Send a Message
to Doug Mason

Comments

2,558

Joined

Dec 13, 2007

Doug Mason Profile

Recent Posts

Seventh-day Adventist

Today at SDA Sabbath Service 3/28

How do you know what Jesus said? You only know what you read today what someone wrote and what others edited. Doug  (9 hrs ago | post #61)

Seventh-day Adventist

Today at SDA Sabbath Service 3/28

Hi Larry, Bible scholars agree that 7 of the letters attributed to Paul are genuinely his, with some of these being compilations of several letters spliced together. The 7 are: (most of) Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians; all of Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. The sequence of his writings in the NT are in order of their length, not their chronology. I think that 1 Thessalonians might have been his earliest. The Gospels were written after his death by people who never saw or heard Jesus, sometimes copying Paul's account (for example: "Lord's Supper" narrative). Have you ever wondered why Paul's sect dominates the Christian Scriptures? Paul fully anticipated the end would take place during his own life. Therefore when we read of pastoral arrangements (elders, etc.), it is clear that this was written at a later period, towards the end of the first century. References to ("NT") writings by authors whose dates are known also provide an indication, such as the date of 2 Peter midway during the second century. Such information is widely available from serious Bible scholars so it is likely the information is readily available on the www. Defense put up by "fundamentali sts" that the Holy Spirit was in control is simply wishful thinking. It is impossible to arrive at the original texts and many scholars of Lower (Textual) Criticism have given up on the endeavour. Just look on the www at the arguments on the NT text over the more recent Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort texts (which the WTS NT uses). Consider also the range of Septuagint ("OT") texts and their rejection by Jews, who accept only the Masoretic Text of the Middle Ages. Or the range of Canons (list of Scriptural books). No Protestant accepts the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and other canons. Doug  (11 hrs ago | post #59)

Seventh-day Adventist

Today at SDA Sabbath Service 3/28

Paul wrote that in his opinion in God's sight there is neither male nor female, for all are one. The person who wrote that misogynist stuff pretended he was Paul. It was written long after Paul was dead and unable to correct him. Who said that women have the mortgage on saying silly things? How can one say that silliness is determined because of one's sex? Are people with both types of sex organs half silly for half of the time? And why does anyone accept the opinions and views of an ancient and different culture? Little wonder modern society has ditched religion and the Bible. Doug  (Yesterday | post #27)

Seventh-day Adventist

Today at SDA Sabbath Service 3/28

Hi Larry, Good on you! I would have joined you. How embarrassed they should be, and hopefully they don't try that again. And your typo of "alter" was most appropriate. Hopefully they will alter their ideas about forcing people to be hypocrites. Doug  (Sunday | post #6)

Jehovah's Witness

The "Great Multitude" and the "Jehovah's Witnesses"

Thank you Stephen, I belong to no group. My interest with this enquiry is purely historical. The Watchtower Society writes that the "great crowd" was identified in 1935, and that made me ask: What change took place in 1935? Who or what was the "great crowd" before 1935? As a corollary - and purely out of interest as I researched the subject - I asked myself: "When did the 'Great Multitude" become known as "Jehovah's witnesses?" The term Jonadab class is familiar to researchers. You will see my views at: http://www.jwstudi es.com/ If you are uncomfortable at providing me with the information I seek, please do not go against your conscience. Thanks, Doug  (Saturday Mar 28 | post #3)

Jehovah's Witness

The "Great Multitude" and the "Jehovah's Witnesses"

Hi, I wonder if someone is able to tell me the date and publication when those of the "Great Multitude" were first included with the "Jehovah's Witnesses". I do not mean the "Jonadab class", since to me they appear to be different to the "Great Multitude". (I am open to correction on that but I will need precise references.) Many thanks, Doug  (Friday Mar 27 | post #1)

Jehovah's Witness

Holy Scripture vs Oral Tradition

LL, You are so wrong about me as well. I have been where you are. All of your reasoning is based on assumptions based on hope. I did not say that the contents of either the Quran or the Book of Mormon are the Word of God. I am saying that the method of reasoning that is employed to say that the Bible is true is the exactly the same method of reasoning used to say that the Quran and Book of Mormon are true. All are based on internal claims. Worship the Bible if you wish, but do not claim that it is the Word of God because it contains a nice story. FYI, my study puts my position: http://www.jwstudi es.com/Did_Israel_ s_ruler_come_from_ Bethlehem.pdf Doug  (Sunday Mar 22 | post #19)

Jehovah's Witness

Holy Scripture vs Oral Tradition

Little Lamb, But how do you know that you can rely that what you read in the Bible is true and is not a human tradition? To say that the Bible is true because of what it says of itself internally is pure circular reasoning. Let me explain the logic this way: There are people who know that the Quran was dictated directly from heaven without any human intermediary because that is what the Quran says of itself. Therefore the Quran is sacred, coming from heaven, and any person who says anything against the Quran is committing blasphemy. It is the direct and immediate very Word of God - because it says it is. Another example: The Book of Mormon was dictated directly by an angel who came from heaven. We know this because it says so, therefore it is true. The Bible is likewise the Word of God because its writers say so. That is not proof, only a human claim. The list of books, the Canon, was decided on by humans over several centuries. The Roman Catholic Canon is different to the Protestant Canon, the Coptic Canon, the Ethiopian Canon and so on. The Septuagint is different to the Masoretic Text. There are several versions of the Septuagint (Old Greek, Theodotian, etc., etc., etc.) and the NT writers quoted from the full range and from some we no longer have. Of the Dead Sea Scroll, Only the Isaiah is close to our current versions; the other scrolls of Scripture are different to ours. The texts of say the NT differ from one another. Just look at the passages that the WTS's NWT omits because of unreliability. Some students of Lower (Form) Criticism have given up after many decades of study and research of any hope of recovering the original text. I rely on facts and evidence, not hope and wishes. Show me facts . You cannot quote the Bible as authoritative until you provide objective evidence from outside it. I could write inside my Studies that they are "Word of God" but that does not mean that they are. That would be pure circular reasoning. If you want to believe that some version and canon of the Bible has come to you from God, that is your right. But it is only "belief" . As for that statement from 2 John you provided -- those writers were making that claim for their own scroll only. A claim, nothing more. Doug  (Sunday Mar 22 | post #16)

Jehovah's Witness

Holy Scripture vs Oral Tradition

Little Lamb, Then why are there various canons? Why did the early Codices include writings that were later rejected? The WTS says that the Holy Spirit was incapable of even preserving the Tetragram in the NT so they had to do it. How do you know that the Holy Spirit is in charge of the canonisation process? The answer: Only through human Tradition, based on human assumption. Do you know the criteria that humans used to argue for a writing to be included as Scripture? The Thessalonians could not have known all of the Bible because the NT writings had not been written then (including the Gospels) nor had either the Jews or the Christians made any decision about any Canon. They heard Paul's gospel but that does not mean they knew anything about a Bible. It is pure circular reasoning to say that the Bible is God's Word because writings within the Bible say it is God's Word. How do you know that these words are not human tradition? Prove to me without resorting to human tradition, such as quoting from within the Bible, that the Bible is the Word of God. Surely people should worship God, not a book. Or are all people who do not read or completely comprehend the Bible going to be killed by God because of their failing? Doug  (Sunday Mar 22 | post #11)

Jehovah's Witness

Holy Scripture vs Oral Tradition

Aurelia, Everything you have reported IS tradition! If you accept what Aland wrote, then what is your view on the Nestle version? You will no doubt understand the relationship. Doug ================ Little Lamb, The Thessalonians accepted God's word but that does not mean they knew anything about a Bible. The Bible was neither written nor decided on when 1 Thessalonians was written. It did not exist at that time. Which version of the Hebrew Scriptures did the Thessalonians accept? Why do the Jews have fewer books in their Scriptures than Christians have in their Old Testament? How widely have you researched on the canonisation processes? Doug  (Sunday Mar 22 | post #9)

Jehovah's Witness

Holy Scripture vs Oral Tradition

Aurelia, I hope you have really read the works by Aland and James, rather than rely on the selective misuse by the Watchtower Society. Why did the WTS cite the early work by James rather than the later update by Elliott? Do you own these books, as I do? How widely do you read on the subject of the Biblical Canon? My own research on the Canon, which includes detailed reference to the "All Scripture" book, is available at: http://www.jwstudi es.com/Why_Does_WT S_Accept_Christend oms_Scriptures.pdf You comments are most welcome. My email address is available in the Study. Doug  (Sunday Mar 22 | post #6)

Jehovah's Witness

Holy Scripture vs Oral Tradition

People accept the Bible on the basis of tradition. They accept the list of books because of tradition. Only the Roman Catholic Church voted on the list of books that make up the Bible; they did that at the Council of Trent in the recent Middle Ages. The Protestant Church, whose Bible the Watchtower Society accepts, has never been voted on, but is accepted on the basis of tradition. There are several other Bibles, such as that accepted by the Ethiopian, Coptic and Orthodox Churches. The Christian Churches accept the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures (and was the dominant source for the New Testament writers) whereas the Jews accept the Masoretic Text and they reject the Septuagint. The early Codices included writings that are today considered apocryphal (Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.) Doug  (Saturday Mar 21 | post #2)

Seventh-day Adventist

Justified by Faith or by Works?

BibleOnly, Two major groups existed as soon as Paul came on the scene. Paul (from the Diaspora and based at Antioch) shows disdain for the leaders at Jerusalem (under James, along with Cephas and John). The people in Jerusalem were not familiar with Paul; they did not know his face, only his reputation. Paul says so. The people who wrote the Matthew Gospel were aligned with the Jerusalem sector, and their Gospel is certainly based on Judaism with their soteriology based on obedience (works). It would be interesting to compare Mark's Gospel (followers of Peter) with the amendments and additions introduced by the Matthew Gospel. Paul had his own philosophy (influenced by his Greek environment) which ultimately prevailed over the Jerusalem group (which most likely morphed into the Ebionites). Doug  (Thursday Mar 19 | post #11)

Jehovah's Witness

"Some standing here will not die until I return"

The probability is that the writers of the Matthew Gospel got it wrong. They were not eyewitnesses, so they did not hear what Jesus actually said. They relied on Mark's Gospel and on oral traditions that developed during the ensuing decades. The writer(s) of Revelation were also wrongly convinced that the "Coming" was "soon". Paul taught the people of Thessalonia that the coming was imminent, hence the people were very concerned when some of them died and the Coming had not taken place as promised. Paul replied "we who are still alive", fully expecting to be one of them. Paul was also wrong. During the passing centuries, people have been convinced that the Coming was imminent (Charles Wesley, Whiston, Miller, etc., etc.). Throughout the past centuries, and including our own, countless numbers have said they were the promised Messiah. They too have all been wrong. Doug  (Wednesday Mar 18 | post #3)

Jehovah's Witness

Examining 1931 WT--No Man's Opinion Expressed in the WT

Why does the Watchtower accept the Protestant Church's Bible, and the Canon selected by an "apostate " 4th century church? Doug  (Wednesday Mar 18 | post #22)

Q & A with Doug Mason

Hometown:

Melbourne, Australia

Blog / Website / Homepage:

http://www.jwstudies.com