Posts by David

17

Question on the sun created in the fourth day

by opusdei1972 in

in the first day elohim created light, and it was day and night in the first day.

then in the fourth day he created the sun, the moon and the stars.

of course, it did not actually happen, but what did the writer have in mind?.

David_Jay

The writer is merely saying that everything has it purpose in the scheme of things. While it is not clear if the writer believed this was the chronological order in which things appeared, the reason for writing so has to do with the belief that the exile to Babylon occurred because the Jews failed to observe the Sabbath, the cornerstone of the Mosaic Law.

The first chapter of Genesis appears to be the newest and last part of the book written. The language is Sabbath-centric, revealing that the writer(s) were emphasizing adherence to the Mosaic Law by seeing humankind as designed to obey Torah. This is seen in how the writer makes the Sabbath the pinnacle of the story, after the creation of humankind.

With this in mind the narrative plays out as an empty tableau, with parts and pieces placed on it like the backdrop for a play, and then the players put into the place. As such it has two parts:

A three piece tableau is filled: On the first three days the tableau is filled with the settings of night and day, heaven and sea, earth and vegetation. The tableau is now filled, now time to fill the settings.

The settings are filled: On the last three days (before the Sabbath) the settings get filled: the heavens (which is described as a solid dome or firmament) is affixed with luminaries, birds fly over its face and fill the sky, marine life fills the seas, the land is filled with vegetation, animal life, and then humans. And then the Sabbath caps it all off.

First off, the settings are based on the science of the day, the Mesopotamian understanding that the cosmos is filled with water (no vacuum of space was understood by the ancients). These cosmic waters were held back by a solid dome upon which were affixed the sun, moon, and stars. Precipitation came down through windows or gates in the dome. The earth was a flat surface with basins for seas, and all this sat upon a set of pillars which kept it upright in the cosmic ocean, the waters around the pillars being referred to as the “abyss.”

This cosmology is not from the Hebrews, however. The author is only using it as the tableau to fill it with a Jewish meaning, namely that all things are created to fulfill God’s purpose (and subsequently man to fulfill God’s Law).

The luminaries which appear on the fourth day are merely filling their place in the tableau setting. God made the dome or firmament, the writer says. Why? To hold back the waters over the earth, and to provide a place to affix the sun, moon, and stars. The Mesopotamians believed the luminaries were small lights affixed to the firmament/dome which rotated around the earth to created the differences in day and night.

Apart from this the author is unconcerned with whether the Mesopotamian cosmology is sound or not, or has any care about the luminaires themselves. The idea the Jews had after the exile was that God had punished them for not keeping the Mosaic Law. This was foremost illustrated on how little importance Sabbath-keeping held in pre-exile days. Upon returning from Babylon and rebuilding the Temple, the Jews set into place the foundations of the religious system that would become Judaism, with strict rules to prevent the exile from happening again. As such the Torah was recopied with interpolations that included some hermeneutic material, and thus the expansion of the creation story. It originally began with Genesis chapter 2 as the first in a series of creation stories (the Noachian flood is also a creation story). With the return from the exile, this third Sabbath-centric one was added as the beginning or prologue to the rest of the Genesis, which in reality is the prologue to the entire Mosaic Law.

43

Jehovah sure loves foreskins!

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

an atheist (never jw) friend of mine is an rv for a jw who he is trying to deprogram.

he started this totally on his own and just telling me about it.

it's quite amusing what he comes up with.. point 1: why the s & m stuff with foreskins?

David_Jay

Yeah, I kinda knew the American/Puritan circumcision reason (just realizing that as a Jewish man I know way to much about dicks in general). A footnote, Graham crackers were created for a similar reason as Kellogg's anti-JO flakes.

And my friend Avi has just now told me his preference and why and sent pictures to explain (and I can't really tell you without the pictures, so I won't). I now know more about gay male sex too.

Thank you, ex-JW forum for bringing this up. Those images from Avi are gonna stay with me for a very long time.

43

Jehovah sure loves foreskins!

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

an atheist (never jw) friend of mine is an rv for a jw who he is trying to deprogram.

he started this totally on his own and just telling me about it.

it's quite amusing what he comes up with.. point 1: why the s & m stuff with foreskins?

David_Jay

@schnell,

It's a good ramble. I think we've all had a dip in the same gene pool to be honest.

As for circumcision, at least my parents were Jewish enough to have it done for me on the 8th day so I don't remember a thing. They may not have instilled much Judaism in me, but they did that at least.

I also can't speak in favor of circumcision or the lack thereof as I am not a connoisseur of the male organ. My best Jewish friend is gay, so I will ask his opinion.

43

Jehovah sure loves foreskins!

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

an atheist (never jw) friend of mine is an rv for a jw who he is trying to deprogram.

he started this totally on his own and just telling me about it.

it's quite amusing what he comes up with.. point 1: why the s & m stuff with foreskins?

David_Jay

I don't know who the "him" is and what "moral hook" this person shouldn't be released from, but one has to stop reading Jewish Scripture like a Christian and think that every time the Tanakh says something that it is at the same time saying the action was moral. The actions are not justified even though they come from inspired Scripture, at least in the way Jews read their Scriptures.

These are very ancient stories, attributing customs to a paradigm where mythology was the device to attribute all things to Providence. This makes it a static snapshot of an ancient era long gone, and therefore not a means of justifying customs. Jews now use science and critical analysis to explain our history, not the texts of the religion of my people.

However, Judaism does not see a difference between direct revelation as written in Scripture and the more historical explanation. Since the God concept of Judaism may be just as much of an ancient literal device as the mythology, the end is still the same. This is our particular custom and it is as much value as those customs cherished and practiced by non-Jews (some of which are equally as odd to us), regardless of the origin. Scripture is about who Jews are, the good and the bad of my people.

43

Jehovah sure loves foreskins!

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

an atheist (never jw) friend of mine is an rv for a jw who he is trying to deprogram.

he started this totally on his own and just telling me about it.

it's quite amusing what he comes up with.. point 1: why the s & m stuff with foreskins?

David_Jay

schnell,

I got one better (or worse) to admit: After leaving the JWs in my youth, I had to un-learn all the wrong things about my own culture and then learn them again. It was nice to know I was a Jew upon leaving the Watchtower, but very sad that I was a stupid Jew. So yeah, I kinda know what it means to feel bothered that you don't know as much about your own culture than you do about an insignificant people from a desert land.

One thing for sure: It's good that the JWs didn't claim to be experts in Irish and Cherokee history and stuffed this down your throat under threat of loss of salvation. Can you imagine having to undo all that for yourself now?

43

Jehovah sure loves foreskins!

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

an atheist (never jw) friend of mine is an rv for a jw who he is trying to deprogram.

he started this totally on his own and just telling me about it.

it's quite amusing what he comes up with.. point 1: why the s & m stuff with foreskins?

David_Jay

It’s quite interesting to read the posts in this conversation from my perspective. For instance, where you (non-Jews) see a story about circumcision at Exodus 4:24-26, Jews see something different. Also, people from a Christian world view (whether religious or not) tend to read the statements in the Bible as literal, as if God commanded the practice of circumcision (which is not likely at all).

Exodus 4:24-26 is a parallel of the episode of Genesis 32:25-33. The stories both involve a Jewish hero, in Exodus it is Moses, in Genesis it is Jacob. Both stories involve an attack by a divine being while journeying from one land to another, Jacob by an angel, and Moses by God. Both stories have the divine beings “losing” the fight, with Jacob refusing to stop fighting and with Zipporah using blood as a ransom.

It is not certain if this is a story of an actual circumcision because there seems to be a play on words in the expression “Bridegroom of Blood” which can mean “protect” as well as “circumcise.” The expression “Bridegroom of Blood” may be a name given to Moses much as Jacob gets renamed Israel. The saving power of the blood in the attack on Moses foreshadows the saving power of the blood used by the Israelites on their doorposts on Passover.

As for the episode in which Saul asks David for “foreskins” as a substitute for a bride-price at 1 Samuel 18:25, the expression was a contemptuous (and somewhat bigoted) way of referring to the Philistines and their lives. As the Philistines were not circumcised, and this was considered detestable to the Jews, this was a way of asking for “proof” that David had slaughtered Philistines. (Compare 1 Samuel 14:6 for a similar contemptuous use of the term toward the Philistines.) The issue is not really the foreskins but the insult of referring to proof of their lives in being reduced to counting foreskins of the dead.

Circumcision was not exclusive to the Jews, but was common as a rite in neighboring cultures and nations. It appears to have been connected with the nuptial ceremony of these peoples. In line with this, the ancient Hebrews picked up the tradition and at first followed the more primitive custom of circumcision at the age of puberty, a rite of passage to manhood. It appears it was sometimes reserved to the age of warrior acceptance in Israel before their settling in the Promised Land. It was only after settling that the rite was transferred to the eighth day after birth, the Torah being only a regulating factor to the custom and less the source of something that was adopted from the custom of the surrounding heathen world.

In other words, this seems to be another thing the Jews did (like plural marriage and slavery) that they had previously adopted from the surround cultures as norms and that the Mosaic Law merely allowed by regulation. As always, the language of Scripture makes these practices sound like inspired instruction from heaven but critical examination of Hebrew history offers contrary evidence.

13

Who was/is the promised Messiah ? Jesus or Immanuel

by smiddy in

in isaiah 7:14 "therefore jehovah himself will give you men a sign look the maiden herself will actually become pregnant and she is giving birth to a son and she will certainly call his name immanuel".

this scripture is attributed to the virgin birth of jesus from his mother mary to become the messiah.

the problem is the name of the messiah isnt jesus its immanuel .

David_Jay

Actually, "Immanuel" is often mistaken for a title by Fundamentalist and literalist Christians. It isn't (or at least it wasn't when it was written in Isaiah). It is just a Hebrew name, a common one at that.

At Isaiah 8:8 the name "Immanuel" appears again, but this time meaning the people and land of Judah. It appears besides two other names, Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, neither of which are titles either. All three names are used symbolically in Isaiah.

The Protestant Reformer John Calvin was one who claimed that "Immanuel" has to be a title. He reasoned that since Isaiah 7:14 reads that the maiden names her child "Immanuel" that there must be something unique happening here. Calvin wrongly asserted that the Hebrew custom of name-giving was 'reserved to fathers,' and thus the text in Isaiah had to be talking about the mother doing something far different than giving an actual name.

Calvin of course made this up. For instance, Genesis 29:31-30:24 has Rachel and Leah naming the children of Jacob, the very names of the tribes of Israel. But this wrong idea among many Christians has still never died away.

13

Who was/is the promised Messiah ? Jesus or Immanuel

by smiddy in

in isaiah 7:14 "therefore jehovah himself will give you men a sign look the maiden herself will actually become pregnant and she is giving birth to a son and she will certainly call his name immanuel".

this scripture is attributed to the virgin birth of jesus from his mother mary to become the messiah.

the problem is the name of the messiah isnt jesus its immanuel .

David_Jay

The Messiah concept developed mainly after the return from Babylonian exile, during the Second Temple era, though the idea did begin immediately after the Davidic dynasty failed in Solomon. So after the split of the kingdom into Judah and Israel, the hope for a reunited kingdom under the Davidic dynasty has always been a part of Hebrew religio-political life. The entire reason for the term "messiah" and "son of God" is that these are titles connected with kings in the line of David.

But the idea that Jews were expecting a warrior messiah to liberate them from Rome is a bit misshapen. Blame it on the Bar Kokhba revolt. After the Romans squashed the uprising in 70 CE, the Jews united under Simon bar Kokhba to regain independence in 132. Due to the highly influential sage Rabbi Akiva declaring him the Messiah (or at least attributing the possibility to Simon) and the revolt that followed, the idea stuck afterwards that the Jews in general were awaiting someone like Bar Kokhba's figure over Jesus.

It isn't easy to say, however, that the Jews in general did or didn't see the Second Temple era and the Roman oppression as indicative of the coming Messianic era. The views were varied, and since the return from Babylon many Jews tried to reclaim the crown and glory days of the Davidic dynasty. The celebration of Chanukah is actually partially due to such an attempt that suceeded, the Hasmonean dynasty, though it was not Davidic.

Most Jews still hope for the coming of this figure, though some view the concept of Messiah as a personification of a time period in which humanity has learned for itself to bring a better world under Providence. A few believe that the Messiah has come and gone in an obscure figure of history here or there, and some expect a dual messianic arrival, one being political and the other priestly. There is no, however, consensus among all the Jews, and unlike Christianity the Messianic concept is NOT central to Judaism.

13

Who was/is the promised Messiah ? Jesus or Immanuel

by smiddy in

in isaiah 7:14 "therefore jehovah himself will give you men a sign look the maiden herself will actually become pregnant and she is giving birth to a son and she will certainly call his name immanuel".

this scripture is attributed to the virgin birth of jesus from his mother mary to become the messiah.

the problem is the name of the messiah isnt jesus its immanuel .

David_Jay

Crazyguy,

There is a widely accepted school of Jewish thought that the verse does, indeed, suggest the POSSIBLE coming of the Messiah in the person of Hezekiah.

The prophecy was given by Isaiah but not applicable to the prophet as the oracle was addressed to King Ahaz. The "child" which will prove God is with his people is considered by some Jewish traditions to be Ahaz's son Hezekiah.

But even in this interpretation the Jewish view is not that the oracle is saying the Messiah himself will have a miraculous birth of some sort, but that King Ahaz's son has the potential to be the Messiah. Why?

The tradition of the Promised Messiah states that in each and every generation one person among the Jewish people has the potential to be the Messiah. The tradition teaches that if the person who realizes their messianic calling does not live up to their potential, they do not become the Messiah due to their own personal failure.

It is believed by some that the text was never uttered by Isaiah to Ahaz but that it was an inspired oracle for Hezekiah, uttered during his lifetime instead. The reason? To persuade Hezekiah not to join the alliance against Assyria. Hezekiah failed to listen to Isaiah and therefore did not become the Messiah.

This, however, highlights the genius behind its use in the Matthean gospel. The way it is worded to take advantage of the Greek word for "maiden" (which can mean "virgin") is a clever example of Jewish midrash. Midrash is a manner of Jewish interpretation of a sacred text that often relies on the way the text is re-worded to get the point across. Jewish tradition sees Isaiah 7:14 as a failed opportunity for Hezekiah to be the Messiah, but the author of Matthew takes it up with a couple of plays on words in order to claim Jesus fulfills it. From the standpoint on how to correct!y execute midrash, Matthew 1:23 is a stellar example.

13

Who was/is the promised Messiah ? Jesus or Immanuel

by smiddy in

in isaiah 7:14 "therefore jehovah himself will give you men a sign look the maiden herself will actually become pregnant and she is giving birth to a son and she will certainly call his name immanuel".

this scripture is attributed to the virgin birth of jesus from his mother mary to become the messiah.

the problem is the name of the messiah isnt jesus its immanuel .

David_Jay

If you were raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses or had no religious education outside of the Watchtower religion, what I say now will likely shock you. I've even had people who had given up on all they learned as a JW years ago fight me on this when they first heard it (some psychological response for a few in the process of learning TTAT, apparently), but here goes...

The Messiah is a post-Biblical concept composed mostly of Jewish religious tradition, and there are no Scripture texts in the Jewish Bible (the Tanakh or "Old Testament" ) that explicitly predict, foretell or directly describe any concept connected with this Jewish concept.

(From experience, this is where JWs and even a few ex-JWs lose it and start arguing with me. But wait, it gets "worse.")

With this, Christendom agrees.

For example, the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 2001, when discussing how the Jewish Scriptures are to be interpreted by Christians stated: "Jesus in 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 [to Christianity] that is new and original." --The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, II, 5, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 2001.

(Hold on, as your jaw will remain where it is on the floor for just a little longer.)

Not a single text formally or informally held by Christians and even Jews as being "messianic" says anything about the Messiah fulfilling them.

For instance, from Christianity and Judaism:

1. That the Promised Messiah will be a descendant of King David is found in no Scripture. There are no texts in the Old Testament which speak of or have the wording describing "the Promised Messiah," let alone which say that this figure will be David's son. There are promises that David will have descendants on his throne forever, but nothing more.

2. Micah 5:2 does not say "the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem," but that merely "a ruler" representing God will come from there.

3. Zephaniah 9:9 only describes how kings of Israel would ride on donkeys up to their throne on inauguration day, not that only the Promised Messiah would use this as a unique sign (which it was not, merely the common Davidic practice).

4. Zechariah 11:11 doesn't say that the Messiah or any king would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.

5. Psalm 22 never says the Promised Messiah would be mocked or that people would cast lots for the Messiah's clothing. It merely describes an unnamed individual having HAD these experiences.

6. Psalm 34:20 (21) does not predict that the Promised Messiah would have no broken bones. It only days that King David once escaped from some of his enemies without even as much as a broken bone which he attributes to divine providence.

And time would fail me and we would run out of space if I went on. Look at all the so-called prophecies of the Messiah and note how "the Messiah" is not really mentioned in any of them, regardless if it is a Christian or a Jew who claims that a text foretells the Messianic figure.

And still, we are not finished!

The New Testament "fulfillments," as stated in that document from the Vatican, are mostly describing this transcendent Messiah that Jesus comes as, not one recognized or accepted by his own people. The type of fulfillment Jesus' messiahship has of the Scriptures is one which transcends their original intent, like that of Isaiah 7:14.

Whereas Isaiah 7:14 states that the child born to a young woman would be named "Immanuel" as a sign that God is with his people, in Matthew the author is saying that something far greater than a literal reading is happening in the case of Jesus.

St. Athanasius stated that "the Son of God became man so that we might become God." I know, I know. Years of JW training make you want to debate this. As a Jew I have no part in advocating the notion, but the truth of Christianity is that they believe God came in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, that God became incarnate so that mankind might share in God's divinity, "that...you might come to share in the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) Only the incarnation of a god would make sense in regarding such an offer of sharing "divine nature." A merely perfect man could never do so.

So, yes, though my people don't believe it (and it is the reason most of us don't), Jesus messiahship is all about Jesus being God. Sorry to rain on the parade of all those endless debates, but even we Jews know that this is not only the central claim of what it means to practice Christianity but central to all Jesus taught, said and did. If the whole "Jesus is God" thing wasn't a factor, more Jews would likely be Christians. This whole "Jesus is the Messiah" is a concept that transcends not merely the Jewish traditions about the Messiah but the Scriptures themselves.

So when Isaiah talked about the child being Immanuel, the transcendent fulfillment is that the Messiah Jesus is a literal "God With Us" experience, not merely a name for a baby.

There you go. And please, no "debate with David Jay" about the Trinity. Jews don't believe in or condone the Trinity doctrine, so this is not what I've been saying.

But what I am saying is that JW theology on Jesus does not work due to its demand for literal interpretation. There are no literal texts about the Messiah in Scripture, and as Christendom teaches, the entire Jesus thing is about God fulfilling even these traditional comcepts in a transcendent manner.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay