by oompa 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
One question, in the mind of a JW, is the NT written only to the anointed?
Primarily, but the "other sheeps" are like the "little dogs" that get to eat crumbs from the table of their master.
In other words, it gives them a foolproof solution for all their mind control needs - anything in the NT that conflicts with their teachings is "for the anointed, so don't worry about it", and anything that they can use to manipulate their followers is "inspired of god and beneficial for teaching".
Geez, I kept waiting to hear of even one woman who would admit to reading on the toilet. I guess that would require women to admit they-dare I say it?-- defecate.
I admit it. I do more than pee on the toilet. And I read. You do the math. I admit it-I multitask.
*raises hand*
I got a new invention watchtower toilet paper ! LOL
Another perfect example of Watchtower double speak.
The article never technically says that Jesus used the name Jehovah, it says he used the Divine name, which is probably true. To the casual JW reader though it means that Jesus did use the name Jehovah because they've been conditioned to think that the Divine name is Jehovah.
undercover...what the picture caption says is bad enough isn't it?.....there is not a single scripture where jesus the diving name in ANY form in prayer or anywere else!....even wt admits that the way it was pronounced was not jehovah, but probably something like yehowah, or yahwea....it is in some publications, but the best place to see that is in the forward of the 1950 NWT, it said it only used jehovah in the NWT "because of peoples familiarity with the name for centuries"........oompa
The caption and article are misleading, thus it can be said that it's dishonest, I agree. But this is one of those arguments that you'll never be able to win against a believing JW (as you already experienced).
To a JW, Jehovah is God's name and Jesus prayed to his God Jehovah by name. Most JWs seemed to have missed where the Society admitted that "Jehovah" is not the correct prounouncitian. The Society glazed over that admission while on the way to bolstering up their claim that "Jehovah" is acceptable and most JWs eyes were glazed over as they read that material. All they remember is that Jehovah is God's name.
JWs can quote scriptures that says Jesus admonished people to pray in God's name and to make His name known. That is all they need to know to believe as they do. Any information contradicting that belief is wrong or apostate. Logic, reason and actual proof don't mean a thing to someone who already has their mind made up on how to believe.
It's frustrating as hell, I know, but sometimes it's better to just keep quiet and allow them their beliefs until they're more open minded about it.
i think it is perfectly conceivable for a child to make his/her father's name known without disrespectfully using his given (christian!) name . or calling him by that name when addressing him.
Very few JW's actually read the magazines.
After 20 years I can admit I have probably read one from front to back, maybe! The ONLY reason the JW's have any idea what they are about is because in every JW house in the land, in the bathroom you will find the WT and Awake. I have read the bible, and it nourished my mind and spiritual endeavour, I find the magazines tedious. Its a testament to the strength of Gods Word over Mans.
Something I found frustrating towards the end were questions or comments from readers that were so obviously contrived. Or examples or experiences that again were so far from reality were obviously made up my a middle aged clueless man.
As for the Tetrogramaton, at an earl age i stumbled on some information in an encarta. I felt naughty reading it and I kept going back and reading it again and again. It said the name Jehovah is a misunderstanding of a phrase entered into biblical text in reference to how holy God is. I.e. it wasnt a name it was a hallowed reference such as 'he that is God'.
I spoke to a hebrew scholar about this only last week, now im in university i have access to such people. He said it is very much a mis-translation and a very well known one, it was humerous to him. He even laughed at how the letter J was the most recent letter in the English language and that if one thing could be assured.... Gods name is NOT Jehovah. He then went into the hebrew and bascially agreed with the sentiments of the encarta.
Of interest he felt very passionate about another translation that is incorrect in the NWT, Jesus reffering to his mother as 'Woman'. (at the wedding feast). This is a complete misunderstanding. The word Jesus used is translated into a beautiful honourary word. This always confused me. We spoke for hours about the bible and its translation. There were other things like Christ being a GREEK word and therefore 100% not used in Jesus's day. He was reffered to as Messiah, never as Christ.
I cant remember our discussion it went on for hours. But it assured me Im making the right decision in asking questions.
Something I found frustrating towards the end were questions or comments from readers that were so obviously contrived. Or examples or experiences that again were so far from reality were obviously made up my a middle aged clueless man.
I remember towards the end of my meeting attendance when I had started researching on my own outside of WT publications. Sitting through a WT study was so tedious and boring. I used to think that I had a problem because I couldn't focus on the material. What I didn't realize for a long time was that it wasn't meant to instruct, it was meant to indoctrinate thus the mind-numbing meetings.
When I started to realize this, I started spotting inconsisitencies and down right contradictions. I remember spending one entire WT study comparing one study article to next week's in the same magazine and seeing several instances of contrived meanings to the scriptures and where one article contradicted the other. It was so obvious to anyone who actually would take the time to compare and use critical thinking. But since JWs are androids who just sit there and absorb the material without thinking, rarely does one see these inconsistencies.
This article that oompa is talking about is one of these type of indoctrinating articles. Compare it with what's in other articles and you can spot the contradictions and fallacies. But read it alone and without verification and one can come away with the exact belief the Society meant for you to take away.
These maagazine were really meant for exactly the scenerio that oompa was in...read to occupy your mind while not really studying it, lay it down when you're done after a few minutes, retain that thought and don't research it further. It makes you feel good that you read an entire article about something Biblical in the time that it took to take a shit and you go on about your day thinking that you've earned a degree in Biblical history when all you've really done is taken in the same amount of shit that you just deposited.
Undercover,
That's the best analysis I've seen in a long time!
