I'm not saying it ain't partially true, but it smacks of anti-Semitism, especially because Paul's idea was to free it further from Judaism in all those narrow senses mentioned under the OT heading. It's clever, but wrong, imho.
Gamaliel
Gamaliel
JoinedPosts by Gamaliel
-
28
Best definition of the Bible I've ever seen...
by logansrun inthis was emailed to me from a friend...
the old testament is a compilation of convenient myth and a history of racial justification and aggrandisement, threaded through with rules of hygiene and behaviour, all devised to convince the children of israel that as god's chosen race, no matter what calamities befell them as victims of babylon and egypt and no matter what calamities they wantonly inflicted on other races and religions, they should strive to increase in number, power and extent.
the new testament, as expressed in the four gospels, is a dispensation from the narrow and proscriptive uncharity of the jews, appealing to the greek and latin temperament.
-
-
-
13
What's Fair About This??
by worldlygirl ini've asked my husband about this many times, and he always manages to skirt the issue.
here is the point i try to get across to him: .
first of all, you have to agree that god is fundamentally fair (he agrees with me on this point.
-
-
Gamaliel
Excellent point!
I just had that same discussion with a couple of Mormon elders that stopped by on Sunday. They believe that all humans lived as spirits in a spiritual realm, and then they are born as humans when the time comes. So my question was: Who chooses which ones get to be born in America, where most Mormon missionaries are ready to help them, and who chose over a billion of them to get born in India over the last 50 years, and another billion in China in an even shorter period of time? Why did some get born when no Mormon missionaries existed on the earth, and now when you've got plenty of Mormons on the earth, most of the last few billion spirits got transferred to places where they'll still never hear about Mormons? God isn't trying to keep them from you is he?
Their answer? "Oh, but we do have Mormon missionaries in India!"
My further question: Then why is it that you get to walk leisurely through my small neighborhood for the last month in just this one part of town, when those missionaries would have to cover at least 2,000,000 people in the same amount of time to be as fair to them?
It's so much more fun talking to them with a background in JWism!
Gamaliel
-
20
Moving On.
by Englishman infirst we were all jehovah's witnesses.
that was the most important thing in our lives, our raison d'etre.
it was how we identified ourselves.
-
-
Gamaliel
Excellent post, Englishman. But should that last name be in the above post? Shouldn't an alert moderator come by and remove it in case it offers "too much personal information." Where are those alert moderators when you need them?
Gamaliel
-
13
THE TRANSFIGURATION BALONEY!
by Dansk inthe following passages are all taken from the new world translation.. matthew 17:1 "six days later jesus took peter and james and john his brother along and brought them up into a lofty mountain by themselves.".
mark 9:2 "accordingly six days later jesus took peter and james and john along , and brought them up into a lofty mountain to themselves alone.
and he was transfigured before them.".
-
-
Gamaliel
Thanks Dansk,
I usually go on so long in threads of that type that I fear no one reads them. It's funny how the JWs, due to their eschatology, are probably a lot closer to living the issues of the 1st century church than we ex-JWs would like to admit. They had the generation to redefine, they had a WWI/1914 equivalent in 70CE which, no doubt, even tempted some to say that he had returned but invisibly to them -- perhaps in the wilderness, or in the "inner chambers," or perhaps he has gone to the privy -- oh wait, wrong episode!
Anyway, I hope you've had a chance to read Helms. I haven't actually seen anyone cover in any detail why the Transfiguration isn't in John, but as you can probably tell, I borrowed tidbits from all over to come up with my own theory above.
Amazing progress there Dansk. And to think that such a short time ago you were probably giving public talks. Wouldn't it be fun to give one now?
Gamaliel
-
13
THE TRANSFIGURATION BALONEY!
by Dansk inthe following passages are all taken from the new world translation.. matthew 17:1 "six days later jesus took peter and james and john his brother along and brought them up into a lofty mountain by themselves.".
mark 9:2 "accordingly six days later jesus took peter and james and john along , and brought them up into a lofty mountain to themselves alone.
and he was transfigured before them.".
-
-
Gamaliel
Mary,
It's an interesting point, but I can provide some of the reasoning of most current Biblical scholars:
Paul died before 70 and then Peter, James and John listed as pillars at Jerusalem very likely died before 70. If they were say, over 30 years old in 30 CE as Jesus should have been, then they should have been over 70 in 70, and would have been living through a harsh revolutionary period for Judea and Galilee. Josephus says it was the death of James that ultimately brought on the siege of Jerusalem in 66-70. (This James was Jesus brother, an "unbeliever" scoffing at Jesus in the days before Jesus died, but the leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem a few days later --overshadowing any potential apostle by the same name)
For many reasons, very few scholars today believe that any of them except Paul wrote anything that's in the NT. Even if they were completely literate and wanted to, the Transfiguration promise about "some not seeing death" before Jesus parousia would make the idea of writing a Gospel unimportant, even a ludicrous display of lack of faith in the promise of an imminent parousia. If you look closely at the end of John, you can also see evidence that the first writer of John had already died and someone had to add an excuse about why he didn't live to see the parousia as Jesus had promised him. (This had become an issue for ridicule in 2 Peter.) Someone tacked on an excuse a-la-JW-generation logic that twists the probable wording of the promise slightly, even though the promise of survival until Jesus' parousia had already been quoted several times in the Gospels. Since it relates to the Transfiguration under discussion, I'll quote it:
It's John 21:20-23 KJV, Peter's death is foretold in v. 18,19 possibly an indication that Peter had already died by the time of this writing.
"Then Peter... seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved [now traditionally identified as John]...Peter..saith to Jesus...and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?...Then went the saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die."
Verse 23 makes the big point of defending that Jesus had said the word "if" even though we know that at the Transfiguration, and several other occasions in the Gospels, Jesus had already made promises of some faithful not dying, cutting the days short, the generation not passing away, etc. This may in fact be the best explanation of why there is no mention of the Transfiguration in John. Because John had been assigned authorship of the book and the real author knew that Peter, James and John were already dead. It was even necessary to add this "apology" in the last chapter to explain why John died and Jesus still isn't here yet.
Any writings collected for NT purposes after 70 would have to be thought of as having been written before 70, from an apostle's hand, to have much authority for teaching, setting things straight, disciplining, etc. The best that a post-70 Gospel could do would be to mention the fall of Jerusalem -- but only in words spoken by Jesus in prophecy about it. To claim to also have seen the prophecy fulfilled would be to admit that the prophecy was written well after Jesus spoke it. That would weaken the authority of the document. There probably were Gospels like that, but they could not have the same usefulness, and would have been superfluous. Besides, it was already a literary convention of the times to give a document more authority by putting it in the mouth of an historic person of authority. "Daniel" had done it, as had most parts of the Books of Moses, Ecclesiastes, most of the "Apocrypha" all of the "Pseudipigrapha" probably a few of the supposed letter by Paul, and most if not all the other Pastoral "letters." Mentioning the fall of Jerusalem was a sure way to get your document dismissed as unworthy. Therefore the Gospels that didn't make that mistake were saved and assigned to apostles and their secretaries or companions.
In the early 100's Papias (per Eusebius) evidently toured Judea and Galilee to get stories straight from those who had once seen the apostles first-hand. A brilliant idea, but nearly all his stories (except one) were scoffed at and he was then branded as a man of simple mind. For me, this fact fits exactly as one would expect based on the types of theological changes (necessary for church survival) that a good critique of the NT text could also lead one to believe in. The books accepted into an orthodox NT were already too far removed from the Judean/Galilean experience of the apostles. Luke is already dependent (evidently) on Josephus for some of his facts about the times, and on Mark as source material. Note how the Gospels trivialize the knowledge and understanding of the apostles themselves, and even have Jesus brother James scoff as if Jesus is crazy. This was no doubt a reflection of the pro-Pauline Christianity that won out over the Ebionites and Jerusalem church that Paul fought against. (Get that from comparing the way Paul makes fun of James, Peter and John in Galatians, contradicting Luke's attempt at whitewashing the argument in Acts 15 etc.)
As you can see this can go on and on and on. I'm not advocating it's belief, just showing the theories of many (or most) modern scholars, who believe they have a ton of evidence in addition to this that also fits these theories.
Gamaliel
-
34
Help me find the right antedote to wake sleeping beauty
by shotgun inmy wife will not entertain the thought that the org is not directed by god.
even when presented with constant organizational flip flops she believes its gods direction.
and why not thats what she has been taught since childhood.. is ther anything that seems to work better in reasoning with women inparticular.
-
-
Gamaliel
I wouldn't go if it's really making you sick. I'd tell her why, too. But I found that I could go for many years after knowing because I still had an interest in the Bible, especially the Interlinear. Meetings became educational again, since Greek was a hobby. And no one was the wiser, not even me, as it turned out.
Yeah! I'd just leave as soon as you can.
Gamaliel
-
35
I WENT TO THE ASSEMBLY YESTERDAY HAHA!!!
by Mary inwell i went to the assembly yesterday, to see what bullshit they'd come up with this year to be upbuilt and i certainly won't go next year wasn't disappointed!
did you know that there are (gasp!
) apostates on the internet??!!
-
-
Gamaliel
Mary,
Thanks for the
enjoyable,funny,entertaining, hilarious thread. Darn, for some reason I just can't do it as good as you guys.Gamaliel
-
64
Did anything a householder said ever make an impression on you?
by Alleymom incoming at this as a householder rather than an ex-jw, i'd love to hear from any of you about comments from householders that made an impression on you, back when you were active in the door-to-door work.
since the jw's first knocked at my door 13 years ago, i've done my best to give them something to think about every time they knock at my door.
i always introduce myself by name and try to get their names.
-
-
Gamaliel
When I was 7 my father took a house with me in rural territory. After a heated argument she thought she had won, she began shouting incessantly, like the wicked witch in Oz: YOOOOOOOULLLL BUUUURRRNNNN! YOOOOOOOULLLL BUUUURRRNNNN! YOOOOOOOULLLL BUUUURRRNNNN! over and over again well past the time we got back in the car. We could still hear her as we drove back up her driveway to the main road. Every now and then I still get reminded and repeat it out loud for fun. My kids don't have a clue why.
Gamaliel
-
264
Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson
by ros ini just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .
the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.
http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.
-
-
Gamaliel
AlanF,
If scholar ever has any evidence to offer, I am the perfect candidate to discuss it with him, because as I explained, I really don't have any direct stake in 607 vs 587 but I am now interested enough to start a more thorough study and discussion. It seems that you, Earnest, CityFan, alleymom and several others have already paid your dues in researching this area, and can now dismiss the whole argument as similar to arguing that the moon is made of green cheese (Thanks for the analogy, Earnest).
Your experience with Bert Schroeder sounds exactly like him. As I think you know, he asked me to do some research for him on several Greek issues, and I had full access to his office and library, even when he wasn't there. He had several issues to research but the closest I could offer him anything useful on was our NWT translation for "house-to-house." I actually feel a bit guilty about giving him some pro-JW work on that issue because he was able to make use of it, but my further work attempted to be too balanced to be of any use to him (that I saw in print anyway, although he sometimes worked ideas into talks and letters responding to questions). It's just ridiculous looking back on what an amateur I was. Of course, I thank Bert for helping me build a study library that I still own, but he himself, I have to say, was nearly helpless even with all his commentaries. I still respect him for certain things. For one thing he stood up against Fred Franz now and then. I believe now that it may have been for his own political reasons and that he miscalculated a few times. They say that his miscalculations even damaged Judah Ben's Bethel career by a few years.
I'll give you one of my Bert Schroeder stories which indirectly led to a good ending, via chaos theory: He hated it when F Franz gave his "kidney/liver/fat" talk to the Gilead class in 1978 or 9 and he knew his own "heart as 'literal' seat of emotion" talk was far more edifying. I think he actually won that argument and was happy that F Franz kidney/liver talk never made it into print (as far as I knew, at least). I still have the notes on that Gilead talk somewhere. It was a hilarious talk, unintentionally. I actually repeated it almost verbatim at a party in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn the next weekend, based on a serious request by the host, for those who were not "privileged" to get to the graduation. My future wife was there at the party and could see through my own veiled skepticism, so that I thank Fred, too, for a talk that has led to a marriage of 23 years and counting -- plus 3 kids and not counting.
Ahh! The memories... //
Gamaliel
-
264
Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson
by ros ini just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .
the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.
http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.
-
-
Gamaliel
scholar,
I could respond in kind to each of the points you have made but frankly you have made up your mind that regardless of anykind of evidence or opinions of other scholars regarding chronology, you will believe in 586/587. That is fine with me .
Actually I haven't made up my mind about 586/7, but not to worry. Frankly, I don't think anyone expected you to respond to my points about fallacious logic and argumentation. They are just general observations. I'm sure we'd rather see you finally come through and offer some evidence relevant to the topic. You always act as if you do (or will) have some, and then show nothing except this vague idea that any new book on the subject shows that Babylonian chronology is under "new scrutiny," or that it doesn't mention Jonsson. You seem to miss the logical fact that both these points actually hurt your argument. Every new book that puts the Babylonian period under more scrutiny, yet proposes the same chronology --as they all do-- just further entrenches the existing chronology. Every new book not only supports the long-standing Babylonian chronology within a year or two, but does it without reference to Jonsson, so that all your supposed issues with Jonsson are therefore also shown to be irrelevant.
You have failed 100% of the time, so far, to show how any new evidence materially affects the chronology of the period. Also, you are wrong that I have made up my mind to ignore any new evidence or opinions of other scholars about anything other than 587/6. I personally have no direct stake in 607 vs 587/6. But I am still anxiously awaiting any, and I mean any such evidence.
My only personal concern at the moment is the apparent deceitfulness of your argumentation. For example, all scholars I have ever read appear sure about it within a year or two, and you have again implied that I'm ignoring evidence or opinions of other scholars regarding chronology. By now, I'm sure you realize that this is dishonest because neither you nor anyone else will point out a scholar who has any evidence outside the norm. I am left to assume that if you are not dishonest, you are something like a twelve-year old who hopes to vicariously ride on the coattails of someone else whom you expect will someday offer such evidence. I'm anxious to hear whether Furuli makes an honest attempt.
I am freankly not interested in trying to convert anyone to 607 chronology but what I do reject is the wholesale dogmatism surrounding 587/586 when it has no more proof than 607.
There once existed wholesale dogmatism for the belief that claimed irrational numbers didn't exist, such that a story survives that Pythagoras supposedly drowned one of his own students who believed in irrational numbers. Just yesterday, someone called 587/6 the "Devil's dates". Years earlier the Watchtower Society referred to dates like 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1915, among others, as "God's dates" that could not be changed by even one year. Is this the kind of "wholesale dogmatism" you refer to?
Afterall, 697 [607] is a calculated date based on the evidence of scripture and secular history and if I have to explain that to you then what level of knowledge do you possess.?
You don't have to explain it. I never had to care whether 607 was right or not, I rejected 1914 long before Jonsson, and Jonsson's unpublished manuscript was pointed out to me only when I mentioned the Scriptural reasons for rejecting 1914 to a friend in the Writing Dept at Bethel. For what it's worth, I told my friend that even if 607 was correct, the Bible still gives us reason enough to reject 1914. My reasons, at the time, were that Matthew and Luke said not to listen to anyone who says that Jesus has arrived but we just can't see him: "if anyone says he is in the inner chambers, believe it not" (Mt 24:23) . Also do not go after anyone who says: "The time is at hand." (Luke 21:8) The two most widely published books by the WTS in 1914 included one million-seller named "The Time is at Hand". It's sole purpose was to produce exactly the kind of thinking Jesus is said to have warned against in Matthew, Mark and Luke. (The other book, by the way, was about how CT Russell had found Jesus parousia witnessed in the "inner chambers" of some building outside of Cairo.)
If you really are dair dinkum then please do the research and I will advise you where necessary.
Absolutely!!! Please advise me. I promise to read whatever I can get my eyes on. Honestly.
Gamaliel