Thanks for the Memorial glimpse Mary. Your report confirms that the wts is apparently obsessed with getting the number of partakers down to a level that they'd like to see. They've obviously been uncomfy with the numbers being reported over the past decade or two especially.
HOW ABOUT MENTIONING JESUS AT THE MEMORIAL!
by Mary 47 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Triple A
I am an outsider in that I have never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I have done alot of reading. It is my impression that after 1935 there was a slow movement, but a continual. In 1935 Jesus was the Messiah and the "Little Flock" were going to be Kings and Priest. But over the years Jesus seems to just be the first of the "Little Flock" and the "Annionted" all 144,000 are the Messiah. I know they never come out and say that, but everything that coming to Christ fellowship does for us is expressed as done by coming in to fellowship with the 144,000. Even the second question of baptism requires acknowledgement of the organization. So it would follow that their Memorial talk be praise of themselves. There is no lack of pride in themselves in their publications.
-
Leolaia
It's sad, isn't it? And what I don't understand is....if no one in the congregation is part of the 144,000, why have the Memorial in the first place? The purpose is to partake of the sacraments; the "do this" in "do this in remembrance of me" refers to eating the bread and drinking the wine, not to holding a talk about the 144,000 where wine and bread gets passed around without anyone doing what Jesus commanded. Really, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians, the "Memorial" happens when Christians get together, when the Body of Christ gets together, and partaking the bread is the Body becoming one with Christ through the bread "which is my body". But the way the Society has divided their group of "Christians" into the 144,000 (in reality around 8,000) and the million-or-so "other sheep", we can no longer have the Body of Christ getting together in each respective congregation expect perhaps Bethel and a few other places; they are far too scattered, and most congregations have just one or two or none at all. And so there is a gathering-together, but for the most part not of the ones (according to WT interpretation) commanded to partake in remembrance of Jesus. Theoretically, all the 8,000, er, 144,000 -- though scattered and isolated in different congregations -- would still obey the command individually in their own respective communities, but here is the kicker: if the Memorial is for those under the New Covenant, for them to "gather together", why are they instead gathering together with vast numbers of "other sheep" instead of their own kind? And why are "other sheep" gathering together if they are not even under the New Covenant and thus not even commanded to "do this" (that is, eat the bread and drink the wine) in remembrance of Jesus? It's almost like Elijah coming to your Seder .... members of the great crowd hold a big Memorial in a local congregation, lacking anyone of the "anointed", passing the wine and bread hoping maybe some anointed passerby showed up?
I like Nosferatu's suggestion.... If Jesus already came in 1914, there's no point in continuing this Memorial waiting for him -- he's here, he's present, he's reigning as king, though of course he is still waiting for his 1,000 year reign to start, tho he was enthroned in 1914.
Then the inevitable John 3:16 where it talkes about "exercising faith" with HUGE emphasis on the word "exercising" and how this can ONLY be done through Jehovah's Witnesses. He compared it to physical exercise which I thought interesting because with that sort of logic, it would mean that there was ONLY ONE right gym in the whole world where you could get the correct exercise
What bullcrap....the actual word translated "exercise faith" is pistueo "believe", and so the Society has exploded a simple matter of believing in Christ into an unending series of works on the basis of one's faith; translating pistueo in this way in Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:22 pretty much destroys Paul's argument that justification lies in faith in Christ and not works. This whole exercising in a gym thing is building on something that is not part of the Bible in the first place.
-
Room 215
Leolaia,
The ``gym thing" as you put it, is a most apt comparison; the busiest JWs are as proud of their ``return visits," ``hours" and ``placements" etc. as gym rats are of their ``reps," ``six-pack abs,'' ``ripped biceps," etc.
If it's an exercise of anything, it's of futility, not faith!
-
plmkrzy
about the number of arch-angels. This would be based on beyond the Hebrew scriptures as far as I know. Not sure.
After the return and the healing of the blindness of the elder Tobias, Azarias makes himself known as "the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord" (Tob., xii, 15. Cf. Apoc., viii, 2). Of these seven "archangels" which appear in the angelology of post-Exilic Judaism, only three, Gabriel, Michael and Raphael, are mentioned in the canonical Scriptures. The others, according to the Book of Enoch (cf. xxi) are Uriel, Raguel, Sariel, and Jerahmeel, while from other apocryphal sources we get the variant names Izidkiel, Hanael, and Kepharel instead of the last three in the other list.
I will "assume" Raphael is Satan
-
NewYork44M
I attended the memorial. As usual, the message of the talk was "we are passing this stuff around but you better damn well not eat or drink any of it."
A comment at the end really bothered me. The speaker read the scripture about Jesus being able to summons legions of angels. He then went into depth about how a single angel can kill 180,000 people and that based upon that calculation the angels could kill 20 billion people. I think he really enjoyed making the point. This falls in line with the theme of the bible that is adopted by the wt (and many other religions): Jesus died so that he could kill 99.9 percent of the population at Armageddon…..Somehow I don't think that was Jesus' message.
-
Leolaia
Daniel never outright identifies Michael with the Son of Man figure ("one who is like a son of man"), but it definitely implies this when we compare the various visions together which all relate the same thing: the destruction of the Seleucid kingdom by the coming Messiah, who will establish a kingdom that will last forever (cf. Daniel 2:41-45; 7:14, 18; 8:11, 25; 9:26-27; 11:45-12:3). In Daniel 12:1, Michael is designated as the "great prince" (hsr hgdwl) who resists the forces of the "king of the North" (the Seleucid king), who "stands up" (an idiom meaning "begin ruling as king"), and ushers in the eternal Messianic kingdom and resurrection of the dead (v. 3-4). The description of Michael as "mounting guard over your people" in 12:1, in the midst of a description of the war between the king of the North and the king of the South (cf. 11:40-45), the mention of "Michael your prince" as supporting the "fight against the prince of Persia" and the "prince of Javan" (10:21), and "Michael one of the leading princes" is described in 10:13-14 as "confronting the kings of Persia". This sugests that the angelic "prince" (hsr) bearing the name of Michael leads the military fight against the nations persecuting the Jews. Now consider 8:10-11 which refers to the Seleucid king as challenging "the armies of heaven" and flinging "armies and stars" to the ground, and "even challenging the power of the army's Prince (sr-hzb')". Since Michael is elsewhere described as having this role (cf. 10:21), it is thus important to note that the "army's Prince" is later called the "Prince of Princes (sr-srym)" in 8:25 -- an epithet that is reminiscent of "Prince of the kings of the earth" in Revelation 1:5. Now, as for the Son of Man figure, he is described as a heavenly (i.e. angelic) figure "coming on the clouds of heaven", who was also part of God's heavenly court (Daniel 7:10, 13). The "coming" of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is paralleled by the "Prince (sr) who will come" and "the coming of an anointed (ms'ch) Prince" in 9:25-26. Now, the Son of Man figure is "conferred sovereignty, glory, and kingship" in 7:14, and in 12:1 Michael is the one who "stands up" ('md), an idiom that repeatedly in Daniel refers to beginning one's kingship (cf. 8:22-23; 11:2-3, 20, 21). And the books of judgment are mentioned in connection with Michael in 12:1-2 and with the Son of Man figure and the Ancient of Days in 7:10-13 (cf. Revelation 20:12). So there is a general equivalence between the Son of Man figure who "comes" in kingship, the "Messiah the Prince" who also "comes" in kingship, and Michael who "stands up" in kingship.
A very similar role can be found for Michael in the War Scroll (first century B.C.), who is appointed to combat and subdue the "prince of the realm of wickedness", in a divine war that comes very close to the struggle described in Daniel 11-12:
"You appointed the Prince of Light from of old to assist us, for in his lot are all the sons of righteousness and all sprits of truth are in his dominion....Today is God's appointed time to subdue and to humiliate the prince of the realm of wickedness. He will send eternal support to the company of his redeemed by the power of his majestic angel of the authority of Michael. By eternal light he shall joyfully light up the covenant of Israel -- peace and blessing for the lot of God -- to exalt the authority of Michael among the gods and dominion of Israel among all flesh. (War Scroll, 1QM 13:10; 17:5-8)
The "book of Similitudes" of 1 Enoch, on the other hand, distinguishes the Son of Man "whose face was like that of a human being and his countenance was full of grace like one of the holy angels" and who would "depose kings and mighty ones from their thrones" from Michael, who is one of the four archangels blessing the Lord of Spirits (40:4, 9; 41:1-5). Revelation designates Michael as the commander of the heavenly hosts in 12:7, but distinguishes him from the Messiah who "rules all the nations with an iron sceptre" (12:5). The Jewish expectation of an angelic deliverer (as attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls) undoubtedly contributed to the early belief of Jesus Christ as an angel, a view that Hebrews 1:1-14 is designed to refute. The synoptic gospels characterize Jesus as the "Son of Man", utilizing the motifs in Daniel 7 as did 1 Enoch, but do not go so far as identify him with Michael. So while Michael and the Son of Man figure are likely one and the same within Daniel, this does not mean that the gospel writers conceived of the Son of Man in the same way.
-
plmkrzy
Kinda like in ancient days when a boy reaches manhood his name is changed/given to him by his king. Why there are so many characters in the Hebrew scriptures with 2 different names, given name at birth by parent then given name at adulthood by king/owner/ruler/boss