Posts by CalebInFloroda

3

Another JW holocaust fund post

by Saintbertholdt in

the expenditure accounted for 6% of the total funds available over the period of the program*..

total funds available for recipients: $856 485.

total recipients benefited: 1876.

CalebInFloroda

If this claim is true then something tells me that this is another proof that the financial writing is on the wall for the Jehovah's Witnesses and their organization. They must need the money, really need it, in order to have the guts to claim they deserve it...and I can't see how they can claim they are entitled to it as an organization.

The reason for these type of funds is to compensate survivors and/or their families because of the financial burden the Holocaust has had on these people. What people don't realize because most as far removed from actual survivors is that many of these people are still struggling, and quite old too. When the war was over many tried to return to their homes and property only to find that others had moved in and refused to give them their homes back. This has affected a couple of generations in these families.

But financial compensation just because you were affected by the Holocaust is meaningless to Jews if you don't need the money. Money is no real compensation for the injustices suffered. All Jews were affected by the Holocaust. We all lost family relations and such, even those born after the events. We are not all getting compensation or applying for it. It's not about money.

The entire organization of JWs was not affected by the Holocaust. It's daily operations were not stopped. Most of its members didn't even know about it, and many who did see the events actually did nothing due to their neutrality while watching my family members being driven from the homes and sent to death camps. Just a few weeks ago we received an official apology from the Roman Catholic Church in Austria not only for the part Catholics played in the Holocaust but also from those who stood by and did nothing. I don't ever recall any JW apologizing for standing by and not doing anything during the Holocaust. Being neutral during the Holocaust is considered just as bad, you Jehovah's Witnesses...even Catholics see that!

So while I see it totally proper for individual JW survivors and their families to apply and receive funds for compensation due to losses incurred from the Holocaust, the JW organization has no right since as a whole it, like the Catholic Church in Austria, stood by and did NOTHING!

You don't stand by and do nothing when your neighbors are being dragged away to death camps. When the "godless" Soviets learned what was happening, they DID something...and these people were atheists!

Christians and their organizations who stood by and did nothing don't deserve compensation for the Holocaust. On the contrary, they should be the ones paying out the money!

40

JW Broadcasting is dying.

by John Aquila in

once a month about 15 to 20 elderly jw publishers would meet at the kingdom hall and one elder was assigned to set up the system so they could view jw broadcasting.

these publishers were long time pioneers, former elders, and long time publishers who know nothing about computers or the internet.

they are the last batch of those expecting the generation that saw 1914 or understood it--- to not die off.

CalebInFloroda

Note to idiot elders who told those weeping that Abraham was 100 when he had to raise a child and didn't cry about it:

Abraham was rich and had servants! He didn't cry about it because he had people to do it for him.

(Not to mention that humans are instinctively designed to care for their own infants, so much so that no one requires buying technology and taking classes in order to do it.)

Oy gevalt! Goy!

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@OUTLAW & Sparrowdown

You two got it wrong.

It was Chanukah, and the Apostle Paul was known for going into sufganiyot (Jewish doughnut) shops, and when no one was looking he would lick them and tell Timothy: "I hate Israel and Israelites."

He later offered an apology on his JDate account claiming that he really meant to say that what he hated was how "Jewish food made people fat in Israel, that's what I really hate." Paul stopped eating sufganiyot after that.

But Peter wrote he saw Paul trying to lick bagels at Einstein Brothers a week later.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Sparky1,

I was not offering my personal view. I'm a philologist who works in the field of Bible translation. I have worked on one ecumenical version so far. Though an exJW, I am also Jewish.

And as a Jew I don't have a personal opinion or conviction about what Paul was trying to say. I can only tell you the mechanics and what the general academic consensus is. If you wish to debate the points I made you will have to find you nearest university scholar and take it up with them. I am only repeating what is accepted in the field.

Lastly, while I appreciate your offering a link for me, that is only a lexicon entry. Lexicons give you "root meanings" to words, and some usage. They are not exhaustive representations however and they are quite limited in scope when it comes to how terms have been expressed by writers throughout various eras. We need to delve into etymology for that.

In my field you have lexicography (which is the work of defining root meanings), etymology (the origin of words and how there meanings changes over time), and philology (the critical analysis of language as used in history). A lexicon as you linked to is just a small part of what is needed to unravel and understand ancient texts and their words. You can't really understand a language just by looking up things in a lexicon. That's an old JW trick meant to "wow" people. It's really nothing more than looking up something in a dictionary.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

I see a problem developing in this thread, and the Watchtower is to blame.

I’ve noticed that many ex-JWs exit the JW religion with much of their Watchtower theology still intact, though they may not notice it. I know I left this way. If not it is expelled, the ex-JW will make mistakes in further judgment made outside the Watchtower on Scripture and religion.

One of these carryovers from Watchtower naiveté is that the New Testament authors are “quoting” from either the LXX or a Hebrew text. But the truth is they often are not. What you are reading when Paul and others “quote” from the Hebrew Scriptures is midrash, not a real quote.

Midrash is a Jewish technique in which exegesis is actually interpolated into Scripture as you say it, thus making up for any ambiguity in a text that might be viewed as problematic to the teacher. Normally this is an acceptable technique, but the New Testament writers used it to emphasize that there was a hidden, encoded message that only the light of Christ could decode.

Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7.14 is a prime example of how the NT writers used midrash. The text reads in Hebrew similar to the translation as found in the NJPS:

Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

The word for “young woman” refers to a type of female. In older forms of English the term would have been “maid” or even “maiden,” but it has fallen out of popular use. While the LXX uses a term that on the surface reads “virgin,” the Greek word does refer to someone sexual status but again to a type of female, most notably a “maiden.”

Since midrash often is a play-on-words form of exegesis, the author of the gospel of Matthew played with the Greek word to give it both meanings, namely “virgin/maiden” and “virgin/sexually inexperienced” at Matthew 1.28. The author was neither quoting from the Hebrew text or even the LXX necessarily, but was merely using the same words to fit the prophecy into a fulfillment of the events mentioned. The author does this several times, never really quoting but reshaping texts, such as at Matthew 2.23.

The theology of the Watchtower is very primitive and two-dimensional. It views the Scriptures as a sort of book of proof-texts to be used as proof-texts. The actual documents are actually far more complex. But the Governing Body insists on NOT teaching JWs the actual process of transmission, that a very Semitic philology and set of Jewish hermeneutics governed their construction.

We who leave the JWs behind are not taught the necessary fundamentals of Bible study to begin with so we find ourselves arguing based on the only limitations we know. Our conclusions can therefore fail us. How many on this board can identify when a “quote” is really a quotation from Scripture and not midrash or perhaps when a verse merely being stated from memory? What is the difference between midrash and Midrash? Who even heard of the term before today?

I was so unprepared when I went into formal Scriptural study. I learned nothing from my exposure to the Watchtower brand of religion (though I thought I did). I swear it probably sucked up a few IQ points even! Thus I am not criticizing anyone for the mistakes that are being made. You are working from the limited point that some of you probably still have due to the same happening to you. It took me almost 20 years outside of the Watchtower devoted to in-depth collegiate study to get where I am today. The more I learned, the more I realized how little I knew.

Paul is not always quoting from any text in his writing. His quotes are often midrash in nature. They aren’t always to be found in the LXX or the Masoretic or even proto-Masoretic texts. It is not a sign of error on the author’s part either. While I don’t agree with a lot of Paul’s teachings or the New Testament in general, I can attest that the author we generally know as Paul was not an idiot. He may have twisted things beyond their original purpose, but he does demonstrate a logic that is definitely Pharisaic in nature. From a Jewish viewpoint I can attest that the writings do demonstrate a familiarity with rabbinical exegesis of the Second Temple era.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@jws

I would have to agree with you, but only sometimes because (as you allude to) not all the Pauline epistles seem to be written by the same person. While that might be a reason for the very conflicting things in them, the explanation is by no means a panacea. Sometimes I am more prone to be confused by the real Paul than with the possible pseudonymous works attributed to the apostle.

Case in point: The quote that opusdei1972 makes is a striking example. Galatians was written prior to Romans, and in Galatians Paul seems very negative about the Torah, practically insisting that it was not of divine origin (Galatians 3.19-20) and that the Jewish people are not the true see of Abraham ( Galatians 3.16). Just a couple of years later in Romans, Paul's words soften considerably, even to the point of saying that "the gifts and the call of God [to the Jews] are irrevocable.'--Romans 11.29.

While I am not sure if you are describing the Jewish Scriptures or the New Testament, if you are talking about what Paul was quoting from in the NT, the quotes are from the Alexandrian Septuagint. He even makes reference to the Book of Wisdom as found in this version of the LXX, most vividly in Romans 1.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Sparky,

One should not confuse the Watchtower definition of what Paul is saying with what one finds in the actual text. If you read it like the Witnesses do, of course it sounds idiotic. But it is not because Paul wrote it with the JW understanding. To illustrate...

"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him…"--1 Corinthians 11.14, NRSV.

The word for “nature” here in the Koine Greek text is PHUSIS. It means in this instance “social order,” as in the Roman social order or way of doing things. It does not mean “nature” as in the sense of a National Geographic television documentary about flora and fauna.

In first century Hellenism and Roman culture, the “natural order” of things had no division between what one witnesses in nature (i.e., plant life, animal life, etc.) and the societal norms, social conventions, and culture of human society. The customs adopted and promoted by humans were believed to be as “natural” as what happened in nature itself. They are one in the same thing in the first century mind.

Therefore to act outside of societal norms was to act “unnaturally.” It is not a scientific term, but one that expresses the ancient Roman understanding of how the world worked.

Paul was not telling the Corinthians that it went against biological norms for men to wear long hair, but that it went against Roman convention. A clue that helps one come to this conclusion even without this knowledge of ancient understanding is that Paul comes from a society where men did let their hair grow long, namely in Jewry. Paul himself even pays for the haircuts of Nazarites at the Second Temple at Acts 21.23, 24, 26.

Obviously he wouldn’t be saying that it was biologically unnatural for men to grow their hair long as he has witnessed it himself as part of an offering of oneself to G-d as a Nazarite. Since Jews would never offer something biologically unnatural to G-d (and Nazarites grow out their hair during their vowed period), Paul would not have been condemning the biological growing of hair in men. No, here he is speaking about convention.

34

Babylon the Great and the Anti Christ

by Perry in

similar views as those presented here are gaining in popularity in christian circles.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgmrfatdvtm.

CalebInFloroda

@IslandMan

The view you are expressing is called the "preterist" view. It teaches that the apocalyptic language is describing the struggles of early Christianity with Judaism. While not as popular as the "futurist" view, it does have a logic to it that I think gets overlooked far too much.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

There is an interesting new line of theology that has developed from the Jewish-Catholic dialogues about this, and you can find some of this in the volume "The Jewish Annotated New Testament." It suggests that some of the charges of misuse of Scripture by Paul might actually be misunderstandings due to now-abandoned Catholic teachings regarding Jews and a greatly unknown argument between the Reformers and Catholics that colored the words of Paul for the last 500 years.

While there is no excusing some of Paul's language against Judaism, Paul does not seem to be ever teaching that Jews are to stop being obedient to the Mosaic Law. The most striking textual NT evidence to support this is found in Acts 21.17-26. These verses demonstrate that early Church authority did not interpret Paul's teachings as applicable to Jews, and that Paul was essentially still Torah-observant himself.

Using this one text to re-read epistles like Romans, for example, creates a particularly different text, one that never promotes anything particularly anti-Semitic. But when you add the fact that the Catholic Church views its past teachings about Jews as incorrect, and that these were colored by the arguments of the Reformation, you actually get a letter which explains how early Christianity may have looked appealing to some Jews in the first century...and how Judaism was not viewed as badly by Paul as some might have thought.

The teaching that the Catholic Church has now abandoned and that was warped during the Reformation was that Jews obeyed the Mosaic Law as a means to merit salvation. A superficial reading of Romans mixed with superstitions lead to the misunderstanding that in Romans, Paul was teaching that there were two roads to choose from: one of grace that leads to eternal life and one of works based on the Mosaic Law that has now been abrogated in Christ. The teaching became polemic fuel when later Reformists began accusing Catholics of being like Pharisees and promoting a religion that was works based.

After the Holocaust and particularly with Vatican II the Catholic Church opened formal dialogue with Judaism. One of the things the Catholic Church learned was that Jews have never had a doctrine which promotes a need for individual salvation. Judaism in fact has no "Original Sin" teaching. In light of this, it has been deduced that Paul could not be teaching that the Jews saw obedience to the Mosaic Law as a means of salvation.

Currently scholars are coming to agreement that Paul was likely teaching against Gentiles promoting the Mosaic Law as a requisite to salvation in Christ. The reason? Jews view the Mosaic Law as the opposite of slavery to the Egyptians, as an expression of freedom. Only if and when Gentiles apply it to themselves does it becomes a burden, not to mention violates the Law itself. Mosaic Law teaches that people are put right with G-d by means of faith. (Romans 4.3) Therefore, according to this revised understanding, Paul is actually teaching that anyone who makes Torah obedience a requisite for salvation for anyone violates the Law.

This latest revision to Christian theology tends to make Romans chapter 11 & 14 make more sense. The other previous exegetical approach has often made these chapters appear out of place by comparison. This recent change seems to make for more of a logical reading.

Again this does not change other expressions of Paul in other texts, and this new line of thought has yet to be adapted as official dogma in the Catholic Church, but it does offer a logical new approach that makes sense with Acts 21.

It should also be noted that this exegetical approach would create a paradox for the Watchtower which teaches that the 144,000 replaces the nation of Israel. This new exegetical approach causes Romans to read as if the covenants are still in effect and the Israel will never be replaced, instead only added to.--Romans 9.4-5; 11.29.

45

People should learn more about the Bible flaws

by opusdei1972 in

i have noted that the main problem for those who are seduced by the watchtower society is their ignorance about the bible itself.

people who believe that the bible is the word of god usually ignore the studies on textual criticism and how scientific criteria forbid absurd stories like that of the global flood.

so, i strongly believe that students in schools need at least an obligatory course on "the bible" through the point of view of science and the textual criticism.

CalebInFloroda

Opusdei has a point. It is very peculiar that witnesses to a resurrection like that of Lazarus' would turn on Jesus a week later.

It is also peculiar that the Jesus of the New Testament doesn't resemble much at all the Messiah as hoped for by the Jewish community and the way it both interpreted the Scriptures pertaining to the Messianic age and to the idea behind the whole reason for the messianic concept.

The blessings of the Messianic Age are expected to be free to all persons and discernible to everyone, Jew and Gentile. The idea behind the messianic concept is to heal all that is wrong with the world, not give the world a test to see who in the world will believe that so-and-so is the Messiah and to punish and deny the blessings of the messianic age from those people. The whole idea behind the messianic concept is to bless the entire world, especially those who believe there is no reason for hope, but Jesus of the NT constantly teaches the opposite, that those who don't accept him as the Messiah don't get any blessings. What kind of redemption is it to punish those without hope and faith?The Messianic Age is supposed to bring hope to the hopeless and restore faith to the faithless. The NT idea of a Messiah is truly erroneous because it teaches the opposite!

The promise to Abraham and Sarah was that through their offspring the entire world of humanity would receive blessings upon themselves. The idea that a man from Nazareth who, by the way, tells people not to spread the news that he is the Messiah and is rather indirect about his being the Messiah when put under oath before the Sanhedrin, turns out to be this person who fulfills the hopes of the Jewish people for the world is hard to reconcile. Since the messianic concept is a Jewish one, why does the New Testament reject the Jewish notion that Jesus doesn't fit the bill? Revelation in Judaism is public and truths are agreed upon by consensus of all, not by a hierarchy or small group of apostles. If Judaism as a whole says " no, this man is not the Messiah," and even Gentiles can see that no Mesianic age is upon the world, then why is it not possible that the greatest error of the New Testament is the identity of the Christ?

True, many Christians will argue this, but aren't most of them Gentiles? Who are Gentiles to tell Jews who the Messiah is or not? The whole concept is Jewish, the hopes originate with our culture. Even if you are not Jewish, why is the logic of many open minded people rejected when they see no reason to hope in such a man.

If the teaching of the Messianic Age is a true one, no atheist, agnostic, or person of any other creed will be left out in the darkness promised by Jesus to those who reject him. On the contrary, no one will have to check with the Jew whether or not that age has come for it will be apparent to all. You don't need a New Testament to tell you when peace has finally come to our world, when redemption from suffering is here, when all hopes are satisfied. That isn't something that comes in secret or is invisible but present since 1914 or takes a special Bible formula to encode by certain "chosen" ones.

While recognizing much good the idea of Jesus can be in highlighting some of the ideals of Torah regarding love for neighbor and respect for the world we live in, I think one of the greater errors of the New Testament is to teach that the Jews got their own ideas about the Messianic Age and it's free blessings for all humankind wrong. Even if the original Jewish concept itself is not a true hope to begin with, it is still the greatest error to twist such a mythology into something it isn't and never was.