i was stalking to a jw today about her recent experience on the carts and with being a jw generally.
until this conversation i considered the carts as just an ineffective preaching method and a harmless waste of time.
but now i wonder if the effect of the carts might be to produce noticeable decline in jw numbers.
'So conversations with other jws are worse than talking to non-jws? So I wonder if they will have 1st century Christians using carts?'.
The cover of the next WT will have Peter and Paul walking around Jerusalem with a cart full of the Hebrew Scriptures with Paul's notes in the margins...
https://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/2015-ewhc-1722-qb.pdfjust had a look at this 2015 legal judgement.
one of a number of things that caught my eye was the statement in (11) that "the organisational structure of jehovahs witnesses is modelled on first century christianity as described in the bible".er, hardly.
try acts 2: 44-45"all the believers were together and had everything in common.
CalebInFloroda
You are doing a WT special here, i.e, reading something into the text that simply is not there.You say:'Luke 14.25-33 is a series of hyperboles.
'Jesus is not demanding a literal application of verse 33 otherwise he would be asking to literally hate their parents...'.
WRONG!
I suggest you read http://jesusmyth.net/christianhypocrisy.html on my website.
Your second sentence reminds me of a rambling disjointed JW 'explanation', leap-frogging from one verse/subject to another.
Acts 2:44f says having things in common was the practice of the early church - there is no mention anywhere in Acts that this was only related to Jewish Christians or was torah-related and did not apply to Gentile believers. Selling property and giving this over to the church was an obligation on the first Christians as Acts 2: 44-45 and 5: 1-10 testifies.
When Annas and Sapphira failed to hand over all the proceeds of their property sale, why does Peter not mention the law when he condemns them? He does not simply because this was not the reason why the Christians sold their possessions and handed over the proceeds to the church.
In the case of Matt 5, surely if Jesus had 'really meant' 'Be as cooperative as you can', he would have said that? The whole statement in Matt 5:38-42 is one instruction after another to be absolutely passive in all things even if taken to the extreme (including giving up wealth when asked) and confirms the poverty demonstrated by Jesus (e.g., Matt 8:20) and the apostles (Matt 10:9-10).
https://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/2015-ewhc-1722-qb.pdfjust had a look at this 2015 legal judgement.
one of a number of things that caught my eye was the statement in (11) that "the organisational structure of jehovahs witnesses is modelled on first century christianity as described in the bible".er, hardly.
try acts 2: 44-45"all the believers were together and had everything in common.
To: The Searcher.
How on earth can you argue that 'Christians were never instructed to take on a life of poverty, only to get their priorities in life right', when, as stated, Luke 14:33 says:
"Therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions".
You claim 'The Greek word - and very likely Jesus' usage of it - seems to refer to a person's attachment/love of possessions'.
Check your facts. Jesus would have spoken ARAMAIC not Koine Greek! Furthermore, you, in just this one sentence, say 'very likely' and 'seems'. You appear to be wonderfully vague.
And finally, while claiming Jesus (speaking Greek according to you!) would not have asked his followers to take on a life of poverty (in fact Luke 14:33 does not say that, but rather, they should abandon their possessions, e.g., homes), you actually admit the Greek word used means to forsake or separate from, which means to abandon!
Sheeesh!
https://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/2015-ewhc-1722-qb.pdfjust had a look at this 2015 legal judgement.
one of a number of things that caught my eye was the statement in (11) that "the organisational structure of jehovahs witnesses is modelled on first century christianity as described in the bible".er, hardly.
try acts 2: 44-45"all the believers were together and had everything in common.
https://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/2015-ewhc-1722-qb.pdf
Just had a look at this 2015 legal judgement. One of a number of things that caught my eye was the statement in (11) that
"The organisational structure of Jehovah’s Witnesses is modelled on first century Christianity as described in the bible".
Er, hardly. Try Acts 2: 44-45
"All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need".
Also in Luke 14:33, Jesus is reported to have said:
"Therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions".
And just one more example. In Matt 5:42, Jesus is reported to have instructed:
"Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you".
Do JWs do any of these as a regular feature of their faith?
interesting article by matt marinelli on:.
http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/doing-the-right-think-900.html.
Interesting article by Matt Marinelli on:
http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/doing-the-right-think-900.html
this lengthy article was in yesterday's 'guardian', a national uk newspaper.
(comments following thearticle are interesting!):.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/jehovahs-witnesses-evangelism-church-god-armageddon.
And the JWs just aren't knocking on the doors anymore.
But also, in the UK, it's also that an increasing number of people dion't answer their door any more as its invariably someone trying to extract money from you, or sell you something, or get you involved in something. I simply don't answer my door these days when it's not a pre-arranged call.
this lengthy article was in yesterday's 'guardian', a national uk newspaper.
(comments following thearticle are interesting!):.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/jehovahs-witnesses-evangelism-church-god-armageddon.
This lengthy article was in yesterday's 'Guardian', a national UK newspaper. (Comments following thearticle are interesting!):
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/jehovahs-witnesses-evangelism-church-god-armageddon
the bible has ample evidence of god communicating with humans during the first 4 centuries.. since jesus time ,god has not communicated with humans at all .,in the same way as he did in the first 4 centuries .. in fact jesus has not communicated with humans in the same way as jehovah did for the first 4000 years., during his 2000 years to this date , .
does not the bible say , god does not change , he is the same today as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow ?.
so why was god communicating with humans on a regular basis , one way or another for 4000 years and then , neither jehovah or his son jesus christ ever directly contacted humans ?.
Jesus said that when the Holy Spirit comes, that he would instruct born again believers into all the ways of truth.
The problem with this is that all these born-again Christians, supposedly guided directly by the Spirit, cannot agree amongst themselves, thus resulting in many many hundreds of different denominations and sects.
i have just finished reading 'brock talon's' two books.
in one of them, entitled journey to god's house, pub.
he comments on how the wt's pictures of the post-armageddon world do not agree with their doctrines, namely that those who are physically resurrected will not marry/have children.
Splash - many thanks. I've taken a copy of your message. Extremely useful!
How people will live and function post-A has got to be one of the most important aspects of the whole subject. It's pathetic that the WT cannot give a straight answer to this. How many widows/widowers Witnesses are looking forward to being reunited with their now-dead spouse and are unaware of this damning anomaly in WT teaching?
This returns to the point I made about 'Talon's' comment in his book - he rightly says that most WT pictures of the post-A paradise show couples and children and yet in fact the WT appears to believe that the only people who will be able to marry/be married, and have children are the Witness survivors of Armageddon, and they will be are in a minority of the total number who will eventually (and supposedly) inhabit 'the new earth'.
This also begs the question of the state of those (the majority) who cannot marry - will they spend eternity bursting for sex, or will Jehovah completely remove all their sex urges? If so, then the WT can hardly claim that Jehovah has resurrected all those who never heard the WT message as their resurrected state does not resemble their original state as an important human drive has been removed. In reality, it would seem that the post-Armageddon world will be mainly inhabited by a-sexual people....
This is 'Paradise'????....
i have just finished reading 'brock talon's' two books.
in one of them, entitled journey to god's house, pub.
he comments on how the wt's pictures of the post-armageddon world do not agree with their doctrines, namely that those who are physically resurrected will not marry/have children.
i have just finished reading 'Brock Talon's' two books. In one of them, entitled Journey to God's House, pub. 2013, (pp.168-175),. he comments on how the WT's pictures of the post-armageddon world do not agree with their doctrines, namely that those who are physically resurrected will not marry/have children. As it is only JWs who survive the big A who can have children, the many pictures of (many) happy family groups are disputable.
I've never thought about this, but on going to the WT site, in one (2014) article, theyappear to be distancing themselves from the view that anyone physically resurrected will not marry/have children:
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20140815/jesus-sadducees-marriage-after-resurrection/
The article admits that the Bible does not give a direct answer (sheeesh! it's hardly a minor point!) and 'we will just have to wait and see' (you're in for a long wait!...).
As a postscript, I am surprised that with all the information he gives about himself, the person who wrote these books - giving himself the pseudonym 'Brock Talon', has not been identified! I enjoyed them although I have to admit that I found Penton's and Franz's books much more enlightening.
