Posts by AlanF

49

Confrontation - is it for Christians?

by jgnat in

agapa's quiet admission to "imperfect men" in the congregation inspired me to finish a small bible study on confrontation, and how the early church handled disputes.. (romans 12:18 rv) if it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men.

(2 cor 13:11 cev) good-by, my friends.

do better and pay attention to what i have said.

AlanF

The problem with your reasoning, agapa37, is that you don't seem to acknowledge that in practice JWs have two sets of rules, one written and the other unwritten. The experience of many on this board, including me, is that the unwritten rules are how things really work.

The written rule is that one with a serious complaint go before the elders and lay it out. If they agree there's a problem, then they follow the rules. If they don't agree, they won't follow the written rules but will go by the unwritten ones. Such unwritten rules include, "Thou shalt obey the elders in everything." So when the elders decide to ignore someone's complaint, if the person violates their command to "Drop it!" he or she will have violated the unwritten rule and then be in deep doo doo with those elders. And experience shows that if the person circumvents those elders by talking to someone higher up in the food chain, such as a Circuit Overseer or, God forbid! calls the Society, that person will immediately be viewed as "not a team player" and will be severely censured.

This business of two sets of rules is endemic to JW culture. New Bethelites are given an instruction manual upon first arriving, but they soon learn that the manual is there largely for show, because in practice many of the rules are not followed by the oldtimers. If the guy has the effrontery to quote the rule book at an oldtimer who wants him to put aside the rules, he will quickly be given his walking papers. No appeal to the top is permitted, because they all play by the unwritten rules and don't want some stupidly righteous newbie coming in and spoiling their party.

AlanF

40

Are the "Last Days" an Absurdity? (8/15 WT)

by metatron in

how could anyone know objectively if they live in the "last days", if they fail to examine history?

how would anyone know if things were .

actually worse?

AlanF

Flash quoted 2 Peter 3: 3 ~ 7 in the manner that JWs always do. What Flash forgets is that Peter and the other early Christians expected Jesus' return in their own day, so Peter's words must apply to the first century. An extension to the 20th century and beyond is pure supposition based on the fact that a lot of what these early Christians predicted did not come to pass.

AlanF

49

Confrontation - is it for Christians?

by jgnat in

agapa's quiet admission to "imperfect men" in the congregation inspired me to finish a small bible study on confrontation, and how the early church handled disputes.. (romans 12:18 rv) if it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men.

(2 cor 13:11 cev) good-by, my friends.

do better and pay attention to what i have said.

AlanF

jgnat quoted from The Watchtower:

Because of human imperfection, difficulties or problems may arise. There may even be times when an elder errs, causing some to be disturbed. . . Those having spiritual discernment will wait on Jehovah to set things straight and administer whatever discipline may be needed in his own time and way. . . And if it appears that other corrective measures are needed, have confidence that Jehovah will guide the elders to do what is good and right.

The JWs don't seem to see the gross inconsistency in these words. If Jehovah had anything to do with elders' actions he would not allow them to err or to pervert justice, as they often do, so that anything needed correction. That the elders who comprise every level of the Watchtower hierarchy do these things proves that God has nothing to with the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. The JW concept of "spirit-direction" is nothing but a control mechanism designed to prevent any JW from disputing what elders or JW leaders do.

AlanF

49

Confrontation - is it for Christians?

by jgnat in

agapa's quiet admission to "imperfect men" in the congregation inspired me to finish a small bible study on confrontation, and how the early church handled disputes.. (romans 12:18 rv) if it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men.

(2 cor 13:11 cev) good-by, my friends.

do better and pay attention to what i have said.

AlanF

Nice post, jgnat.

One serious violation of the scriptural guidelines in Matthew 18 that the JWs are known for is their organizational policy of ignoring the clear meaning of verse 17, which tells the person to take the matter to the entire congregation (Gr. ecclesia) as the last resort. But Watchtower policy subverts this by telling JWs to take matters to the body of elders. They claim that what Jesus meant was to take the matter to the body of elders who respresent the ecclesia. But there is no indication in the scriptures that this is what Jesus meant. Indeed, at the time Jesus spoke to his Jewish audience, there was no Christian congregation because Christianity did not begin until after Jesus' resurrection. So Jesus' Jewish audience would naturally have understood him to refer to the Jewish ecclesia -- the entire group of local Jews who attended the local synagogue. The extension to Christians is obvious.

AlanF

26

Racism: Lyman Swingle Once Said to Me. . .

by Pioneer Spit...oh, i mean Spirit in

years ago, when i was 19 and shp (single hot pioneer), living at home of course, waitressing at denny's, just living la vida loca.

.. swingle stayed in our home for a district ass.

after the weekend and as he was saying his goodbyes, he grabbed my face and shook me back and forth and with a wide grin on his face said, "you need to come to bethel to meet some of our bethel boys, i'm tired of these colored girls coming to bethel and taking our boys home.

AlanF

Racism was rampant in the Watchtower organization in the early days, so it's not surprising that oldtimers like Swingle would be something of a racist. Russell himself held blacks in low esteem and even published an article explaining how, in God's due time, blacks would be cured of their malady by becoming white.

My own father, a Bethelite from 1938 to 1946 and a good friend of some of the present-day bigwigs in Bethel, was a bit of a racist. I'm not sure if it was because of his upbringing in a rural Oklahoma town or his sojourn in Bethel, but it always made me extremely uncomfortable.

I grew up in suburban Long Island, in an area of mixed race. The congregations I attended always seemed racially harmonious, except that when I began to be given more responsibilities I noticed that some white elders sometimes made some extremely unkind remarks about some fellow black elders. I then understood why I had vaguely perceived an underlying animosity between the elders of two congregations that shared the same Kingdom Hall. One was predominantly white and the other black. I ended up attending the mostly black congregation for reasons I won't go into, and I liked it better. I never perceived the sort of racial prejudice by the black JWs that I did with the white ones.

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

thirdwitless wrote:

: I would like to address AlanF's long post on page 8.

We will see that this deceptive JW defender has merely repeated what he has posted before, has presented no actual arguments but only speculation, and has failed actually to address even one challenge I made in that post.

On Luke 21:24:

:: Jerusalem will at some future time begin to be trampled on by the nations . . .

:: Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations . . .

:: The question is: which one is right? Since grammar is of no help, let's look at the context.

: Notice what I have highlighted in red. He has admitted and he is correct that it could mean 'will continue to be trampled'. He says we should examine the context. I agree.

But does thirdwitless actually examined the context? Not at all. All he does is repeat what he said in his post that I responded to. He seems to think that plastering the Watchtower view on Bible passages is somehow "examining the context".

: The context is this: Jesus is answering the question about when his presence will take place and what will be the sign.

I challenged you on this claim about "presence". Where is your response?

: He then begans to tell how literally Jerusalem will be destroyed. Is this the trampling? If so when did it end. Did it end when the Roman army finished trouncing Jerusalem and led off the captives? Hardly. The trampling continued after that time. The destruction of Jerusalem was not the trampling. Jerusalem was already being trampled on by the Romans before its destruction. They were under Roman authority before 70CE. And so when Jesus said Jerusalem 'will be' trampled until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled he was letting the disciples know that the destruction of Jerusalem would not bring an end to the trampling like they were thinking. It would continue until the appointed times of the nations were fulfilled. God's Kingdom would not be set up in Jerusalem at that time when Jerusalem was being destroyed by the Roman Army. The trampling would continue.

None of the above examines the context of Luke 21. All that thirdwitless has done is continue his Watchtower-induced speculation that Luke 21:24 has a fulfillment entirely out of character with every other prediction for the future in both Luke 21 and Luke 17 -- as I showed with actual Bible quotations.

In other words, thirdwitless continues to fail to give any arguments for his position, but merely makes bald-faced, unsupported claims.

: It is really not that difficult to comprehend.

It certainly isn't. But your Watchtower-colored glasses make it impossible for you to comprehend that real biblical exposition is not just blindly repeating Watchtower dogma.

: The context definitely allows for the meaning that AlanF admits is possible.

It certainly does not. You are demanding that this one verse -- Luke 21:24 -- have a continuing fulfillment when every other verse does not.

Where is your evidence? Don't stupidly repeat what you've already stupidly parroted twice.

: Jerusalem will continue to be trampled on by the nations . . .until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. That is when the trampling would end. That is when his presence would begin. He would assume his position as God's king in the heavenly Jerusalem. And that is after all what they were asking about: When his presence and the end would come.

Again, "presence" is a wrong translation of parousia in Matthew 24:3. No modern scholars agree with the Watchtower Society on this translation. Furthermore, the Society's 1997 exposition on it is self-contradictory and misrepresents source references.

: AlanF also says: Huge problem here: After his resurrection, Jesus stated that "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." (Matthew 28:18) If we take the Bible at its word, then the word "all" really means all. Therefore there was no authority left for God to give at some future time. This passage alone kills off the Society's 1914 doctrine, which requires that God granted further authority to Jesus in 1914 -- contradicting Matthew 28:18.

: Only a huge problem for persons like AlanF who do not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

It's a problem for anyone who can read and understand simple Bible passages. What thirdwitless proceeds to do is to counter Matthew 28:18 with other scriptures -- in effect, making the Bible contradict itself.

: But notice Revelation 12 which was to occur in the Lord's day after Jesus statement at Matt 28:18. Notice verse 15 And the seventh angel blew his trumpet. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying: "The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever." Chirst was to receive authority in a special way in the future.

: But is this really so? After Satan is cast out of heaven Revelation 12:10 tells us: And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! So even though Jesus was given authority after his ressurection he did not exercise all his authority until the proper time appointed by his Father. He waited until he received his kingship over God's Messianic Kingdom. And even still he has not exercise all his authority because he has not destroyed all the other kingdoms. (Daniel 2:44)

So according to thirdwitless, Jesus' plain words that he had received ALL power immediately after his resurrection are false.

There are simple ways to harmonize all these things, but not in accord with Watchtower teaching.

Can any reader fail to see how JWs like this guy force an understanding of the Bible that makes the Bible contradict itself? While I personally agree that the Bible contains many problematic passages, my point is that these oh-so-self-righteous hypocrites do the same thing they complain about in others -- claim to believe the Bible but reject it whenever necessary.

: For further proof of this lets look at an illustration that Jesus gave: Luke 19: . . .

I will not comment on thirdwitless' further forcing Bible contradictions. What I will say is that readers can easily read my original post ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118775/8.ashx ) and see for themselves that this guy has failed to address a single challenge I made.

: I like this comment by AlanF revealing his true motives: Translation: A lot of what Jesus predicted for the 1st century did not happen, so we must find ways to extend the failed prophecies at least as far as our day. LOL!

Amazing. This moron has such poor reading comprehension that he thinks that my words were a statement of my own philosophy. Normal readers understand that my words were a paraphrase of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

Next comes the usual JW-defender ad hominem:

: Translation: AlanF is playing you all for a bunch of fools as he does not even believe what the Bible says at all. Why do you think he would do anything other than try to mislead you away from the Bible truths that JWs have shown you from the Bible? AlanF tries to argue the Bible when he himself does not even believe it is true. This is why his arguments fall flat.

: Ask yourself these questions: Do you believe that Jehovah God would give Bible understanding to one who does not even believe that the Bible is His word? Does Jehovah God expect you to learn Bible truths from one who teaches that His Bible prophecies have failed?

This ad hominem argument is so transparently stupid that it's almost embarrassing to address it.

Ask yourself these questions: Do you believe that Jehovah God would give Bible understanding to one who twists the Bible to fit his blind loyalty to a group of old men in Brooklyn, who makes it contradict itself? Does Jehovah God expect you to learn Bible truths from a religion all of whose prophecies made in his name have failed?

The fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization really don't believe the Bible. There are many proofs of this, but let's consider just one. I've covered this in a recent post ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/118096/1.ashx ). I invited thirdwitless several times to comment about the material but he has declined, for obvious reasons.

Genesis 1:1 states that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2 then begins describing what happened during the rest of the six creative days. Exodus 21:11 and 31:17 clearly state that in six days God made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them. Therefore, according to the Bible itself, the entire universe was created on the first creative day. Pretty clear, no? This was the understanding of most Bible believers until the last two centuries.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses agree with these clear Bible statements? No, they agree with science. They have no disagreement with science that the earth is some 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 15 billion years old. Whenever solid science shows that some Bible passage or idea is false, the Watchtower Society goes along with science.

Christian Fundamentalists, who invariably are Young-Earth Creationists who take Genesis and Exodus literally, disagree with science but at least put their money where their mouth is.

The proof for my claims is found in the September, 2006 Awake! magazine. It states (page 18) that the fundamental reason that the Watchtower Society disagrees with what it calls these "so-called Christian Fundamentalists" is that if Genesis' creative days were meant to be literal 24-hour days, "then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible."

How does Awake! justify these claims? By doing what the Watchtower Society has always done: it focuses on Genesis and ignores Exodus.

So much for thirdwitless' claim that he and his Mommy really believe the Bible.

The fact is that no Christians today completely believe the Bible in the sense of taking it literally. Doing so results in things like believing that the earth is flat and that the universe was created by fiat some 6,000 years ago.

AlanF

12

Duane Magnani - Anyone Here Know the Name?

by Seeker4 in

jw
friends

the magnani family was from the keene, nh congregation, the one where my ex-wife grew up.

duane was at one time quite a well-known anti-jw.

i knew his father leo quite well.

AlanF

I know Duane fairly well. Are you trying to contact him, Seeker4?

RR doesn't like Magnani because he has pulled some rather shady things on various Bible Students over the years in order to obtain old Watchtower publications. I tend to agree with his feelings, but Magnani has also done a great deal of good in getting information out about the Watchtower Society.

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

saki2fifty said:

: I guess this is you, and your bio?

It's me, but it's not what I had in mind. The link you posted contains a thumbnail sketch. What I had in mind can be found in this post:

A JW Biography of AlanF http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/86609/1.ashx

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

saki2fifty said:

: One quick off topic question to you AlanF... were you previously a witness? Elder? CO? DO?

Yes, no, no and no. I maxed out at Accounts Servant in the 1970s, then wised up and went to college.

There's a long bio on me somewhere on this board, but it'll take some doing for you to find it.

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

TD said:

: I think you're being unusually charitable

Sometimes I try.

: . . . So it does appear that a progressive is recognized by him in the future, but only "in collocation with other linguistic features."

Exactly, and according to the grammars I've read, thoses linguistic features include context. And as various posters including me have shown (cf. my post 4655, page 8 of this thread), Luke 21 provides no context to support a progressive in Luke 21:24.

NT Greek is supposed to be a precise language, and since we can easily and unambiguously express in English action that began in the past and will continue into the future, it stands to reason that the same could be done in NT Greek. I'm no Greek scholar, so I can't say more.

Fisherman said:

: Just looking for new info. on 1914 particularly from 3w or scholar.

I am reminded of 2 Kings 18:21: "Look now, you are depending on Egypt, that splintered reed of a staff, which pierces a man's hand and wounds him if he leans on it!"

AlanF