Lex Talionis
Let the battle begin...Bring it on.
scholar JW
Watchtower Comments THE GENERATION CHANGE Featuring LEOLAIA
by V 221 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
fresia
fresia,
You employ the tactics of most politicians, that is NNPP
Neutralize the negative, promote the positive.
The WT society has recently changed their policy and now it is in line with that of the current policy of the catholic church and most secular organizations. FACT.
I have been in many congregations where abuse was covered over by elders acting on instruction and whilst in BETHEL witnessed the way it was handled in the legal department.
I have seen elders encourage others to say nothing to protect the reputation of the WT.
This is not apostate propaganda, it is fact.
I have seen it, have you?
We are at war.
You are my enemy.No one said their wasn't SOME truth in what opposer's or apostates say...the point is that this problem is and has been addressed. What do you want the elders or society to say, such and such is know to have been guilty of child molestation, we believe he is repentant. What the...
The problem here is that it is a broad scope, if it was with a teenager under sixteen and over twelve that is wicked enough, but a child molester of someone that is under the pubery age is indeed still sicker. We don't know the circumstances of it all. And I am sure the elders don't know it all either, they can only go by what has been reported or said, they are not mind readers. Maybe he was repentant and then disfellowshiped for something else.
But he was disfellowshiped and you seem to over look that. They can never be in a position of trust ever, all privileges have been taken away, that is a sign to the congregation in itself that the person is a problem. The rest is up to Jehovah.
And I don't care if I am your enemy. There is far to much suffering in this world to be worried if I have your approval.
-
Lex Talionis
Fresia,
You are now doing the three step, Minimise, Justify, Shift.
1. minimise
"No one said their wasn't SOME truth"
2. Justify
"they are not mind readers"
3. Shift.
"We don't know the circumstances of it all."
The WT has created a flawed internal justice system based partly on Mosaic law and partly misapplied NT scriptures, as a DIRECT result they have created an environment whereby evil humans can "hide".
RS was one such man, he is now in Jail and convicted of child abuse.
He moved from congreagtion A to congregation B abusing multiple boys along the way, no one said a thing until it was too late. This is an old story I know but not unique.
He was privately reproved confidentially and re offended before someone had the strength to go to the police.
Now the WT cannot be responsible for the child abuse, RS is, but he was indirectly protected by a flawed internal justice system.
If you cannot see that it is you that has been blinded by Satan. -
fresia
thats what you say.....
I dont really give a rats what you assume is truth.
-
fresia
Doesn't' really change anything. fighting about the rights and wrongs of this organization. What is true is what they say from the bible.
-
TopHat
fresia? I would like to know what the child protection policy is, in the Kingdom Halls. What are the Governing Body doing about pedophiles in the organization?
-
Leolaia
I have some comments about pseudo-scholar's disingenuous and insulting comments here:
Your exegesis of the subject of the Parousia and the Generation is dishonest whereupon you claim without evidence that parousia means 'coming' and not presence.
Anyone who has read the essay knows that I took special care to not only explain the semantics involved but also to provide evidence from the usage of parousia showing that the word was not only used to express a state of presence but the event that brings about this state. I supplied specific examples and gave some discussion of the semantics of parousia in these examples. I then examined the context of Matthew 24 and presented evidence from the context itself that bears on the meaning of parousia in the passage. Whether or not he agrees with my conclusions or my interpretation of the evidence, it cannot be said that I made my claims without evidence. That is dishonest of him to say so, and it is malicious of him to then claim that on that basis I was being dishonest.
In blondie's thread, he also wrote this:
Her article contains many assumptions and flaws and is a dishonest attempt to rewrite or substitute the meaning of parousia as 'coming' rather than 'presence' for apostates hate the simple fact that this Greek word means presence and not coming.... parousia means 'presence' in not just Modern Greek but also in the Koine and Classical Greek and this is where Leolaia's nonsense and that of other apostates fails because it is based on a lie. Apostates want to rewrite the Greek Lexicons as they have this crazy notion that parousia means 'coming'.
Here he clearly insinuates that the semantics of parousia EXCLUDES the meaning of "coming" (e.g. "this Greek word means presence and not coming") and he implies that Greek lexicons would bear this out, for he says that "apostates" of the JWs wish they could rewrite the lexicons to make them say that parousia could mean "coming". He knows fully well, as he later admitted, that lexicons do indeed state that parousia may mean "coming" or "arriving" in addition to "presence", which is precisely the view I expressed in my essay (i.e. parousia means both "being present" and "becoming present"). Apparently, it is not just the "apostates" who have the "crazy notion" that parousia may signal an act of coming or arrival:
A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (Robinson 1850):
A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell & Scott 1885):
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel 1972):
A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Abbott-Smith 1999):
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Balz 2003):
Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Friberg & Friberg 2005):
And yet, despite what pseudo-scholar just said about "coming" not being part of the meaning of parousia and not belonging in the Greek lexicons, when he was pressed on the issue he went right ahead and asserted that parousia may in fact mean "arrival" (i.e. the punctual event that ushers in the presence, and regardless of what the word may mean in Matthew 24, and he definitely maintains that it does not mean "arrival" or "coming" in this context), even noting that it is listed in lexicons with the meanings of "coming" and "arrival":
Certainly 'arrival' is far better than 'coming' as it approximates that locative aspect inherent in the word 'presence' Coming is simply momentary rather than the static sense conveted by 'being present'. However, all Greek Lexicons give 'presence' as a primary meaning and 'arrival' or 'coming' as secondary meanings for parousia. Theological dictionaries call attention to the Technical Meaing of parousia when applied to the arrival or coming of a royal personage on a visit which of course terms such as 'coming' or 'arrival' are usually applied.
Which of course was my position in my original post, that "coming" or "arriving" is a perfectly normal sense of parousia in Greek (although it is not true that non-stative parousia is necessarily a nominalized achievement verb rather than an accomplishment verb, see my example from Josephus, Vita 90, where parousia is durative and refers to someone en route, i.e. "coming" but not yet "present"). Both "coming" and "arriving" are aspectually non-stative and telic; they signal a change of STATE from absence to presence. I gave examples from Josephus to illustrate this in my original essay but one could cite many other examples in the Greek literature:
Polybius, Historiae 3.41: "The condition and course of Celtic affairs from the very beginning up until (heós) the coming (parousian) of Hannibal were such as I have narrated here and in the previous book....Hannibal, however, who had bribed some of the Celts and forced others to give him passage, suddenly came (héke) with his army at the crossing of the Rhone, having marched with the Sardinian Sea on his right. Publius, when the arrival (parousias) of the enemy was reported to him, being partly incredulous owing to the cupidity of their advance and partly desirous of ascertaining the exact truth sent out three hundred of his bravest cavalry" (i.e. in the first passage, the parousia of Hannibal marks the ENDPOINT of the period narrated in the previous book, as telic heós "until" indicates, and the second instance is paralleled with the verb for "come" and indicates a sudden and unexpected arrival of Hannibal in the country, the non-stative event that changed the STATE of affairs for Publius and his men).
Diodorus Sicilus, Bibliotheca 1.29.2-3: "They also mention the coming (parousian) of the goddess herself into Attica (eis tén Attikén) at a time when in her name grain and fruit were taken away, such that it seemed as if she had again renewed the germination of seed as she had done in the beginning. Likewise the Athenians themselves confess that it was in the reign of Erechtheus, when the drought had destroyed all the fruit of the earth, when Demeter came to them (egeneto parousia pros autous) and gave them grain" (i.e. the parousia of the goddess Ceres and the parousia of the god Demeter are here both depicted as non-stative advents INTO Attica and Athens and which changed the STATE of affairs, e.g. renewing cultivation and ending a famine).
Alexander Polyhistor, 9.21.18: "It is said that Joseph was in Egypt for 39 years and from Adam until Joseph's brothers came (eiselthein) into Egypt there were 3,624 years, and from the Flood until (heós) Jacob's coming (parousias) into Egypt (eis Aigupton) there were 1,360 years" (i.e. the parousia or "coming" of Jacob INTO Egypt is clearly described as an event that is an ENDPOINT of a period of time; it is not the duration of Jacob's sojourn in Egypt that is referred to here but his non-stative arrival in Egypt, and the word parousia is paralleled with the verb for "come" in the previous clause).
2 Maccabees 8:12: "When news reached Judas of Nicanor's advance (ephodou), he notified his companions of the approach (parousian) of the army, whereupon the fainthearted and those who lacked confidence in the justice of God took to their heels and ran away" (i.e. the news concerned a change in the state of affairs, such that the army had not already been in a STATE of being present but was in the process of "becoming present", allowing some to flee before it was too late).
Testament of Judah 22:2: "My rule shall be terminated by men of alien race, until (heós) the salvation of Israel comes (elthein), until (heós) the coming (parousias) of the God of righteousness, so that Jacob may enjoy tranquility and peace, as well as all the nations" (i.e. the termination of Judah's rule is a STATE that lasts UNTIL the parousia of God, which changes the state of affairs; the use of heós indicates that parousia is non-stative and punctual instead of stative, and the parallelism with the non-stative verb for "come" confirms this).
Hermas, Parable 5.2, 5: "A certain man had a field and many slaves and in a part of the field he planted a vineyard. And as he was going away on a journey, he chose a certain slave who was reliable, respected and honest and called him over to him and said, 'Take his vineyard which I have planted and fence it in until (heós) I return (erkhomai)' ... Some time later, the master of the slave and the field returned (élthen), and he went to the vineyard ... The field is this world and the lord of the field is he who created all things and perfected them ... and the absence of the master is the time remaining until (heós) his coming (parousian)" (i.e. the parousia of the master is here non-stative, for it is the event that ENDS a period of absence as heós "until" shows, and it is corresponds plainly to the return of the master in the parable, which is designated by the usual verb meaning "come").
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 31.1: "But if such a great power came following the dispensation of his suffering [on the cross], how much greater will be the one following his glorious coming (parousiai)! For he will come forth (eleusetai) on the clouds as the Son of Man as Daniel foretold, and his angels will go forth (aphiknoumenón) with him" (i.e. the parousia of Christ is characterized as an event that changes the STATE of affairs, for it ushers in a new bestowal of great power, and it is characterized not as a stative PRESENCE but as a non-stative coming, with two verbs for "coming forth" being used).
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 49.2-3: "The written word should urge you to admit that two advents (duo parousiai) of Christ were predicted to occur, one in which he would appear (phanésetai) without loveliness as someone dishonored and suffering, and another in which he would come forth (eleusetai) in glory as the Judge of all men. Should we not then suppose that the word of God prophesied that Elijah would foreshadow the great and fearsome day that is Christ's second advent (deuteras parousias)? ... Thus our Lord taught and proclaimed that this would in fact occur, saying that Elijah would come forth (eleusesthai), and we know that this will indeed come to pass when our Lord Jesus Christ draws near (paraginesthai) in glory from heaven" (i.e. the parousia is referred to as the moment when Christ "comes forth" and would be preceded by Elijah "coming forth", such that Elijah would be a sign that Jesus was drawing near -- not yet "present" but that he would "become present" soon; it is also compared to the "first advent" of Christ when he "appeared" as a lowly man, the event that fulfilled what had previously been "predicted to occur" in the "written word").
Epistula Ecclesiarum apud Lugdunum et Viennam, 1.8: "And at length, being brought to the forum by the tribune of the soldiers, and the magistrates that had charge of the city, they were examined in presence of the whole multitude, and having confessed, they were shut up in prison until (heós) the arrival (parousias) of the governor" (i.e. the parousia of the governor is the non-stative event that, as heós indicates, ends STATE of the Christians being confined in prison).
And of course, one would be amiss not to note that parousia was translated in Latin not only by praesentia "presence" but also by adventus "arrival, coming" (indeed, in the Latin Vulgate adventus was used 21 times and praesentia 3 times to render parousia). In short, as these examples and as the lexicons show, parousia can refer to states (i.e. x [PRESENT]) as well as changes in state (i.e. x [become PRESENT]), with the latter altering a previous durative state or activity. An "arrival" is the event that changes a pre-existing state of absence, as "arrive" is semantically an achievement verb. "Coming" is similar, except that as an accomplishment verb it may be durative with emphasis on the process, i.e. the journey involved in "coming" PRIOR to the start of the presence, as in Josephus, Vita 90, "I took two hundred men along with me and travelled all night, having sent beforehand a messenger to let the people of Tiberias know that I was coming to them (propempsas aggelon ton tén emén parousian tois en téi Tiberiadi sémanounta)". And the English word "coming" is also not necessarily durative, as one could "come" suddenly and quickly as well, so both terms can be appropriate for parousia depending on the context.
So what is the lie that he accuses me of here?
"Parousia means 'presence' in not just Modern Greek but also in the Koine and Classical Greek and this is where Leolaia's nonsense and that of other apostates fails because it is based on a lie" (pseudo-scholar).
Whereas what I said in my original essay was this: "pa-rou-si'a can be used to express both states (being present) and changes in state (becoming present, i.e. coming, arriving)". Is that true or is it not? I never denied that the word means "presence", I only said that it doesn't ONLY mean presence (a fact not mentioned in the Watchtower article I was critiquing). If I was fair in my characterization, then pseudo-scholar's insulting comment is itself a lie.
And if all the above misrepresentations aren't enough, he then goes and says this:
Further she is mistaken in her treatment of syntelia that it does not have a durative aspect thus mixing it with the releated word telos.
How in the world could he say this when I very clearly stated in my original essay: "While the conclusion of a talk is a section of appropriate length, no such implication is necessary with syn-te'lei-a; depending on the situation, an ending could be sudden and abrupt or drawn out over a duration". Who is he fooling? Anyone who has read my essay can see that in fact I do say that it has a durative aspect, depending on the context and circumstances. And I said nothing about telos so it is yet another distortion of the facts to say that I was mixing sunteleia up with telos.
Anyway, all of this is to show that he who is so quick to lash out accusations of dishonesty should instead take a closer look at what emanates from his own mouth (or keyboard).
-
TD
For starters, there is no evidence of wide reading or research, there is no use of Lexica, Commentaries or Journal articles.....
That's about the level of criticism you would expect from a 'scholar' who cannot coherently string two sentences together in ancient Greek, (Any dialect) if his life depended on it.
-
Lex Talionis
Scholar, the most ubiquitous of posters.
One could almost conclude you are a posse, indeed the amount of self lionizing you participate in almost proves it.
Whether you are one, or many I find you quite an irascible and boastful bully.
One wonders however, are you an indolent witness or do you set the lead as a "pillar" of the congregation.
Has the congregation bestowed any title on you or are you a self appointed "Scholar"?
This question is only asked in order to establish your "spiritual maturity".
Are you a "gift in Men"? Are you an appointed member of the servant body?
For if the answer is no, one must conclude that the Watchtower does not approve of you and finds you somewhat malapropos?
Pray tell my little philomath. -
slimboyfat
Leolaia,
You wrote:
Hi slimboyfat....Thanks for your comments, and you offer some good criticism of how I expressed myself towards the end, which could probably have been better phrased (after all, I spent all last weekend writing the thing, and I was ready at that point to finish it and send it off), although I was commenting more on the Society's behavior in the 20th century than the situation in early Christianity (with a rather abrupt transition from writing as exegete to writing as critic of Watchtower policy). And while I am not a believer in any usual sense of the word, and certainly have no "faith" per se, I still derive a genuine spiritual appreciation for the whole gamut of early Jewish and Christian thought -- including the eschatological dimension. More to the point, I was speaking more to the middle ground between having no eschatology whatsoever and an "ultra-imminent expectation". From personal life experience, I feel that the latter can be unhealthy for the reasons I stated. But its alternative is not necessarily letting go of any hope of the things expected. Sure, that is possible too, but many have still maintained the hope while not being dogmatic on how soon its realization is supposed to be. I'm not entirely sure of the situation in contemporary SDAism but my impression is that they still very much expect the tribulation and millennium but are not dogmatic (as their forbearers used to be in the early to mid-1800s) on how long the "probation period" is supposed to last. My criticism was directed at the Watchtower position throughout the 20th century that insisted dogmatically on the basis of a false date (1914) that Armageddon was at most just a few years away, and thus strongly recommended JWs at various times to forego long-range planning, education, marriage, etc. I do think the Society is in a transition phase right now and may be backing away from such dogmatism, and the new "generation change" -- while exegetically unsound -- is possibly a step in that direction.
You make an interesting point about Seventh Day Adventists having perhaps a healthier eschatological outlook than the Witnesses; and fascinating comments about the generation change being possibly indicative of a transition away from dogmatic apocalypticism. It reminds me of a couple of articles on the subject I wonder if you have had a chance to read before. The first study by Ronald Lawson explores reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses remained sectarian in character while Adventists became more mainstream in their relations with the state during the 20th century. I think it was Niebuhr who observed that sects tend to become mainstream denominations within a generation or two. Bryan Wilson noted that this had not been the case with Jehovah's Witnesses however, and suggested a new category of 'established sect' for groups that had managed to retain sectarian characteristics such as tension with society and apocalyptic expectation for more than a couple of generations. There is also another interesting study comparing Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists in Cuba that examines the church-sect model. If you have got more observations about why you feel Jehovah's Witnesses are finally beginning to move away from an "ultra-imminent expectation" perspective I would be really interested to hear it.
I am really impressed by your gracious response to my rather tart criticism of your review of the Watchtower. I don't often invest much time or energy in writing for this or other forums but I am motivated by your consideration of what I wrote to take some time here. In that spirit can I offer a further, I feel more substantial criticism of your review? At the same time I want to restate that I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and of course it displayed an excellent breadth of knowledge and economy of expression.
I think scholar is rude and shallow in a lot of his criticism, but I can't help but feel he has a point when he complains about your presentation of some disputed issues as though they were settled. He has already claimed that more of an argument can be made for parousia meaning presence in Matt 24, and JCanon has taken you to task about the Jesus/Michael issue. Another one I noticed was where you actually agreed with JWs about the meaning of the phrase "the Kingdom of God is in your midst". I don't know much about this issue but from what I gather there does seem to be some reasonable dispute concerning its meaning. So my further criticism of your review it would be that you are needlessly dogmatic about some issues where you could instead have pointed up differences of scholarly opinion. This is actually a more serious failing than it first appears.
When I was personally in the process of realising that the Witnesses were wrong I think my personal transition was actually stunted by reading a lot of Evangelical literature that attempted to supplant one set of dogmatic claims (i.e. what the Witnesses teach about scripture) for other equally dogmatic claims over the same material. I couldn't help but notice that often reasonable arguments could be made either way. (Over the Jesus/Michael issue for instance: I think there is a bit more room for the Witness side of the argument than perhaps you allow) So it was with absolute relief that I discovered the genre of liberal academic literature on early Christianity which was much more open to acknowledging competing interpretations and possibilities. This strikes at the heart of what I feel is the major failing in your review: that you apparently felt the need to offer a comprehensive, complete and authoritative alternative account of the meaning of Matt 24. For in order to maintain that position you unfortunately fall into some of the same traps that Jehovah's Witnesses themselves do, such as failing to mention major objections to points of interpretation and being needlessly insistant about the necessity of accepting one meaning for a particular word over another and so on. I believe this betrays a misunderstanding of the best way to combat the Witness worldview that may unwittingly actually reinforce Witnesses in their dogmatism as the scholar-type response exemplifies. I really feel that the best thing to say to a Witness is not that their interpretation of a particular point (say the "coming/presence" issue) is definitely wrong, and that 'this is the authoritative alternative account that everyone accepts'. The problem with that approach is that they are almost always able to go away and locate at least some support for their position in the academic literature (Edgar Foster wrote an interesting defence of parousia as "presence" drawing upon linguistic reference sources for instance in his essay in Your Word is Truth). So at once your claim to have offered a completely satisfactory alternative is undermined, and the Witness can feel the Watchtower interpretation vindicated. I would therefore suggest that a better approach is always simply to make explicit the alternative possibilities, even be generous where possible to Watchtower interpretations, and acknowledge the tremendous scope and variety of differences of scholarly opinion. In the long run nothing undermines the totalising worldview of Jehovah's Witnesses so successfully as the realisation that no single interpretation can claim absolute authority such as the Watchtower claims for itself. There are always other possibilities, room for discussion and degrees of certainty. By offering an uncompromising alternative interpretation you may simply succeed in confirming a JW in his belief that full-proof interpretations are attainable while failing to dissuade them over the particular issue at hand: a double failure. However if you can manage to get a Witness to appreciate the beauty of complexity and diversity in interpretations of all sorts (not just the Bible neither, I am talking about life in general here) you will furnish him with a perspective that at once strikes at the foundation of the worldview that claims to provide the total truth from a single source (the "faithful and discreet slave") and equips him to approach all future matters of interpretation that may arise with a more realistic expectation as to the degree of certainty that available evidence is often able to deliver.
Slim
