Posts by David

33

Hollywood messed up another one

by hothabanero in

i am a big superhero fan and was looking forward to "the defenders".

the first two episodes are great but then ... liberalism happens.

one of the heroes (luke cage, big black guy) goes on this crazy rant, like a liberals wet dream of the bravehearth speech.

David_Jay

Thanks, liberals, you ruined TV....

Again, this speech was based on a story that came from a comic book...a COMIC BOOK! Comic books are for the immature. I was five when Luke Cage gave that speech in the comics that you are talking about. I am 50 now!

You're not only wasting your life away by watching television, but you're watching a show based on kiddie comic books from the 1970s, and instead of contributing something more productive to society you waste even more time whining about it on the Internet from an armchair.

Fine. Just keep posting. Keep arguing. Keep defending your point of you to prove yourself right.

Let me know when you've grown up...

...when your life no longer consists of wasted days of watching shows that consist of stories that come from kiddie comics that make you complain about them on the Internet.

Until that day comes, I can't take anything you say as serious or worthwhile.

33

Hollywood messed up another one

by hothabanero in

i am a big superhero fan and was looking forward to "the defenders".

the first two episodes are great but then ... liberalism happens.

one of the heroes (luke cage, big black guy) goes on this crazy rant, like a liberals wet dream of the bravehearth speech.

David_Jay

Hothabanero,

Apparently you never read these comic books when they came out in the 1970s of know nothing about Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and the origins of the current series "The Defenders."

Luke Cage and Iron Fist were the first black and white superhero characters to team up in a comic book together (Iron First will eventually cause a rift in their relationship by filling in love with Luke's girlfriend, or so the comic book goes).

Luke Cage gave almost the exact speech (called a "monologue" in comic book speech) before the two got together. Danny has always been the privileged rich "white boy," as Luke called him, and Danny has always tried to distance himself from his privilege by fulfilling his role as the Iron Fist. They would become "The NEW Avengers" but Marvel decided to choose "The Defenders" this time around to avoid confusion.

The two characters eventually teamed up in their first marvel comics in 1972, which was historical because it featured bi-racial participation. The only other prominent comic book at the time that did this was "Josie and the Pussycats" that featured one of the first main characters of African descent ever in a American children's comic book (also in the Saturday animated version).

So the "crazy rant" is not a "liberal speech," but a sign of it if ignorance on your part...and a peculiar odd lean to the "right" by a group who don't realize that atheists are not (unfortunately and unfairly, for the most part) welcome by most anyone else on the "right" side that values belief in God, the Bible, prefers Protestantism (but will accept some Catholics).

I have been reading this site during my recovery. Good gravy! What's all this rubbish about the left versus the right, especially you anti-religious. Don't you know that outside the safety of your Internet bubble world you live in, outside in the real word, the right hates atheists. Liberals accept you, and you are hating them from this site?

No wonder you are too ignorant to know the origins of something as silly as a comic. Sure, what I just wrote here is (in the grand scheme of things) insignificant, but sheesh! You jumped from your lack of education on the subject to blaming liberals!

This site is filled with some of the same empty-headed thinking that filled Watchtower land. You blame the world for your lack of knowledge, and crown your misinterpretation of things as truth. It's just about a stupid TV show, but you've taken a tiny thing and made a vehicle for hating a group of people...all because you were too lazy, ignorant of even just stupid to know something idiotic about a comic book series from 1972.

This ex-JWs site is messed up with some messed up people (who will probably go on a hate-filled, rage against my words because that what Jehovah's Witnesses...excuse me, some people who can't move on with their lives do).

332

The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name

by slimboyfat in

jehovah's witnesses have had to revise their chronology and various doctrinal interpretations due to events and scholarly corrections.

but the one teaching where they have been consistently ahead of the curve is the importance of jehovah's name.. .

i'm going to run through a (necessarily selective) timeline of jw events and scholarly publications that demonstrate the phenomenal success of this teaching in the last days.

David_Jay

Oy vey! Someone has called me out of my retirement from this forum, pleading again and again via email. So okay. Just this once, and do with this comment as you wish.

Reading though this thread over the past two days (it is very long), generally speaking, Cofty is correct.

The book by Shaw that the OP makes reference to is only a hypotheses and does not agree with either Jewish tradition or Biblical criticism, both Jewish and Christian. It has not made any dents or waves in either Judaism or Christianity in general. No one I know knows about really, either in synagogues or churches, Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant.

Remember folks, you all claim to be CRITICAL THINKERS now that you've left the Watchtower. But reading some of these posts, I am not so sure about that. Along with a review of how the critical method works, it should also be brought out:

1. The conclusions of one expert do not a working theory make. A working theory is one that has gone through the rigours of testing by disinterested and often opposing parties to a hypothesis. Has the hypothesis been proven to stand when analyzed critically by others? Who were these others? What is the name of the working model theory? Even Biblical criticism has names for its accepted theories like the "Document Theory." The Watchtower is not right, nor is Frank Shaw because there has never been sufficient data to support a working theory based on his conclusions.

2. There is no central governing body in Judaism as the uniform acceptance of creed or theological concept among Jews is both unnecessary and in some aspects rebuffed by Halacha (the administration and application of Jewish law). This Frank Shaw book covers the use of the Divine Name in reference to the LXX, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that Jews actually reject.

3. Last, but not least, Shaw is concerned with applying a pagan custom to the Divine Name: uttering it. As a Jew I explained it over and over again, but apparently it never sank in. One more time (Cofty, please help repeat this for me): Pagans make images of the gods, Jews don't. Pagans utter the names of their god to emphasize their holiness, Jews do not utter God's name because of how holy it is. Get it? Pagans put their holy things on display for all to see. We hid our holy things deep inside chambers separate from the eyes of others. Shaw and Jehovah's Witnesses want to apply pagan customs to a Semitic cult system that worked desperately to do everything the opposite way pagans did with their cults. There might have once been some way to pronounce the Divine Name, but eventually the Jews decided to make that ineffable.

There's no magic to it. I know Christians and especially Fundamentalists want it all to be something super literal, but my people have merely been attempting to shed off superstitions as humanity evolved. It's not that the God of Abraham is not Real. It's just that God isn't the idea most have been sold on. We're not talking some painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. We're talking Someone you'll never have a handle on and, like in the Book of Job, will just answer all your most important questions with more questions. Sorry, but there's no verse in the Bible that says: "Hi, I'm God. I'm YOUR idea of an all-perfect, all-loving, all-just Deity, and all that." Nope. If your mad at God for not being that, you only have yourself to blame.

Those of you applauding this Shaw book show why you got caught up in the JWs in the first place. You will believe anything that sounds good because you think you're a critical thinker but fail to check if what you think about yourself if true.

Don't worry though. I think sometimes we can get caught up in the moment wishing there were definitive answers like the Watchtower used to tell use there was. It all seemed so much easier back then, right? So someone comes along, posts something that sounds good, and all the critical thinking we learned goes out the window because something suddenly sounds sweet.

Don't let this happen. You know better. Wake up, my critical thinkers! Even if the Divine Name was pronounced and placed by Christianity into the New Testament, then that would have been weird. How did Jesus' name stay preserved (Yeshua) but the Divine Name get lost? If it is more important, where is it? Where is the critical data to back up Shaw's work? Wouldn't Jews and Christians have accepted it by now? What is the name of this Biblical critical theory Shaw discovered? Who are the other academics who support it and what universities do they work for and teach at?

Oh wait! None of that has happened. Why not? Biggest reason. The LXX is not an accepted Jewish text. It is corrupted, as are all the texts he works from, according to a Jewish perspective (the Qumran texts mean little to us, if you think about it). So his hypotheses don't work from the start. That's why it's 2017 and almost 2018 and still nothing of any significance has happened since his work has been published. I'm a Jew. It's almost a month away from Rosh Hoshana, 5778. Shaw changed nothing.

(Now, I have to go. Still recovering. Diagnosis: Epilepsy with cluster seizures. Really can't stay. Cofty, good work as usual.)

32

What was Jesus last name???

by James Mixon in

jesus in hebrew means "savior' and christ in greek means "messiah".

these are identifiers --not names in jesus case.. where did the name christ come from, his parents???

?i can see the name jesus (first name) but christ.

David_Jay

Jews did not take "last names" until very long after the Roman Diaspora divided the Jews into Ashkenazi and Sephardi groups. "Surnames" are a Gentile practice. The Roman Diaspora began after the Bar Kokhba revolt ended in 135 C.E.

Because of the resistance to this Gentile practice, Ashkenazi Jews were the last Europeans to take surnames. While there is a record of some German-speaking Ashkenazi Jews freely taking surnames as early as the 17th century, they normally did not do so until compelled to do so by law. Some merely kept their tribal name like the Cohens (kohen means "priest" or refers to a Levite in Hebrew).

This was the rule-of-thumb for the Sephardic Jews who lived in the Iberian peninsula, though it appears some, like their Ashkenazi counterparts did take up surnames freely (the last name “Marroquin” comes from Moroccan Jews who had come to see their home as their new “Promised Land” and thus named themselves after it). During the Spanish Inquisition, many of the Sephardic Jews made up names during the forced conversions that “sounded” Catholic like “de la Cruz” (“of the Cross”), or even created names that sounded like patriotic names. For instance, “Hernandez” is one of the most famous Sephardic Jewish names in the world. It was made up to sound like “Fernandez,” which means “of the sons of Ferdinand,” in honor of the king Ferdinand. They may have done this to sound like they were supporting Ferdinand and Isabella, the king and queen behind the Inquisition, but at the same time avoiding the actual name because they were the ones behind the forced conversions and persecution.

Before this, however, Jews did not have last names. Therefore Jesus of Nazareth did not have a last name. In fact, he may have been called things like Jesus (or to be more exact) “Joshua, son of Joseph,” or his name would be followed by his profession, his father and mother’s name, the name of family members, the town he was from, etc. It would depend also where a discussion about him was going on. If it was in Nazareth, he would not be called “of Nazareth” there. If no one knew Joseph or Mary or his family, these would not have been mentioned. He would probably have been called merely a teacher, preacher, or rabbi when there were no other ways to identify him as Joshua/Jesus was a common name at the time.

42

“Tree of good and bad” means what?

by venus in

if “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.

however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.

for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.

David_Jay

One has to remember that first and foremost this story was not and never written with the intention that it was to be open to interpretation to other religions and other cultures outside of the Hebrews of Judaism. Second, the narrative of Eden is the prelude to the Torah of the Mosaic Law itself, and it's position in Genesis is not haphazard but foreshadowing.

Keeping these two things in mind may not give anyone identical answers in the end, but it may help some arrive at more logical ones. How? Let's start with the first point, the Jewish intention behind the story.

You have to leave behind the Watchtower beliefs that this is the story of the Fall of Man and that this is an historical account. You also have to totally give up the idea of Satan the Devil being the snake as there is no such being in Judaism to this day.

What you are left with is a story explaining how God deals with a humanity that he loves but that is so truly designed in God's image so much so that they naturally tend not to obey laws, just like a god. The legend seems to be telling us we are built to make our own decisions but have to be taught how to do this first. Otherwise it seems to be built in us to see laws as restrictive, so God has to do something else before reintroducing humanity to laws.

God's laws when rightly understood as introducing us to our own freedom produce benefits and healing. This is what the Jewish sages seem to be explaining in this myth and those that follow this one, but in this myth it is a lesson that must be taught. The Hebrews come to learn this "lesson" during their slavery in Egypt.

The second point is that the legend of the rejecting of God's law in Eden is contrasted with what is supposed to be a historical event* for the nation of Israel: the Theophany at Sinai or the acceptance of God's Law upon themselves as a nation. Adam and Eve say "no" in Eden, but God makes a covenant with descendants of theirs that both recognize God among the nations through Abraham but still wrestle with what they are "told what to do" like Jacob/Israel.

People are made in God's image. Like God we aren't supposed to want to be merely told what to do and blindly obey. God expects the wrestling like with Jacob because we were, after all, created to "be like God, knowing good and evil," but apparently it's part of our evolutionary process, at least the way the Jewish myths tell it.

Again, this story isn't meant to be applicable to humanity in general. The Eden legend is written in such a matter to foreshadow the Sinai event, so even if there was something like this in history, the way it is presented in the Bible is tailored to fit the Jewish obligation to the Mosaic Law. Gentiles are not under such an obligation, so attempts at unraveling the details to apply them to another paradigm might not be very efficacious.

*--It should be noted that the Biblical account of the Theophany at Sinai is composed of maybe two or three different traditions, none of which are the same as Judaism's historical claim of the Theophany. Biblical accounts are rarely historical in modern terms, nor is Christianity's claim that Jews use the Bible as the chief means of preserving history true. There are other authentic Jewish understandings of the Theophany which space and time do not here permit and which can be obtained from other Jewish sources.

41

Why does this forum tolerate Cold steele and his mormonism beliefs ? Who`s next ?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

i thought this forum was for people who were ex jw`s and pro jw`s and the like to debate ,discuss and reasonably talk about our differences ,and sometimes drift off into politics world events and whatever.. however over a period of time i have come across cold steel `s many posts which are nothing more than promoting his mormon religions point of view./beliefs what has that got to do with jehovahs witnesses and the concerns many have with the jw religion.?.

it seems to me he is using this forum to promote his religion and is getting away with it over a long period of time.. how long before other cult religions see this as a springboard for promoting their own religion such as .

sda`s ,christian scientists , christadelphians ,beroean bible students ,etc.etc.. where will it end if he is able to keep doing this ?.

David_Jay

What Smiddy may be making reference to and what some here may not be aware of is that Cold Steel has been making attempts at proselytizing me, personally.

While I am an ex-JW (I had to be raised by an aunt who was a JW from 13 until I was in my 20s), I am also Jewish. While I use what I've learned since my return to Judaism to counter JW teaching here on this forum, Cold Steel has seen it as an opportunity to make several anti-Semitic remarks claiming that all Jews will just have to accept being forced to change their religion and become Mormon. He has directed these comments at me.

This has been done by Cold Steel even though I've have warned him several times not to. I have even checked with the Latter-Day Saints in my area at the branch, ward, and stake level, and his behavior is against LDS policy. Jews are not to be preached to by Mormons under any circumstances because the LDS church built an education center in Israel under a contract agreement with the Israeli government that they will not proselytize Israeli Jews. Since then Mormons have been cautioned to avoid speaking to any Jews about their religion since many of us, like myself, hold multiple citizenship (it is not unusual for a UK or US Jew to also hold Israeli and Spanish or Portugal citizenship simultaneously since our homeland rights have been restored to us by all these countries recently).

Cold Steel has gone beyond this and made some insulting comments towards me about the "need" for Jews to 'get used to' the idea of being proselytized by Mormons, 'because it will happen' as he put it. I've asked him to stop, but he will not.

Unfortunately I cannot provide much more. I've written too much today on this board. I was supposed to stop attempting to write things as I am under doctor's orders to rest and adjust to a medicine treatment for nocturnal epilepsy. I should be fine in about a month to three months, but right now it is hard to manage things.

However I felt I needed to explain Smiddy's concern. Smiddy is not just speaking about Mormons in general sharing their faith on this site. He is speaking about Cold Steel in the act of proselytizing, and not merely proselytizing but engaging in some questionable anti-Jewish (against culture and religion) speech.

48

God of the Old Testament

by unsure in

to those on these forums who are christian and or to those who believe in the god of the old testament; how does one overcome many of the questionable actions god took or allowed to happen in the old testament?.

many if not most of us have heard of criticisms of the god of the old testament.

you can find these criticisms on many websites.. how do you explain to an honest hearted person why god acted the way they did?.

David_Jay

Joey jojo

I have found a way to reply via voice-operated computer. I have no way of correcting my typing. I can read, which I have been doing. But sometimes my speech might fail me until the dust settles.

I explained earlier that am being treated for nocturnal epilepsy, and while I can read, due to the medications I just started I cannot type with my hands. It will get worse over the next month to three months or until I am at the full dose range that works for me. My ability is hindered because the dosage is being titrated up daily. I should be fine once this is over however. So this is your last question for now.

The Messiah concept is not central to Judaism like it is to Christianity. It developed post-Biblically, after the first Chanukah and the Hasmonean dynasty took over. According to the Prophets of Scripture, the Davidic line was to regain the throne and not the sons of Judas Maccabeus. From this turn of events in Jewish history the idea developed that the Prophets were speaking of a feature, more idyllic period.

The Hebrew Scriptures themselves, outside of speaking of the sons of David ruling "forever" (which was often metaphorically), never mention an individual called "the Messiah." This term was invented by the Jewish sages of the Second Temple era in discussions on how the oracles of the Prophets might be fulfilled.

There has never been a consensus beyond an agreement in fulfillment. Who or what the Messiah is remains a mystery. Some felt it would be a king. Others a high priest. Some felt there would be two Messiahs, a king and priest. Because of this, the text in Malachi promising the return of Elijah was seen as the answer to this. Upon Elijah's return the Jews would only then indeed learn from him who and what the Messiah is, but not until then.

While several have claimed to be the Messiah over time (we are not responsible for those we rejected like Jesus of Nazareth), there has been only one who came close to having the national recognition necessary for Messiahship: Simon bar Kokhba. He actually revolted and ruled independently from the Romans in 132 C.E. only to be crushed in 135, thus proving he was not the Messiah.

There have been no other national claims (and the claims have to be made by the nation as a whole that we have a new king to count as authentic). Today while many Jews still hope for the arrival of the Messiah, the idea is more abstract. Some do not view the Messiah as a king anymore as it isn't likely anyone will allow a monarchy to have control over them. Others see the concept as a personification of humanity in general, that time where humanity learns to live in peace and harmony with itself.

Regardless, the idea is not central to Judaism nor even necessary. We have no theology of a fall from grace in Eden like Christians and thus no concept of Original Sin passed down from Adam in Judaism. Therefore Jews do not see ourselves as innately sinful and in need of deliverance from sin. This is not a reason for the Messiah in Jewish theology.

48

God of the Old Testament

by unsure in

to those on these forums who are christian and or to those who believe in the god of the old testament; how does one overcome many of the questionable actions god took or allowed to happen in the old testament?.

many if not most of us have heard of criticisms of the god of the old testament.

you can find these criticisms on many websites.. how do you explain to an honest hearted person why god acted the way they did?.

David_Jay

Against doctor's orders (because of current health problems) and with some difficulty I felt this deserved a response.

I really hate to say this - and please forgive me if I am over-simplifying, it reminds me of a printing company that had a lot of expectations that it published to the world, and when these expectations weren't fulfilled, they frantically moved the goal-posts around and over-complicated something that should be straight-forward.

You've been hit on the head so many times by the Watchtower, you are confusing the evolution of human society in general with a cult that sets dates for the end of the world and has to keep revising things when things don't materialize as they promise.

The Jews did not begin with the Bible. Solomon's Temple had fallen and the Jews were in Babylonian exile before the Hebrew Scriptures began to be redacted into the shape you see today. We did not get our history or religion or theology or so-called prophecy from these Scriptures. Nor are the Scriptures a book of Jewish history nor is there any such thing as "Bible prophecy" such as Christian believe.

Jews have changed their understanding on things over the 4,000 plus years our culture has existed because our culture is 4,000 plus years old. Evolution is real. We evolved like biological evolution teaches, Judaism teaches that itself must evolve, and we evolve like society does in ways of science, philosophy, mores, etc.

Jews themselves have spent 5000 yrs trying to crystallise the meanings of their own writings...

Uh, no. We didn't base our society or culture or our religion on our writings. That would mean the writings came first. Sorry, but our religion and society came first. These books didn't just write themselves or float down out of the sky or were found buried in upstate New York (sorry Cold Steel). The Davidic dynasty had fallen, we were captives in Babylon, and then we began to write the Bible.

We never set any dates for the end of the world. Never told the world to read our own books. Didn't even write our Scriptures for anyone else but ourselves. Never expected non-Jews to translate them and make up their religions based on them. And we definitely didn't have any "goal posts" set out that we've been having to move around.

I think you are still seeing things through Watchtower-colored glasses. May I suggest you not only remove them but drop them, stomp on them, and burn them.

Now, if you still want to imagine that the Jews based their religion on the Bible as you have suggested, please explain to everyone how a book written by Jews got written before there was Jews. We say that our culture and religion was about to die, and so we began to write these texts in order to preserve these things while we were captives in Babylon without homeland, without temple.

You are too used to the Watchtower lie that religion must be based on Scripture. The real truth is that Scripture is based on religion. Religion came first. Groups that say religions must be based on books are liars.

Now excuse me, my head is buzzing and I need to lie down for three months.

7

Did You Know You Can Have Seizures While You Sleep and Not Know It?

by David_Jay in

i have to take some time off even from some of my favorite activities for a while...that means here...until i can adjust to a new medical therapy.. i just learned today that i have nocturnal epilepsy and have been having seizures almost every night for several decades!

wow!

just started medication that will mess me up when it comes to processing my thinking and typing for a while, so until that straightens out i will just have to read for now.. but look it up.

David_Jay

I have to take some time off even from some of my favorite activities for a while...that means here...until I can adjust to a new medical therapy.

I just learned today that I have nocturnal epilepsy and have been having seizures almost every night for several decades! Wow!

Just started medication that will mess me up when it comes to processing my thinking and typing for a while, so until that straightens out I will just have to read for now.

But look it up. It's crazy. I also may be having other types of seizures too, just didn't know it. You can have them and be conscious at the same time. Looks like I get some of these several times a year too.

Downing some anticonvulsives right now. Good night, shalom, and l'chayim!

48

God of the Old Testament

by unsure in

to those on these forums who are christian and or to those who believe in the god of the old testament; how does one overcome many of the questionable actions god took or allowed to happen in the old testament?.

many if not most of us have heard of criticisms of the god of the old testament.

you can find these criticisms on many websites.. how do you explain to an honest hearted person why god acted the way they did?.

David_Jay

Oh, and that part about God won't pull any strings unless "we" allow it.

The "we" is humanity in general, not just Jews.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay