Posts by David

22

Bible writers ignored their own principle

by venus in

bible gives a very beneficial principle when it states “too much talk” is problematic whereas “anyone who holds his tongue is prudent.” (proverb 10:19) in harmony with this if bible had given us just enough verses like this: “remember god always and do everything as an offering to him” (ecclesiastes 12:1; colossians 3:17), it could have kept itself invincible.. instead, it started to speak “too much” which often backfired.

1) too much information on a too less important subject (such as woman’s menstruation) and yet too less information on too important subject such as creation which comes in just one sentence: god created “the mankind in his image.” (genesis 1:27).

2) jesus was taken to a mountain top so that he and satan could see “all the kingdoms of the earth” [which is in support of flat-earth belief], and satan tried to tempt jesus by offering them all in exchange of an act of worship to him.

David_Jay

ttdtt,

Do remember that you are quoting from the New World Translation. The verse doesn't read exactly like that in the Hebrew.

The Hebrew reads like this:

When someone strikes their slave with a rod, whether they be male or female, and it's the type of beating that results in a death, punishment must be extracted. But no punishment will be demanded where this does not happen. If there is a question, wait a day or two. The slave is the other’s property.

Torah isn't saying that Jews may beat those in their service up to the point of death. On the contrary, Torah is explaining why someone can receive capital punishment for killing their own slave. It is teaching that there is a difference between someone whacking another with a rod and one beating them so badly that they die.

The phrase, "the slave is the other's property" follows the statement LO YUQQAM in Hebrew, which literally means "DO NOT EXECUTE (HIM)." This shows that the subject of the passage is when a slave owner is accused of going too far in beating a slave. Torah is asking: Was this just a passing beating? Was it bad enough to kill the slave?

Torah suddenly skips a few verses to say something else, then continues with the slave issue, stating in verse 26:

When someone strikes the eye of their slave, male or female, causing permanent damage, they must let that slave go free on account of losing their eye. If they knock out the slave's tooth, male or female, they must let that slave go free on account of losing their tooth.

You might notice that there are verses stuck in between speaking about what happens to a slave when a slave owner punishes them. What are these verses? Verses 22-25 are the famous Lex Talinois law, the "measure-for-measure" punishment, the "eye for an eye, life for life" law. They are applied to free people in this instance and then Torah goes back to speaking about slaves. Why?

Torah is saying Biblical law is the same for all classes. You beat anyone, free or slave, and cause any damage, the same gets done to you.

Sure, my people the Jews had slaves, but don't forget, so did yours. How did your people treat your slaves when your Gentile ancestors had them? Were their laws worse or better? What does history say about your culture's treatment of slaves?

22

Bible writers ignored their own principle

by venus in

bible gives a very beneficial principle when it states “too much talk” is problematic whereas “anyone who holds his tongue is prudent.” (proverb 10:19) in harmony with this if bible had given us just enough verses like this: “remember god always and do everything as an offering to him” (ecclesiastes 12:1; colossians 3:17), it could have kept itself invincible.. instead, it started to speak “too much” which often backfired.

1) too much information on a too less important subject (such as woman’s menstruation) and yet too less information on too important subject such as creation which comes in just one sentence: god created “the mankind in his image.” (genesis 1:27).

2) jesus was taken to a mountain top so that he and satan could see “all the kingdoms of the earth” [which is in support of flat-earth belief], and satan tried to tempt jesus by offering them all in exchange of an act of worship to him.

David_Jay

It's a common mistake made by some that the slavery mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures was anything like the slave trade during Roman times or the Atlantic (sometimes called "African") slave trade.

The Torah forbade any type of slavery that resembled what the Jews experienced in Egypt, and it was nothing like the slavery of recent times, like those owned by Americans before the Civil War. For instance:

1. Slaves in Israel became members of the household, and enjoyed the benefits and protections of the Mosaic Law such as rest on the Sabbath, rest and celebration on Jewish holy days, and thus could inherit the household's wealth and name if there was no heir to pass it to (and possibly in despite of that fact according to Proverbs 17:2).--Ge 15:3; Ex 12:44, 45, 20:10, 21:20; 23:12; Deut 5:14-15; 12:18; 16:11-14.

2. Slaves were compensated for their work, especially when they were hurt on the job. Mistreatment by the owner could even be a reason for immediate release. If a slave died from mistreatment at the hands of their owner, the Torah demanded that the slave owner face punishment for killing another human.--Ex 21:20, 26-27; Lev 25:29, 43, 46, 53; Deut 23:17.

3. Slaves could buy and own their own property. They could even buy their freedom from their masters.--Lev 25:29; 2 Sam 9:10; 16:4; 19:18-30 (see also 1 Sa 9:8); see also Jewish works Kid 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2.

4. Those who owned slaves were forbidden by Torah to mistreat them, and kidnapping someone for the sole purpose of enslaving them or selling them into slavery was a capital offense.--Ex 21:16; Lev 25:43, 46, 53; Deut 23:17; 24:7.

And there's more. But this should be enough to demonstrate that the service regulated by the Torah in Scripture is not the same as the slavery developed by Gentiles and employed in recently modern times.

Too often upon leaving the Watchtower or never studying anything but a Christian interpretation of Torah, people are left reading Jewish texts through Western filters. The same often applies in other areas of Jewish writings as well.

22

Bible writers ignored their own principle

by venus in

bible gives a very beneficial principle when it states “too much talk” is problematic whereas “anyone who holds his tongue is prudent.” (proverb 10:19) in harmony with this if bible had given us just enough verses like this: “remember god always and do everything as an offering to him” (ecclesiastes 12:1; colossians 3:17), it could have kept itself invincible.. instead, it started to speak “too much” which often backfired.

1) too much information on a too less important subject (such as woman’s menstruation) and yet too less information on too important subject such as creation which comes in just one sentence: god created “the mankind in his image.” (genesis 1:27).

2) jesus was taken to a mountain top so that he and satan could see “all the kingdoms of the earth” [which is in support of flat-earth belief], and satan tried to tempt jesus by offering them all in exchange of an act of worship to him.

David_Jay

Your OP works, just not against Jewish Scripture, per se.

And Jews never had Proverbs 10:19 in mind when they started composing their Scriptures (which started by oral transmission many millennia ago). Proverbs 10:19 was written around 516 B.C.E., after the Jews built the Second Temple.

For it to have been eternal, Proverbs 10:19 would have to be the guiding principle for all of Judaism, known before the writing of the Torah. But it wasn't.

Coming from the JW religion you might have a hard time understanding this at first, but these texts are not eternal. These principles haven't always existed, nor has Judaism ever held Proverbs 10:19 as anything particularly important.

And, by the way, "eternal" means without beginning or end. "Everlasting" is the word you are looking for. That means to continue forever ONCE it comes into existence. Since Proverbs was not composed until after the Babylonian exile ended, none of its texts can be said to be guiding principles used for any of the narratives that came before it.

22

Bible writers ignored their own principle

by venus in

bible gives a very beneficial principle when it states “too much talk” is problematic whereas “anyone who holds his tongue is prudent.” (proverb 10:19) in harmony with this if bible had given us just enough verses like this: “remember god always and do everything as an offering to him” (ecclesiastes 12:1; colossians 3:17), it could have kept itself invincible.. instead, it started to speak “too much” which often backfired.

1) too much information on a too less important subject (such as woman’s menstruation) and yet too less information on too important subject such as creation which comes in just one sentence: god created “the mankind in his image.” (genesis 1:27).

2) jesus was taken to a mountain top so that he and satan could see “all the kingdoms of the earth” [which is in support of flat-earth belief], and satan tried to tempt jesus by offering them all in exchange of an act of worship to him.

David_Jay

For this to be so, the following would also have to be true:

1. The Jews would have had to (from the very beginning of their existence) intend that their various religious texts, some written generations before Proverbs, be written for the purpose of being a single volume based on a single principle (as you mention) from Proverbs...which by the way was likely not composed until the beginning of the Second Temple era (the post-exile period).

2. Jesus of Nazareth would have to have been accepted as the Messiah by Jews, and Jews would have to change their religion to believe there was such a being as Satan the Devil.

3. Marcion of Sinope, a Christian bishop of the 2nd century, had never become a heretic.

The idea that the Jews set out to write a single volume that never contradicts itself and that was to act as the basis for a religious creed was an idea developed mostly in America during the Second Great Awakening (1790-the 19th century). The idea you are proposing had been suggested in the 2nd century by the famous heretic Marcion, but it would be the New Religious Movements (NRMs) of the Second Great Awakening that would not merely revive it but reshape it to fit their ideals. The NRMs individually proclaimed themselves each to be the restoration of true Christianity, the end of times to be upon mankind, and the Bible as the ultimate form of revelation from God (the Latter Day Saints even went so far as to add a new further written authority).

Even now the Jews don't actually see the Hebrew Scriptures as one book. We see them as three collections of different types of books. And we hadn't settled on making them one volume (which we now call the Tanakh) until the 6th century C.E. when the Masoretes began their work of developing a single and final authoritative text.

Unless any of the writers had an idea that this would ever happen and on top of that knew of the "principle" you mention ahead of time (again you are talking about a proverb which didn't likely see light until after the time of Ezra), then the charge doesn't hold much weight. If they had intended to follow the principle you mention to make a single book, then your claim also falls flat. This would require that the very first Bible writers could foresee events and predict the composition of that post-exile principle. If that had that ability, then you would have a hard time arguing against anything they wrote, but believe me as a Jew when I say that such was never the case.

The idea of a Bible canon was invented by a Gentile Christian bishop of the 2nd century known as Marcion of Sinope. Attracted to Gnostic ideas, Marcion made the first assemblage of holy books for the purpose of acting as proof-texts for his doctrines. His idea was that holy writ was the highest form of divine revelation and that religion can only be based on that (albeit when interpreted through a select group gifted with special insight that others could not possess). Marcion was excommunicated for his teachings that salvation was reliant upon Scripture.

Finally, your argument only works if the original Jewish writers of Scripture intended the Christian scriptures to continue their tradition to create a single volume based on that "foreseen" principle. As you are aware, Jews neither accept Jesus as the Messiah not believe in Satan the Devil's existence. So adding that on to the original point raised doesn't work.

This doesn't mean you don't have a case. What you are arguing very effectively against is the NRM view of Scripture. The Jehovah's Witnesses are one of these NRMs that grew from the Second Great Awakening era. Like the others, they too claim to be the restoration of true religion and that we are living in the last days. They claim they can rightly ignore the great religious authorities who have ties to antiquity by claiming that the Bible is the ultimate form of divine revelation. This is merely a resurrection of Marcionism that taught that ultimate knowledge was granted only to a select group that could decipher salvific instruction from a volume of select holy texts.

It's not the Bible that's the problem. It's this Marcionic concept that the JW religion holds onto. To insist on Marcionism requires that Scripture was written for the purpose of being a single volume, that it cannot contradict itself, and that only those chosen to decipher the salvific message hidden inside can benefit from what is written (along with those who listen to their interpretations).

48

Aren't you a bit amazed that the WTS/JWS is still around ?

by Finkelstein in

i know i am, to me its a bit of a peculiar anomaly that the wts is still around and functioning in reflection of its decades and now complete century that the wts has been bullshitting to people .

organizations like the church of god have shrunk dramatically from its heyday of the 1980's, this too was another organization that spread and grew by publishing its own magazine proclaiming a armageddon soon doctrine and its main publication was called " the truth " .

i'm guessing some of this has to do with the fact that people who get lured into this cult aren't aware of its past, its doctrines, the people who started it and so forth.

David_Jay

Yeah, definitely. But in another way I am also left asking where it went.

I lost touch with all things Watchtower after leaving it behind in the 1980s/early '90s. I started to live my life without thinking about it at all. Years went by even.

Then 2014 came and a JW came to my door (I moved across country after leaving and hadn't seen a Witness in about 20 years). When they offered me literature I realized who they were and asked: "It's 2014. You folks are still around?"

So, yeah, to that degree I am amazed. I told some JWs on the day I left that the end was not coming, that if they didn't wake up soon that it would suddenly be 2014 and still there would be no Armageddon.

"Oh, this world will never last till then," they said. "You can bet on that! It won't even last till 2000, you'll see! By 2014 we'll be way deep into the New World Society and you will be dead!"

When that JW knocked on my door that hot June Saturday morning in 2014, I almost wanted to laugh in their face mockingly. But I reminded myself that this was not the same person from my past who told me such foolishness about the world ending before the year 2000.

I've since tried to look on their new website and just got a headache reading and seeing a few things. So much has changed! This is not the religion I left.

Two overlapping groups making up the "generation" of 1914? Huh? How did they even settle on the number two? Where in the Holy Bible do they get just "two" overlapping groups? Why not more? How does it overlap?

And a video ministry? In my day we called televised preaching a tool of Satan! And the dumbed-down picture books they now use as "spiritual food"?! We used to teach that such basic, dumbed-down publications in Christendom were proof that they were suffering a spiritual famine! And when I left there was like about 8000 of the anointed remnant. But the "remnant" has now since doubled?!?!

This is not the Jehovah's Witnesses anymore. That religion ended when Franz died and the year 2000 came without the end of the world coming.

What you have now is some other new cult that they slyly snuck in under all these poor, unsuspecting saps. The religion I belonged to did end. It ended when the 1914 generation from that 1980s Watchtower magazine cover all died and Franz kicked the bucket. In my day the only way Brooklyn Bethel was going to be emptied is when the last burning ember from heaven fell upon and slaughtered the last worldly person (and then it was probably going to be used as the capital buildings of the New World Society). And now look!

I am astonished at what has taken its place, but also satisfied that the cult I was in did disappear. If instead of leaving when I did, I had but merely fell into a coma, waking up today--I would be disfellowshiped for believing in false doctrine and practicing a false religion....the one I learned from the blue Truth book and the red Live Forever book.

The Jehovah's Witnesses and their New World Society ended. That cult finally collapsed. I don't know what this "JW.org" is, but we would have called them apostates and a group blinded by Satan in my day!

David Jay Cohen--March of 2017.

43

Atheism would not appeared if …

by venus in

· if religions were immune to division.

· if scriptures were immune to scientific errors.

· if religious leaders were immune to hypocrisy.

David_Jay

Is your question for me or Venus?

As for me, what am I after reading your sentence? Well being Jewish, we don't put much value in "beliefs" like non-Jewish peoples often do.

That also means we don't have opinions about not believing in things either. We are concerned with dealing with what is before us, living in the now, and with the advent of the post-denominational/post-rabbinical age of Judaism which began in the late 20th century, I don't subscribe to the concept of debating about concepts which have no practical application.

I was not whatever you said before, and thus am not anything (having to do with that subject) now.

43

Atheism would not appeared if …

by venus in

· if religions were immune to division.

· if scriptures were immune to scientific errors.

· if religious leaders were immune to hypocrisy.

David_Jay

Onager wrote:

David_Jay says that the state of everyone before this was also atheism

No, David Jay said no such thing.

I didn't say anything about what came before or after this or that. And I didn't use the term "atheism" in anything more than a general sense, such as "opposed to religion or theism in general." I wasn't trying to be exhaustive in my use of the term.

One thing the historical data lacks is any suggestion as to whether religion came before atheism (or whatever label you want to use) or vice versa or simultaneously. None of my comments were concerned with that.

But Venus is not wrong that today a large number of those who chose to be atheist do so due to religion's horrible record. This is also one reason Jews cannot accept Christianity. Jesus was a wonderful teacher and had a beautiful message, but Christianity has a history of persecuting, torturing, and murdering my people. Like the atheist that is an atheist because of religion, a lot of Jews are more than happy enough to reject Christianity due to its record.

Some humanist/atheist Jews practice Judaism not because of a belief in God but because of a disbelief in Christianity's determination to snuff out our culture. I'm not one of them, but I understand a defiant stand of solidarity. And I also see Venus' view that religion sure does a good enough job on its own to produce people who don't want anything to do with their beliefs.

43

Atheism would not appeared if …

by venus in

· if religions were immune to division.

· if scriptures were immune to scientific errors.

· if religious leaders were immune to hypocrisy.

David_Jay

And for those who need it spelled out a little clearer:

PERSON 1: I think there is a God.

PERSON 2: I don't think is a God.

PERSON 1: I think you're wrong for not thinking God exists.

PERSON 2: I think you're wrong for thinking God exists.

3rd PERSON: Who gives a shit what either or you think? There's a whole world outside your head to live in and bring your gifts to. There's even people out there who you can help and ways to make this a better world regardless of what concepts you want to hold in your head. Stop arguing over believing and not believing and prove how enlightened you claim to be by your actions, not your arguments. Words mean crap.

43

Atheism would not appeared if …

by venus in

· if religions were immune to division.

· if scriptures were immune to scientific errors.

· if religious leaders were immune to hypocrisy.

David_Jay

Venus,

I do not advocate beliefs or faith in deities.

I don't subscribe value to mentally assenting to any concept, as if making a claim to a creed, declaring faith in a doctrine, or exercising credulity have value.

The love of my life was an atheist. (She is gone now.) Her family is entirely composed of atheists. Like the Cambridge Study, none of them, including my wife, became atheists due to religion. They never belonged to one. Their parents never did either.

I'm Jewish. Many practicing Jews are atheist and agnostic. My own dealings with the monotheistic concept of my people is not one of belief, definite not in Christian terms. In fact, Judaism itself is not a religion of beliefs. It is something you practice.

The point of the study is that history shows that humanity has always been intelligent enough to live without a belief in gods. Ancient historical data proves this. Not everyone in history who was an atheist did so due to examining religion. The study suggests that many people just applied their innate logic from the start and found no need to look further and examine religion as well. My beloved never gave a passing thought to religion and was still firm in her convictions all her life.

If you have a different view, that is fine. Jews don't proselytize. We aren't concerned with what you believe or don't believe. We aren't interested in converting people into theists, nor do we have concepts like Christians such as if you don't believe in God that you are doomed. We don't have an original sin concept, no need to be saved or save others.

I personally don't care what you do or do not mentally assent to. I value people not on their beliefs (which are just mental concepts) but due to who they are, how they act, etc.

I don't know why you are arguing against my personal conviction on this: Atheism exists because some people choose logic over superstition; atheism is not dependent on the existence of religion and rejecting it. Some people do become atheists by rejecting religion, but not everyone does.

43

Atheism would not appeared if …

by venus in

· if religions were immune to division.

· if scriptures were immune to scientific errors.

· if religious leaders were immune to hypocrisy.

David_Jay

Venus,

My point is not about positioning of scriptures (whether it comes after or before the inception of religion matters not). My point is that atheists could not find a god that exerts power over religion, scriptures and believers. Atheists who have no problem in accepting things that are real would find no need to reject God if His influence were to be seen in religions, scriptures and believers. The very fact that we are all here shows that we left JWs because we found God exerting no influence over the so-called God’s own people.

You misunderstood my statement completely.

I wrote that in light of the Cambridge study, one cannot argue that religion has anything to do with the start of atheism.

The Cambridge study (and others like it) providence evidence that atheism grew just as naturally and even independently of religion. The history data suggests that instead of atheism being a response to religion's failure, the empirical evidence is that atheism is as natural a conclusion in the historical experience as religion has been.

The comment about written texts was offered in support to the study's conclusion. As scripture texts for the great religions did not develop until after Marcionism of the 2nd century C.E., and movements like Judaism and Christianity predated Marcion of Sinope, one cannot argue against the data of the study.

In other words, I was supporting the study's conclusion: atheism is as spontaneous to the human condition as religion and did not come about due to religion but due to the human capacity for logic. Atheism, the study from Cambridge states, is just as ancient as and organically independent of religion.

When you read the study (which I am sure you did), didn't you see that connection, that atheism is not a response to religion and did not require religion in order to develop? The Cambridge study is in support of atheism and shows that it would have (and did) develop regardless of the existence of religion. Atheism is a natural human response, not a response to religion. It would have existed even if religion never did develop.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay