Posts by JWdeepthinker

23

Why "Most high"?

by Doug Mason in

if there were only one god, why do we encounter the expression, "most high god"?.

is this not indicative of polytheism, and of levels (or degrees) of god-ness?.

doug .

JWdeepthinker

Hanged Man said:"The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun." --Thomas Paine, Age of Reason

This is quite interesting to note, but it is a little more complex than that. You see, the solar system was designed to reflect Christ as the Sun and his wife as the Moon. This husband and wife are represented by the two pillars of the temple, which is reflected in Freemasonry, as well as the two "covering cherubs" on top of the ark of the covenant. So in Christian tradition, Jesus is represented as the sun and his beautiful wife, the church, is the moon. But the church is his "new wife." His former wife also identified with the moon, the beautiful moon goddess. Interesting Christians accept that Christ has a bride in Revelation but don't realize he was married before to another wife in heaven (long story). At any rate, indeed Christ is linked to the sun.

One indication is when he comes to down to the earth to become human. Even the WTS used to recognize the "Annunciation" date as December 25th, which is close to the time of the winter solstice, the birth of the Sun. There are two special references to the 8th day in the Bible. One is the circumcision of the male on his 8th day of life and the other is the 8th day of the Festival of Booths, which is a special Sabbath Day. If we presume that Jesus was to fulfill the 8th day of the Festival of Booths by being circumcised on the 8th day in 2 BCE, then his "conception" would have occurred 9 months earlier around the time of the winter solstice. So Jesus is definitely connected with the winter solstice and thus the sun. He is called the "bright morning star."

So the idea of Jesus being the "sun" comes at the time the solar system was assembled and thus is very Biblical. That fact that within paganism he is also recognized as the sun is just incidental.

Basically, since you mention Freemasonry and that relates to "the Mysteries." Up in heaven, the Lord was Jesus Christ/Michael and the Lady, his wife, was Lillith, an extremely beautiful angel, the most beautiful angel in heaven. This angel is one of the covering cherubs on the ark of the covenant, a very special angel represented as being on mount zion. This angel served as the wife of Michael, the archangel, who is one of the covering cherubs as well. But this wife of Michael/Jesus rebelled against God and now will be replaced by Michael's new wife, the "church" (144,000, etc.).

Satan, thus created worship of this husband and wife in the pagan world, including the symbolism of the sun and the moon, when Satan invented the LORD, Baal, and the LADY, Asherah, the mother goddess, the wife of the Lord. Thus pagan Baal was based on the Lord of heaven, Jesus Christ, and his Lady, the Lady of Heaven, Lillith. This means that often in paganism, what is going on in heaven is based on reality. There is even a distortion of the "holy trinity" which originally is the relationship between Jehovah and Michael and Michael's wife. This holy trinity will become reestablished when Michael marries his new wife, the church when they become angels in heaven after Judgment Day. In the meantime, the holy trinity was represented as the ark of the covenant and the two covering cherubs within the Most Holy.

Satan's inspiration of pagan practice did reflect some of what actually happened to him in heaven. For instance, the practice of having babies thrown into the fire is a horrible concept. But that reflects what Jehovah did to his own children, the angels in heaven, in order to get rid of Satan. That is, God required all the angels to die, including his chief angel, Michael. Once all the angels were killed, which was God's right as the creator, to limit the lifespan of any creature, then he could choose to bring back whom he wanted. This left Satan out of the picture. Satan couldn't complain if God killed ALL the angels since it was his right to do so since the angels are mortal. God decided how long the life would be of a tree or an animal and man. The gift of eternal life is not just offered to anyone. That included the angels. But an easy way to get rid of Satan without a lot of discussion or legal debate was just to kill all the angels off without judgment. How could Satan complain about that? The "judgment" came when it came time to be resurrected. Of course, this was a frustrating issue for Satan, who probably thought God was taking the easy way out, so Satan demonstrated that resentment by having parents put their children through the fire and burn them up. Of course, the faithful angels in heaven willingly volunteered to die for their creator, even though they knew it would be temporary for them. Why not die for a short time if you come back and can get rid of Satan? What a clever trick. But then again, God did create the angels as mortals. Christ and his new bride though, will be granted immortality, something Satan forfeited.

So in the end, the glorious SUN will indeed be Jesus Christ, and the glorious and beautiful MOON, his new wife, made up of humans from the earth. Satan will be cast into the lake of fire, never to return. The lake of fire represents God's angry judgment and absolute finality.

Thanks for sharing this. But the Bible did say there would be signs in the sun and moon and stars in relation to God's actions and activities, so Christ being the "sun" is actually Biblical.

8

The fraud that is the 70 year desolation

by Crazyguy in

as we know being former jws that we were taught that jerusalem was destroyed then 70 years it would be desolate.

well this isn't about jerusalem and the 607/ 587 argument.

this is about the whole subject of the 70 years desolation being a huge bible fraud.

JWdeepthinker

Crazy Guy,

You said: First let's start with Jerimiah 29:10 in this verse it says the desolation was for Babylon not Jerusalem, what wait a minute. But then it get even better turn to Isaiah chapter 23 where it's taking about the coming destruction of the city of Tyre it says in the chapter it to would be part of this 70 year desolation, this is what we've been led to believe any way. That Nebuchadnezzar was going to destroy Tyre right with Jerusalem and they'll be gone 70 years. But wait in verse 13 it says that Babylon is no more. Say what, what the hell? So who's going to destroy Tyre if Babylon according to these chapters is destroyed already. What the hell is going on, this is nothing I've read or been taught?

Well, here is where you go wrong with Tyre. The destruction of the entire land of Israel took time, more than a year. The Bible specifically says, though, that Jerusalem would be the first to taste the bitter cup of Nebuchadnezzar before the other nations did.

Jeremiah 25:28 " ‘This is what Jehovah of armies says: “You must drink it! 29 For look! if I am bringing calamity first on the city that bears my name, should you go unpunished?”’

According to Josephus, a 13-year siege of Tyre began in year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar II, and thus Tyre actually fell in year 20, a year after the fall of Jerusalem in year 19. So where does the 70 years come in? The answer is when the entire land was completely desolated. Yes, Jerusalem was destroyed in year 19 and Tyre in year 20, but that didn't mean all the people were deported. Usually, Babylon left a few of the poor people behind. So the land was sparsely populated up until the last campaign of Nebuchadenzzar II in year 23. That is the year of the last deportation of everybody out of the entire land, both the northern and southern kingdoms. That also included those who had ran down to Egypt who did go back to Judah for a short while that same year.

We know from the Babylonian Chronicle, as well as the Bible that the deportations of the people occurred usually on the very last day of the year, the beginning of spring. The war campaigns took place in the summer and fall usually, then after the captives wintered, they made that 5-month trek to Babylon at the beginning of spring. So Nebuchadnezzar II descended into the land in his 23rd year and down into Egypt and killed off most of the Jews that were down there, then deported them back to Babylon, likely stopping off in Judea for the winter. Thus even for Tyre, the 70 years of total desolation wouldn't have begun until the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar iI.

Thus the most important Biblical reference as far as when the actual 70 years begins is Jeremiah 44;14 and 28, two scriptures the WTS totally ignore and contradict:

Jeremiah 44:14 "And the remnant of Judah who have gone to reside in the land of Egypt will not escape or survive to return to the land of Judah. They will long to return and dwell there, but they will not return, except for a few escapees.’”

Jeremiah 44:28 "Only a few will escape the sword and return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah. Then all the remnant of Judah who came to the land of Egypt to reside there will know whose word has come true, mine or theirs!”’”

So just to get the chronology right. The actual destruction of a city didn't necessarily mean all the people were deported and that place was completely desolated. The official 70 years of desolation began after Nebuchadnezzar II's last campaign into the region in year 23, when he deported the last remaining people in the entire land, including from Tyre. Thus the LAND being totally desolated is when the 70 years began. So here's a timeline for you to check out:

Year 19 Fall of Jerusalem

Year 20 Fall of Tyre, assassination of Gedeliah. Remnant flees down to Egypt and refuse to return.

Year 23 Nebuchadnezzar II invades the region goes down into Egypt and kills off the majority of the Jews there, transporting a small remnant back through Judea where they likely remained until the very last day of the year, after which they were deported to Babylon. This began the 70-year desolation of the land that ended when the "royalty of Persia" began to rule. That is, not when Darius the Mede began to rule. Darius the Mede ruled for six full years before Cyrus became king at Babylon and began a new royal rulership over Persia. That's when Cyrus began to count his 1st year, 6 years after the rule of Darius the Mede.

Now you call for "fraud." Well, it's up to you to say this is fraud on someone's part, but who? The secular historians or the Jewish historians? Josephus clearly dates the 70 years from the last deportation, when the people were deported off the land. That conflicts with the Babylonian records. Per the Babylonian records, there is only a 44-year period from year 23 to the 1st of Cyrus. Here is Josephus' statement:

Antiquities 11:1.1: "IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus (1) which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."

The people were finally removed out of the land in year 23, that is when the 70 years begin. But that conflicts with the Babylonian records, right? Problem is, the Babylonian records were "copied" over during the Persian Period. The Babylonian Chronicle actually states it was a "copy" made in year 22 of Darius. So it is not a conflict between Josephus and the Bible and the Babylonian records, but with the revised records that were revised during the Persian Period. So who is putting on a "fraud" here? It's the Persians, not the Jews.

So to help you out a little, the Neo-Babylonian Period is 26 years shorter than what the Bible and Josephus claim compared to the revised secular records; but the Persian Period is some 82 years too long. Martin Anstey in his "Romance of Bible Chronology" noted that the 1st of Cyrus, per the Bible, should be dated to 455 BCE and not 537 BCE. That means there are some 82 fake Persian years added to the timeline. He did not delineate where those fake years were. But that is the issue here, whether or not the Persian Period was expanded 82 years, which included removing some 26 years from the Neo-Babylonian records?

Of course, at this point we know precisely what happened and it is very easy to reduce the Persian Period correctly by 82 years! When the timeline is corrected, indeed the 1st of Cyrus occurs in 455 BCE and the 70 years between year 23 and the 1st of Cyrus are restored.

Now the big elephant in the room is why haven't scholars or the WTS known about this? The answer is: politics! Jewish historians have always claimed the Persian Period was too long and they never lost track of the original dating, but they do so through a cryptic timeline. For instance, the rabbinical date for the 6th of Darius is 532 BCE, a completely ridiculous date for the 6th of Darius!! That is otherwise the 7th of Artaxerxes III!! But is this a cryptic date? The return in the revised timeline occurs in 537 BCE, some 82 years earlier than 455 BCE. The temple took 21 years to complete and thus is dated to 516 BCE (537-21=516 BCE). If we date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE the temple would have been completed in 434 BCE (455-21=434 BCE). This is where the fun comes in. You see, 434 BCE is exactly 82 years earlier than 452 BCE (434-82=452 BCE)!! This suggests/confirms not only that 452 BCE is a cryptic date but it confirms the rabbis never lost track of the original dating, that is, that year 6th fell in 434 and that the 1st of Cyrus should be dated to 455 BCE. So why wasn't this timeline changed? You can speculate all you want to but apparently it was not "convenient" to correct the timeline even years later. The revised timeline became the "popular" timeline and then the politically correct timeline and now scholars are trying to make it the "official" timeline and claim the Bible's timeline was revised rather than the Persian timeline.

Even so, it is your choice which record is a fraud. Regardless of that, Josephus and the Bible both date the 70 years from the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II down to the 1st of Cyrus, which is not what JWs are claiming. Those promoting 586 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem probably know quite well that is the wrong date and are promoting their own doctrinal agenda to discredit the Bible. In the meantime, you can use the cryptic rabbinical timeline to recover and confirm the true dating from the Bible. Per the Bible, the 1st of Cyrus should be dated to 455 BCE. That means the Exodus must be dated to 1386 BCE, the rule of Solomon from 910-870 BCE and the rule of David from 950-910 BCE. Anyone, including the WTS, who does not use these dates are not following the Bible's internal timeline. If these dates don't fit archaeology or the popular timeline followed by scholars, then too bad. If the bible is a "fraud" then it's a fraud. Of course, you have to confirm who is really providing the accurate history and chronology. What is most important, though, is knowledge. Knowing what the Jewish secular records show, what the Bible shows and compare that to archaeology. The dates archaeologists are using are based on the pagan dating for events, not the Bible's dating.

44

Please explain the Watchtower's "Ransom" for me

by Doug Mason in

according to the watchtower:.

who received the ransom payment?.

why did the ransomer need to be paid?.

JWdeepthinker

The simplest way to understand this is the FUNDAMENTAL here. That is simply that Jehovah would accept the sinless unborn children of Jesus Christ at the time of his death in exchange for Adam's unborn children, who had inherited Adam's sin. So it is not really about Jesus being the ransom for all men, but his unborn children. But Christ did have to make the sacrifice by giving up his perfect human life. That's the basis of the ransom sacrifice. Just as sin came through Adam to his unborn children, life in exchange comes through the unborn children of Christ. Simple.

NOW THE SIDE ISSUES: Does that sacrifice cover ALL sin? No. Only Adamic sin. You still have to be deemed to be "righteous" to get eternal life. Christ's sacrifice gives all a chance for eternal life, but only the righteous are granted it.

DOES INCIDENTAL DEATH WIPE OUT SIN? The Bible says once you die you are acquitted of sin. That's true. But you have to stay dead! If you die and are resurrected and thus take your life back, you still are condemned. Thus in the case of Lazarus, Jesus' friend, whom he resurrected, he was acquitted of his sin as long as he stayed dead. Once he took his life back then he annulled that payment with his death. That's why the WT's idea that those resurrected during the second resurrection are acquitted of sin and they get a brand new chance is non-Biblical. Their own death does not acquit them of sin unless they stay dead. Once they come back, they still are under Adamic sin; thus they still need Christ's ransom sacrifice. Furthermore, the Bible strictly dates the second resurrection after Satan is killed in the lake of fire which is following the 1000-year reign of Christ. Thus there is absolutely no resurrections during the 1000-year reign of Christ.

I hope this explanation was sufficient. It works. Again, Christ's unborn children were exchanged for Adam's unborn children. He ransomed his unborn children for Adam's unborn children. That's it.

1

William Dever on the date of Jerusalem's destruction

by Doug Mason in

the following excerpts are from “beyond the texts: an archaeological portrait of ancient israel and judah”, by william dever, sbl press, 2017.

the largest corpora of seventh-century ostraca are those from lachish and arad.

the original twenty-three lachish ostraca were letters found in one room of the gatehouse in the stratum ii destruction of the city, now clearly dated to the babylonian campaigns of 586.

JWdeepthinker

Whether or not modern scholars have decided to use the date of 586 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem, the Bible's own timeline dates the fall of Jerusalem in a different year. Of course, I acknowledge there is much room for flexibility.

Of critical note, though, is Martin Anstey. He wrote "The Romance of Biblical Chronology" in 1913 and noted that per the Bible, based on the baptism of Christ that the 1st of Cyrus should be dated to 455 BCE. That meant there were some 82 fake years in the Persian Period, which he never delineated (537 BCE vs 455 BCE for the 1st of Cyrus).

In the meantime, Ezra 6:14,15 clearly limits the rule of Darius I to just six years: " And the elders of the Jews built and prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished their building by decree of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia;15 and this house was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king."

So this is at least 30 years the Bible itself requires to be removed from the Persian Period. That means the current timeline was revised, plain and simple. You can presume the Jewish records were the inaccurate records if you wish, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what the Bible's own timeline claims vs what the secular timeline is, that includes both "relative" and "absolute" dating.

But just by comparison, if you follow Martin Anstey's insight into dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, which ends the 70 years of desolation, then those 70 years would begin in 525 BCE. If you follow JWs who claim the 70 years began in year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar II, which is also when they date the fall of Jerusalem, then per the Bible, 525 BCE should be the date for the fall of Jerusalem.

If you follow Josephus, who dates the 70 years of exile from the last deportation, some 5 years after the fall of Jerusalem, then the fall of Jerusalem would be dated to 530 BCE (525 + 5 = 530 BCE). So you see, you have options here. But there is another issue.

If you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE as some claim we should based on the baptism of Christ in 29 CE, then the Exodus occurs exactly 19 jubilees (931 years) earlier in 1386 BCE. That means the 4th of Solomon should be dated to 906 BCE. That's when the Bible is dating the rule of Solomon, from 910-870 BCE, not 970-930 BCE. So Dever has the wrong dates for Solomon's rule and every other date as far as the Bible is concerned. Those who do not wish to deal with the Bible vs secular problems try to minimize those issues with the Bible taking the blame for the discrepancies.

Bottom line, the Bible dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE and the Exodus to 1386 BCE. Those are the dates the faithful Bible chronologists compare with the available archaeology and with good results too.

In the meantime, Biblical archaeologists are not taken that seriously if they can't even get the date of the Exodus correct. But they are not "historians" and so they use faulty information from history to make their scientific comparisons, a big problem in the field. It is important that JWs as well as the scholarly world know precisely what the Bible's own dating and timeline is and use that for comparisons, not their own misguided interpretations.

Thanks for posting this. Biblical archaeologists tend to use the inaccurate timeline all the time.

7

More significant than Paul's hair

by Doug Mason in

far more important than worrying about whether paul's head was hairy or if he was an egg-shell blond, is to be concerned about what went on inside that skull between his ears.. paul was never a christian.

he was a jew before he became aware of jesus the anointed (christ) and he remained a jew after his confrontation.

throughout his life paul was a jew living in a gentile world.

JWdeepthinker

Paul was much darker complected than most Jews, who were fair-skinned. Thus Paul was not recognized as a Jew right away but considered to be an "Egyptian."

Paul was converted to Christianity -- according to the gospels, which can be dismissed but not contradicted.

1

"poly-Yahwist" religion of early Israel and Judah

by Doug Mason in

the following is from “beyond the texts: an archaeological portrait of ancient israel and judah”, pages 497-499, by william dever,.

religion played an important role in all early societies, and cultic practices (if not beliefs) are often reflected in material culture remains.

in israel and judah of the ninth–eighth century [bce] we have a number of both public and private cultic installations.

JWdeepthinker

Interesting. But the big elephant in the room is whether YHWH was just an invented god or is he the creator of the universe who chose the Israelites as the ultimate savior of the world? Is YHWH a real god?

Well it is clear the Israelites were not faithful to their covenant with YHWH. Problem is, YHWH said that if they were not faithful he would punish them. Zech 13:8 indicates that just before the final restoration of the Jews to their homeland, which would celebrate the final 70th jubilee (49 years to the end of the covenant), there would be a great tribulation. Daniel says it would be a time of distress like "never happened before nor would happen again." But it is linked to specific chronology. To make a long story short, two-thirds of the Jews in exile were to be exterminated between 1940-1947 per the Bible. That happened. That tribulation was thus fulfilled by WWII and the Holocaust. So that suggests not only is YHWH a living god but he doesn't play around.

Zech 13:8 "In the whole land, declares the Lord,

two thirds shall be cut off and perish,
and one third shall be left alive." (ESV)

Wikipedia: "The Holocaust, also referred to as the Shoah, was a genocide during World War II in which Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators, systematically murdered some six million European Jews, around two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe."

The one-third that would survive would then come out of exile to celebrate the final 49 years of the covenant. A horrible punishment. However, the scriptures say just as much as YHWH's anger would blaze against the Jews during this 7-year period that was "cut short" (Matthew 24), he would bless the new Jewish nation. The State of Israel seems fairly well off at this point, so that part of the prophecy was fulfilled as well.

Archaeology confirms how idolatrous the Israelites were. In particular, the Jewish women became prostitutes and burned children alive in the fire. They would seduce men from the nations, get them addicted and then get them to sacrifice their children. The children would be stuffed into pottery kilns that were on the roofs of the houses and packed with limestone and burned alive. The dark smoke would rise up from the kilns representing the death and destruction of another innocent life. Thus the Holocaust would reflect that same pagan practice. The transports would come into the death camps at Dachau, Treblinka, Chelmo and others and soon after would come the black smoke, representing the death of more Jews. So the very nature of the Holocaust reflected what the ancient idolatrous Israelites did. That's why Jesus told the women weeping for him to weep for themselves because there would be a time they wished they had no children. So the women and the death of children are a central theme to the Holocaust.

Scholars have their doubts and their theories. But it would seem such a specifically dated fulfillment of this prophecy tends to confirm that the creator of the universe, known as YHWH to the Israelites did have a covenant with them and that, ultimately, he restored them to their "promised land" to fulfill that covenant with Abraham. Unfortunately, that included the severe complication of that covenant, which is to bring the punishment of the fathers upon the children. But that was always part of it -- the good as well as the bad would come upon the children of the promise, the children of Abraham.

So what the Israelites were actually up to during those early years is confirmed by archaeology, but the orthodox doctrine was always the same, strictly monotheistic doctrine of the monotheistic god, YHWH. Some things are up for grabs as far as ancient history as told by archaeology, but not the existence of a living god who had a covenant with the israelites -- of course, through which came Jesus Christ, also a living god.