bad, but for the most part you have been duped by the Watchtower again. These stories are not designed to be read separate from Jewish doctrinal sources.
-
18
Arguing with Witnesses vs Trinitarians
by schnell ini have always been told as a jw that trinitarians, particularly baptists, are just the worst people to argue with out in service.
i have always been told it was the world with a veil over their eyes.
the hypocritical irony is that so many witnesses are completely stubborn and willing to believe in magic before they believe anything against their dogma.
-
-
David_Jay
There is a new field of sociology that has been developing over the past decade. It's called "wrongology." It's the study of how people act when they are wrong.
According to "wrongologists," people like the Jehovah's Witnesses are not necessarily delusional. They are just acting the way all humans do with regards to their convictions. Part of it is a survival instinct, part of it is learned.
The instinct part involves the building blocks of experience that act as a foundation for logic. As infants and young children we learn lessons and store what we learn away to build more things upon them. In this process we don't second-guess our primary lessons. Once we learn that fire is "hot" and will "burn" us, and that getting burned "hurts," we don't have to touch fire a second time. We transfer the experience to reasoning that other "hot" things are equally "hurtful." We avoid touching radiators, hot plates, steaming water, etc., almost naturally after we learn the primary lessons. Without this instinct, not only could we not progress in learning, we would never learn to move forward.
But the learned part is what screws up people like the Jehovah's Witnesses. It can even make a stubborn ass out of Baptist, a Jew, even an agnostic and an atheist. Scientists and other critical thinkers can even get messed up because of this learned feature. What is it? It is that in society we are taught from childhood onward that being wrong is "bad."
Wrongologists have discovered that since we have given being wrong a moral label, "bad," the first instinct takes over and we avoid being wrong, believing we are wrong, and even accepting evidence that we are wrong when we are made to face it.
In reality, being mistaken or wrong has no moral value. Neither does being right. But, for instance, we reward when children bring home good grades from school and punish children when they bring home bad grades. This type of behavior in itself is part of the learned behavior that causes the problem. We don't take into consideration that a child may have cheated to get the good grades or that the bad grades are a sign that the child is still trying their best but merely incapable of doing the work assigned. We have developed a society where "gold stars" are given for success, and the whip for failure. This is why many successful people are in reality corrupt, and those who may have failed through school often very honest. Success is not a virtue, and failure is not a sin, but we have been taught this and teach this to others.
Since what we believe about ourselves and the world around us (as well as our place in it) gives us our identity, whenever these convictions are challenged by others we instinctively fight back. In most cases this is normal and necessary. If someone is trying to argue that you are a jellybean and that your life is actually the dream of a drunken frog, you can't accept that. Reality, to an extent, is based on what we believe, how we perceive it.
But if our beliefs are wrong, this instinct to protect our understanding can get in the way. Add to this that we have been taught that being wrong or mistaken is "bad," and the problem has just become like adding fuel to an already wildly burning fire.
Evidence and facts, even the best reasoning will not help. Because what you believe gives you your sense of identity, any attack on your convictions is an attack on you. And if your beliefs are like that of the Witness, where you believe your convictions come from God, being told you are "wrong" gets interpreted as being told you are evil, that your beliefs are evil. Who else but the Devil would claim that beliefs that come from God are evil? So how does the instinct of defense come back? It goes into denial. It ignores. Nothing, not even facts can get through at this point.
And Jehovah's Witnesses aren't being stubborn at this either. Scientists can hold on to theories they prefer even when the evidence is to the contrary. They have been known to bitter fight and resist new theories as they come. A person who is an agnostic or atheist can act the same way too. The Communist regimes are examples of atheists who don't want to believe they are mistaken, even when they slaughter by the millions those who bring the truth of their failings to light.
Finally (and it's even worse news), things like pride and stubbornness and anger can also come into play on top of everything else. This means that a person who is told they are wrong not only has their instincts and primary learning to overcome, their own pride and stubbornness and misbehavior can betray them even further.
So don't be too naive to think that the Witnesses are just being ignorant or stupid. They are acting just the way you do when someone tells you that you are incorrect.
Don't believe me or any of this? Then merely stop and think. If I said everything each poster on this thread wrote was wrong, wouldn't the normal response be to prove me wrong and each person to defend their view while trying to prove they are correct (even if each poster may have totally different views). Each different view cannot be right, and you, just like me, don't like to be told you might be wrong.
Add a cult into the picture that is controlling your every move, and it is just an even harder mess to untangle.
-
2
The "I" in Jehovah's Witness Religion
by David_Jay in(yes, i am taking to and about you, "a believer.
ever notice how proponents of jehovah's witnesses tend to say almost the same thing when pushing their views on us?
"i have been doing this study of religion and i have come to these conclusions...".
-
-
David_Jay
(Yes, I am taking to and about you, "A Believer." )
Ever notice how proponents of Jehovah's Witnesses tend to say almost the same thing when pushing their views on us?
"I have been doing this study of religion and I have come to these conclusions..."
" I have done the research for myself, so I know... "
"I have learned these things and it was I who have seen that these things are true..."
It is as if the use of "I" guarantees they have reached accurate conclusions, that since "I" have done the research personally, "I" can attest to the accuracy of what "I" am about to tell you.
It is an earmark of JW indoctrination. We who were once Jehovah's Witnesses all spoke similarly. It is the canned "testimony" of the Watchtower inductee, taught to us by the Watchtower itself that if WE have done the research with our own eyes, then WE now have this special gift of accurate knowledge, and everyone else should somehow accept it as true because, after all, someone personally witnessed themselves looking up the verses and explanations offered them from (and approved by) the Watchtower.
"I seen it with my own eyes, from my personal point of view, and so I can testify to the truthfulness of the Watchtower gospel! Can I hear an 'Amen!'?"
Of course, all of us who have left now realize how "I did the research myself" is just a farce. While what indoctrinated drones should be saying is "I personally experienced being led by the hand by another Witness to learn how to come to the conclusions they approve of," regardless of whether it was truly something accomplished by one's own ability or not, the self-centered testimony offers nothing but a warning.
But JW religionists don't do that, do they? They instead all think it's a smart thing to say: I did all the learning myself, so I should truly be trusted.
Even an atheist will tell you: There is no "I" in religion.
Well, of course there is an "i" in the word itself, but religion--even if based on conclusions developed through personal research without outside influence--is not supposed to be an "I" experience. It is a social exercise. "Religion" is about leaving yourself behind, learning if not to adopt the ideals of a group, at least to think about more than yourself so as to transcend self to become something of use to others. It is very much NOT about "I." Religion is about "us," about " we. "
And it can't be done in a vacuum, even if your intention is to reject religion. Why not? Again, ask the atheist. You cannot accept your own personal conclusions. You need to think critically, and this requires getting outside verification that you were thinking right to begin with, reasoning correctly, and came to your conclusions without bias. What you believe is not right until you verify your conclusions with a disinterested party. It's the way of critical thinking, regardless if your intention is to reject or adopt religion.
Especially when it comes to adopting an established religion, one should not take pride in the fact that "I learned this fact by doing the research myself, personally." And why not? Because if you are doing religion right, it means adopting the views of a group and adapting your way of thinking to match theirs. Even when one believes that religion is something beneficial, that benefit is not arrived through what " I" does on its own.
The benefit comes only when the newly indoctrinated leaves "I" behind to take ownership of that which has been passed down to them, which cannot come to them by mere personal effort. Do you ever hear Jews say: "I did the research myself, and now I am Jew?" Do Catholics ever declare, "I came to all the very same conclusions found in 2000 years of doctrine by my own efforts, and now I can say for the honest truth that the Catholic Church is right?" No. Being part of a religion like these is to be entrusted with generations of instruction that transcends a mere lifetime. It is inheriting a legacy that cannot be earned or gained by personal effort. And it is only "true" when the member comes to the conclusions reached by the religious group, not when you reach your own through personal and private study.
There is no "i" in religion, not in any that is not of real of substance anyway. After all, what's the point in being religious if you came up with it all on your own? "I did the research myself, so I know what I am talking about. I know the truth." All those "I did it myself" and "reached the conclusion of having the truth by my own experience" is not the making of actual religion but of a dangerous cult. That's what people call it when you "did religion by youself." It's like the difference between masturbation and actual sex: No matter how much you do it by yourself, when you do it alone it is not the real thing.
Yet even now, supporters of the Watchtower will still join up here and start off their threads and posts with a lot of "I did this" or "I have learned this," reducing religion to a mere "I" experience.
What you are doing is no more logical than the cries of Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or David Koresh: "I've done the research that enabled life-saving truth to come to me. Now I am the one you should listen to." There's a lot of "I" in cult leaders.
-
19
Jesus in the old testament
by Steel inabout two years ago i was challenged by a householder to do the research on the subject.
of course thinking it was all bunk i decided to take a look off the reservation.
much to my surprise a lot of started to make sense and i started to understand the connections between the old and new testament .
-
-
David_Jay
The connection between Jesus Christ and the Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish people is not an immediate one, which is the way it has been reduced by the Jehovah's Witnesses and many literalist Christians.
For instance, there are no texts in any part of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) that speak of "the coming of the Messiah," especially in the sense advanced by Jehovah' Witness theology, namely that Jesus literally fulfilled the common expectation of the Jewish people in this regard.
In reality, not only does Judaism strongly hold that this is not true, the Roman Catholic Church (the largest and historically oldest of the Christian denominations) does not teach this idea either.
Recently the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated on this subject of the connection between the Old and New Testament regarding Christ as the link:
Christian faith [in the Catholic Church] recognises the fulfilment, in Christ, of the Scriptures and the hopes of Israel, but it does not understand this fulfilment as a literal one. Such a conception would be reductionist. In reality, in the mystery of Christ crucified and risen, fulfilment is brought about in a manner unforeseen. It includes transcendence. Jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role — that of Messiah — but he confers, on the notions of Messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance....It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the Old Testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events....The messiahship of Jesus has a meaning that is new and original.--The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.
The Jewish concept of "Messiah" is not directly found in Scripture but is, as most Jewish and Christian scholars now agree, post-Biblical or outside of the realms of Old Testament works. While there are indeed, and without reservation, prophecies about the Messianic age and messianic figures and the David dynasty being the ruling power in texts like those of the prophet Isaiah and even foreshadowed in some of the Psalms (and on this Jews definitely acknowledge), none of the same actually speak of "the Messiah."
As the document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated above, there are no texts that say "the Messiah will do such and such" or that "the Messiah will be this or that." The expression "the Messiah" never actually occurs in any of the Old Testament passages, even those that Jews consider to be Messianic prophecies. These texts often speak of a ruler, a king, usually "David," and speak of an era of peace, but never anything like "the Messiah will be a son of David" or "the Messiah will usher in the new world."
The expectations of the Messiah were quite limited by the time of the Second Temple era into which Jesus of Nazareth was born, and the idea was neither central to or universally accepted in Judaism. As the Catholic Church itself acknowledges, "Jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role — that of Messiah — but he confers, on the notions of Messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance."
The Messiah concept of Jesus is far greater than anything imagined or even assumed necessary by the Jews. And the popular expectations of the Jews about the Messiah's role (i.e., that he would restore the Kingdom of Israel, liberate them from foreign rule, gather all members of the Diaspora back to the soil of Israel, usher in an era of enlightenment to all nations and the physical resurrection of the dead) never happened. Like the Catholic Church admits, Jesus cannot be the great Messiah of the New Testament and yet confined to the notions of Messiah held by the Jews or so lightly touched upon in Jewish Scripture. While there is a connection, it requires placing a new hermeneutic approach over the Jewish Scriptures, one which had not existed nor was ever available to the Jews before the Church standardized its doctrine about Jesus.
Thus the Jehovah's Witnesses and their concept of the connection between the two sets of Scriptures finds no support in Judaism or the oldest and original form of Christianity. To accept Jesus as Messiah and as "the connection between the Testaments" requires reading something new into the Scriptures of the Jews, at least according to Catholicism and Judaism.
-
129
Hi forum
by A Believer ini proably shouldnt be on here but i feel like saying this.
i have been for the last couple weeks been studying religion.
i've learned the only ones who today do what the bible says to is jw.
-
-
David_Jay
Jesus said, “Watch out that you aren’t deceived. Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I’m the one to listen to!’ and ‘It’s the time of the end!’ Don’t follow them. " --Luke 21:8.
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
David_Jay
I had a philology professor who was fond of reminding us students: "All that is Greek is not Septuagint."
This was more than just a reminder to avoiding mixing the actual Septuagint created by the Sephardim with Christian translations of the Old Testament into Greek (scholars and academics view these as two different things). His reminder actually meant that " common misconceptions are also popular. "
Popular misconceptions are popular because people choose them over the facts. And you can complain all you want and argue until you're blue in the face, but you can't stop lemmings from jumping off a ledge by telling them they'll die or stop Jehovah's Witnesses from obeying the next foolish teaching from the Governing Body by pointing out the facts about how incorrect the Governing Body is. People often choose to see things their way because it is popular with them, and facts don't matter.
Though I am a Jew, I do appreciate Jesus' words: "If they won't believe what is written by Moses or the Prophets, neither is someone rising from the dead going to do much to convince them."
I can go on to explain that Greek translations of the New Testament by Christians are not considered to be LXX in academia, and demonstrate that even if they were it would not change the end result that JWs are wrong about what they claim (and that is the real point of all I've been saying, and all that really, truly matters in the end). The fact is that when humans tell fellow humans that they are incorrect, that drive to say "No I am not" blinds us to reason and humility.
It won't be possible for me to convince you that you are or may be mistaken because you are like me. It never feels good to hear that. Forums make stubborn mules of us all. While I am convinced that I am not incorrect, I am equally convinced that you would not let me convince you either. So merely stating more facts is a useless exercise. (I am equally convinced you will reply to this with some statement that tries to further disprove anything I have been saying either here or before or to justify your own words.)
It doesn't matter that you are incorrect in your details or not. It doesn't matter if I am wrong or right either. The main subject is the failure of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their theology about the Divine Name.
And guess what? They're not going to be convinced by any evidence either, even if it came in the form of a resurrected man. Facts don't convince people. Only the courage and fortitude to refuse to give into pride and stubbornness can do that.
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
David_Jay
The Codex Sinaiticus is a Christian codex of the Christian canon written by Gentiles, whereas the Septuagint is made up of Jewish scrolls written by Jews.
The Codex Sinaiticus comes from around 300 CE, but the Septuagint from around 132 BCE.
The Codex Sinaiticus was written in leafs, sown into signatures, an invention of the Gentiles, whereas the codex had not been invented when the Jewish translators of the Septuagint did their work (which is why the LXX is on scrolls).
The Codex Sinaitcus contains the entire Christian canon of books, and it was composed by Christians some 300 years after the Temple fell. The Septuagint is a Jewish translation of the Tanakh into Greek of the Second Temple era, almost 200 years before the birth of Christ.
The Greek translation of the Old Testament in the Codex Sinaticus is a copy of a late tradition of the Septuagint, whereas the Septuagint is not a copy of anything but an original translation.
You claim here that "I have nowhere said PRylands 458 is Christian. It is from the second century BCE so it cannot be Christian." But prior to this, in an earlier post you wrote:
The earliest copies of the LXX used various forms of YHWH or the Greek transliteration IAW. (There are about 7 such examples) None of the Jewish fragments that survive show KYRIOS instead of the divine name. The earliest Christian copies using KYRIOS date no earlier than late second century AD. The fragment of Genesis that leaves spaces for either YHWH or KYRIOS is quite late, from the third century, and probably Christian. It is probably indicative of the transition from using YHWH to KYRIOS in Christian practice.
You write that “the earliest copies of the LXX used various forms of YHWH” though you now agree that the earliest example in the Rylands fragment does not. You also wrote that there are “Jewish fragments” of the LXX that have survived in contrast to a “fragment of Genesis” of the LXX that “is quite late, from the third century, and probably Christian.”
From this I gathered you were saying that the PR 458 is the fragment “that leaves spaces...from the third century, probably Christian.” My mistake if I didn’t understand you, but the only copy of the Septuagint “that leaves spaces” for YHWH is PR 458. PR 458 contains only portions of Deuteronomy, not Genesis, and originates from about 200 years before the birth of Christ.
You added in a later post: “The text is not extant in the places where the divine name would appear.” But as I demonstrated, PR 458 consists only of Deuteronomy sections, and the Divine Name is supposed to appear several times at Deuteronomy 28:17-19 and 27:15 and 28:2, where PR 458 only has spaces instead.
So I will claim I am making the mistake in understanding you. You wrote these things, but obviously you have different meanings behind your words I do not see. You must be talking about something else and thus we are comparing your apples to my oranges.
But your claims about what is the LXX and what isn’t might be due to your mistaking all Greek translations of the Hebrew text as Septuagint, where that is not the case. If it wasn’t on a scroll written by Jews circa 200-150 years before Christ, it is not the Septuagint.
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
David_Jay
And I just verified this with several scholar friends of mine.
Papyrus Rylands 458 contains only verses from Deuteronomy, and contrary to your claim, it covers verses in which the Divine Name is supposed to occur, namely...
Deuteronomy 28:17-19 and 27:15 and 28:2.
Where the Hebrew text contains the Divine Name in these verses, Papyrus Rylands 458 contains empty spaces.
There are various photographs of this papyrus all over the Internet, as well as well-established agreement in many authoritative publications and academic journals. Your claims that this is a product of the Christian era and covers no verse where the Divine Name should appear are quite incorrect.
-
43
Why Is YHWH Used Regularly In OT and NEVER in NT?
by minimus inand if the name jehovah is that important why is it that jesus christ never use that name in a record of scriptures?.
-
-
David_Jay
Dude, Slimboy, you started off by saying...
"The earliest Christian copies using KYRIOS date no earlier than late second century AD. The fragment of Genesis that leaves spaces for either YHWH or KYRIOS is quite late, from the third century, and probably Christian."
There are no Christian copies of the Septuagint. They are Jewish. The Septuagint was completed in 132 BCE, and as such this statement of yours is impossible. Christians did not produce the LXX, and the earliest copies predate the first century CE.