Posts by Disillusioned JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

That is Interesting.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

You might be correct regarding the idea of the word "called" being an interpolation by Christians.

Other than the passage which you quoted about James and Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest, is there a historical source which definitely says that Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest had a brother named Jesus?

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Peacefulpete I am not offended by what you wrote, though I was shocked about some of it (and maybe somewhat scared by it since it would mean a number of my strong beliefs need to be greatly revised, again).

Perhaps Richard Carrier did mention the idea you which mentioned. I haven't read a lot of what Carrier wrote in promotion of the Christ myth concept. I have read however that Bart D. Ehrman (who is no longer a Christian and who now identifies as being an agnostic atheist) says that the Jesus of of the phrase "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ... " was the Jesus Christ of the NT scriptures.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Correction: In the first paragraph of my prior post where I say " I and a number of scholar believe he says that way because he (a non-Christian Jew) did not believe ..." I should have said " I and a number of scholars believe he says it that way because he (a non-Christian Jew) did not believe ...".

Major Correction: The last two sentences of my prior post (in the Update section) should be replaced with the following.

'As a result, the Jesus, the son of Damneus (who became high priest) was a different Jesus than the one mentioned in the phrase "... the brother of Jesus, (who was named the (annointed) Christ,) whose name was James ..."! I have read and heard biblical scholars say that the Jesus who was a high priest (the one you mention) was not the one referred to as "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ...". This strengthens the case that the Jesus of the phrase "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ... " was the one whom Christians call the Christ and the son of God.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

peacefulpete, but in the passage you refer to Joseph does not say Jesus was the anointed or "was the Christ" or "was Christ", but instead Joseph says "... Jesus, who was called Christ ..." I and a number of scholar believe he says that way because he (a non-Christian Jew) did not believe that Jesus (the one that Christians believed was the son of God) was the foretold Messiah/Christ, but only someone whom some people called the Christ. If Josephus was speaking of the Jewish high priest (someone who obviously received an official anointing) in that passage then he would have no difficulty in directly calling him an anointed one, since all of the Jewish high priests received an anointing as a priest.

You are the only person whose words I have read of saying that passage of about " ... Jesus, who was called Christ ..." was about the Jewish high priest instead. None of the biblical scholars and historical scholars whose words about that passage I have read attribute it to being about the one you say it is about (or even say it might possibly about such), likewise for other highly credible sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica. [If Earl J. Doherty also gave the explanation you gave, then I was not aware of it.] Likewise when I listened to NT scholars and historical scholars in documentaries on TV talking about that passage I did not hear any of them give the explanation you gave.

Can you provide a scholarly source which states your interpretation of that passage as not being about the Jesus whom Christians believe is Christ/Messiah and the son of God? But perhaps you are first person to come up with the idea and perhaps you correct, but thus far to me that idea is incorrect, even though I think you are right that Josephus does mention the high priest a few lines below. I used to have a hardcover book copy of a popular English translation of the writing of Josephus but after reading parts of it and photocopying parts of it, I resold the book.

Update: After I made this post (prior to making this update) I noticed that you made a post which quotes several lines of what Josephus wrote, including "... and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest ...." But I now notice an additional problem with your reasoning on this matter.

Notice that your quote of Josephus says "... Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest." Notice that in those words it indicates that Jesus, the son of Damneus became high priest (and thus became annointed) at least three months after the events about "... the brother of Jesus, (who was named the (annointed) Christ,) whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law ..." As a result the Jesus, the son of Damneus (who became high priest) was a different Jesus than "... the brother of Jesus, (who was named the (annointed) Christ,) whose name was James"! I have read and heard biblical scholars say that the Jesus who was a high priest (including the one you mention) was not the one referred to as "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ...".

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

I have not yet read much of the article you provided a link to, but it quotes a well known passage in one of the writings of Josephus which says "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ...". [By the way that passage is one of the key historical sources which caused me to be convinced enough in the Bible and thus get baptized while a teenager. I learned of that passage in the WT's 1969 book called Is the Bible really the Word of God? on page 63 of the book, when I was trying to determine if the Bible was true. The same book includes the quote of Tacitus about one called Christus whom Tacitus says the extreme penalty by procurator Pontius Pilate. That was also a key reason for me becoming sure that Jesus did exist as a historical person, and thus a major part of the reason while I got baptized as a JW before age 16.]

Regarding the passage of "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ..." the web page which you linked to also says the following.

"Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ) and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation.[37][38][39][40] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.[35] Some scholars have noted Josephus is more sympathetic to James than his brother.[41] '

The same web page also says 'Paul mentions meeting James "the Lord's brother" (τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου) and later calls him one of the pillars (στύλοι) in the Epistle to the Galatians [46] Galatians 1:18-2:10: ... But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)'

While I was an active baptized JW (at least during most of that time if not during the earliest part of that time when I was a teenager and thus knew less of the Bible) I believed that Jesus had fleshly brothers and sisters (contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches, but in agreement to what the WT teaches). That is because the gospels of mark and Matthew says he had such, and that one of his brothers was named James. During all of the subsequent time periods when I still definitely believed that Jesus was a historical person I continued to believe that Jesus had a brother named James. Perhaps none of the brothers of Jesus was the one known as James the Great or James the Just, but I see no reason to believe that fleshly non-supernatural historical Jesus had a brother (even if only a half-brother) named James. During the period of time when I believed in the Christ myth concept (such as described by Earl J. Doherty in his book called The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?) about Jesus and thus didn't believe that a historical Jesus existed, I thus didn't believe Jesus had a brother named James, but after doing more research and contemplation I stopped believing in the Christ myth concept about a year or so ago.

Please consider the Wikipedia article called Brothers of Jesus which says the following.

' Mark 6 :3 names James, Joses, Judas (conventionally known in English as Jude) and Simon as the brothers of Jesus, and Matthew 13 :55, which probably used Mark as its source, gives the same names in different order, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.[8] "Joseph" is simply the longer form of "Joses", and so it appears that James was the eldest and Joses/Joseph the next, but as Matthew has reversed the order of the last two it is uncertain who was the youngest.[9] Unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:56 and may be implied in Mark 3:35 and Matthew 12:46, but their number is unknown.[3]

The gospels indicate a rift between Jesus and his brothers in the early part of his ministry (see Mark 3:31-35 and the parallel passages in Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-21), and they never appear among his followers during his lifetime.[10] John has Jesus's brothers advising him to go to Judea despite being aware that his life would be in danger, and they are absent from his burial, which should have been their responsibility,[11] but they do appear in Acts 1:14 with the Eleven (i.e., the remaining disciples after the betrayal by Judas Iscariot): "These all (the Eleven) were persevering in prayer along with the women, with Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."[11]

In 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 Paul lists a "James" among those to whom the risen Christ had appeared,[12] and most scholars agree that this refers to James the brother of Jesus.[13] The 2nd century historian Hegesippus (c.110 – 180 AD) reports that James the brother of Jesus came to be known as James the Just,[14] and Eusebius of Caesarea (died 339) says that he spent so much of his life in prayer that his knees became "like the knees of a camel."[15] According to Clement of Alexandria, reported by Eusebius, he was chosen as bishop of Jerusalem,[16] and from the time when Peter left Jerusalem after Herod's attempt to kill him (Acts 12) he appears as the principal authority in the Jerusalem church, presiding at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.[16] In Galatians 1:19 Paul tells how he went to Jerusalem a few years after his conversion and met Cephas (Peter) but no other apostles, only "James, the brother of the Lord";[17] Paul's Greek leaves it unclear whether he includes, or does not include, James among the apostles.[18] '

Since Josephus mentions John the Baptist/Baptizer, and says even more about him than about Jesus, I also believe that John the Baptist/Baptizer had existed. Even when I believed that Jesus never existed I still believed John the Baptist/Baptizer had existed.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Thanks peacefulpete for your reply. Maybe the statement of 2 Kings 25:26 (1984 NWT) of "... all the people, from small to great ..." was an exaggeration/sensationalization of an event. Maybe some of the people chose to say in Judah while the majority fled.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Hey folks while composing my prior post (the one which has two corrections) I started reading a part of 1997 WT article. Then I soon noticed page 13 of the article (in the June 15, 1997 Watchtower) of my bound volume. It says something there which confirms something which Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor have said about Jewish burials. It has implications to the burial of Jesus. The first paragraph of column 2 of page 13 has a quote saying "Ossuaries were used primarily in the roughly one hundred years preceding the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. . . . The deceased was placed in a recess carved into the wall of a burial cave; after the flesh had decomposed, the bones were collected and placed in an ossuary—a container usually of decorated limestone."

James Tabor says that according to the Jewish burial custom at the time Jesus existed (on Earth), the remains of the dead were transferred into ossuaries. He and Simcha Jacobovici say that would have been the case for Jesus and thus could explain why the tomb in which Jesus was initially placed in (according to the gospels) no longer had his body in it. That is because they say that the family members would have moved the corpse into an ossuary in a tomb belonging the family of Joseph and Mary. James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici believe they found that tomb and the ossurary of Jesus son of Joseph . And he and/or Simcha Jacobovici say that means the Jewish chief priests (see Matthew 28:12-13) were right to some extent in saying that the disciples of Jesus moved the body of Jesus. He and Simcha Jacobovici also believe they found the ossurary of his brother "James son of Joseph Brother of Jesus” and that both had at one time been in the same family tomb. However, most scholars disagree with those views of his, but I think they might be correct. See https://jamestabor.com/the-top-twenty-fictions-related-to-the-talpiot-jesus-family-tomb/ , https://jamestabor.com/a-tale-of-two-tombs-part-two-the-james-ossuary-and-the-talpiot-jesus-family-tomb/ and https://jamestabor.com/whats-the-latest-on-the-james-son-of-joseph-brother-of-jesus-ossuary/ . The first of those three web pages says the following.

'The first burial of Jesus was by definition a hasty one, a “burial of opportunity,” as Joseph of Arimathea placed Jesus’ body in a tomb that happened to be nearby the place of his execution, possibly even one in an area provided by the Sanhedrin for just this purpose (John 19:42; Sanhedrin 6, 5). He would have been moved to a more permanent place of burial as soon as the Passover Sabbath was over, most likely by Joseph who had taken responsibility for the initial burial. Mark, the earliest gospel, has no “appearances” of Jesus, the account in Matthew takes place in Galilee and has a “visionary” quality to it, and the various reports in Luke and John come from a much later period when the “empty tomb” was used as proof that the “appearances” were of a flesh and bones sort. This represents a later, more literal, development in how the resurrection of Jesus was being argued with opponents.

... If we are considering a hypothetical “Jesus family tomb” with these names we would then ask: What are the probabilities of a Jesus son of Joseph, with a brother named Yose, and a mother named Mary being found in a 1st century Jewish family tomb? That is actually something a statistician can work with and the results can be correlated with what a historian might then postulate as the likelihood of these particular names being in a pre-70 CE Jesus tomb.

The fact is of the hundreds of tombs in the Jerusalem area that have been opened in a distributively random way over the past 200 years no other tomb so far has been found with even this limited cluster of names: Jesus son of Joseph, Maria, and Yose.'

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Correction: In my most recent post to MeanMrMustard where I said "Since Assyria was already conquered by Babylon by the time that the book of Jeremiah says that Jeremiah received the prophecy ...", I should have said "Since the book of Jeremiah indicates that Jeremiah said he received the prophecy by the time that Assyria was already conquered by Babylon ...".

Correction: In my prior post where I said 'I agree with what Tarler that today ..." I should have said "I agree with Tarler that today ...".

Further information: It is too bad that the words stated in the WT article (the portion which was included in TD's quote at https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/194966/jerusalem-bible-timeswhat-does-archaeology-reveal ) said 607 B.C.E. instead of 587 B.C.E.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

TD, in case I didn't make it clear, I do not believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 (or 606) BCE. I believe it was destroyed in 587 BCE (or possibly in 588 BCE or 586 BCE instead). That is despite me now believing that the first deportation of Jews from Jerusalem (and thus the start of the exile) began in about 606 BCE (at least according to some commentaries) in the first year in which Nebuchadrezzar/Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon, about 19 years before Jerusalem was destroyed (see Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1) for the indication of the year the first exile began).

I agree with what Tarler that today archeologists could not "differentiate between 607 B.C.E. and 587 B.C.E. material cultural remains". I believe that because I know that radiometric datings, even carbon 14 datings, have a degree of imprecision about them. Officially radiometric dates come with a statistical range of years. For a hypothetical example, while the news media might say the scientists came up with the carbon 14 date of 800 CE for some artifact, the actual date published by the scientists would say something like 800 CE plus or minus 20 years. The scientists would say something like a '90% confidence interval of 780 CE to 820 CE'. For geologic layers associated with fossils of hominids dated to about 2 millions ago, the confidence range would be about 100,000 years or so.