Posts by Amazing1914

37

The Increasing Degradation of Women in the Watchtower Society.

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

from towerwatcher:the increasing degradation of women in the watchtower society.

the lifestyle of a woman as one of jehovah's witnesses is certainly not an easy job.

it is a well known fact that most of the work that takes place within the watchtower society contributing to its success, is due to the backbone of the watchtower which can be described as the women in the congregation.

Amazing1914

Randy,

Excellent post. It seems strange that in the late 19th and early 20th century women in the Watchtower organization had more rights, while in the rest of the United States, women did not have the right to vote until around 1920. Today, women in society have equalized pretty much every aspect of their lives along side men, and it won't be long before they have completely addressed everything possible.

I can recall as a JW how the Watchtower continuously published articles about headship, and emphasized this over and over again through talks and "counseling." I well remember how the Society leaders would, on one hand, demand that women put the conventions and assemblies first for their families and not be overly concerned about mundane things at home. Then, while these same women were at the assemblies, turn right around and ask the women if their "loyalty" moved them to make sure that their homes were clean, beds made, and dishes washed so that they could be at the conventions in good conscience.

My wife would look at me and ask why these guys were demanding so much, and wondered if they could handle the load. I agreed with her, and told her not to let these talks bother her. I have no doubt that a lot of other JWs just turned a deaf ear to the nonsense. But, I can't help but wonder about those who took it all in and actually tried to live up to an impossible standard. While my wife was not pressured by me to keep up as demanded, and I helped more as I realized how she was burdened, the only real relief came when we both left the Watchtower Slave Driving Society.

If the Watchtower really wanted to live up to the Bible, they would read and study Paul's words where he said that there is no distinction between male and female, for all are the same before God, and get off their false understanding of so-called headship.

Jim Whitney

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Greendawn (and Narkissos, below),

It is fairly obvious that the early apostolic Christians didn't believe in a trinity since they no doubt took the words father and son literally.

First, Loveylil made excellent points.

Actually, if you go back and read again what I first posted, the early Christians did not take the Father-Son relationship the same way as human father-son relationships. If you go all the way back to when the Jews sought to kill Jesus, it was because he made himself equal to God. Obviously, being the Son of God in the mind of jesus and the Apostles was not something just like a human relationship.

God is a spirit, and neither male nor female. Those conventions are used to help us characterize that Jesus is part of the Godhead - hence why the Jews were offended.

St. Clement made it clear what had been believed since the time of the Apostles ... and Clement was only removed by one generation. It is hardly a credible case to say that in such a short time the church completely flipped over the the Trinity, were it a false doctrine or heresy.

Finally, if you still believe that the early Christians did not accept Jesus divinity (leaving out the Holy Spirit for now), what are your sources for this conclusion?

Narkissos,

I am aware of the criticisms, but they are not enough to explain or prove the claims of Irenaeus and Polycarp and other Chruch Fathers in error. Also, some modern historians have started to look again to Eusebius as their prime source, yet most other historians have avoided relying much on Eusebius. Historians have to look at other sources.

Notwithstanding these criticisms ... the real thrust with my original post is that these early Church Fathers all wrote about the nature of God in a way that fits modern Catholic, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestantism. Starting with St. Ignatius, they lived during the time of the Apostles on into the late second century. Their views coincide throughout the entire Chirstian world, from Spain, to Rome, to Asia Minor, to Israel, Persia, and Egypt. It is very unlikely that an error in the case of Polycarp actually knowing the Apostle John will have any serious impact upon what was consistently taught, and used to fight heresies. However, I still see no real evidence that Polycarp was not a student of the Apostle John. He could have known both the Apostle John and the Presbyter named John who became Bishop. It is not a stretch, as these people all traveled, even if slowly by ship or camel.

Thanks for the interesting link. Jim W.

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Leolaia,

Thanks for the additional referenced historians. I often find that when I check out criticisms, they are either wildly different than accepted history, or there are only minor, marginal differences.

In light of your comment, let's place the Apostle John's death at 89 AD. St. Polycarp was born in 69 AD. So, he was old enough and lived well within the lifespan of St. John. It matters little if experts disagree on exact years in such cases, because the overlap is sufficient to cover the point.

Similarly, St. Polycarp is believed to have died a martyr in Febuary 155. This would make him 86 years old, which is a reasonable lifespen. However, it is also established history that St. Polycarp visited Pope Anicetus in Rome. But, Pope Anicetus did not ascend to the Papacy until 157 AD. So, historians will disagree over various technicalities of accession of Pope Anicetus, or the exact date of St, Polycarp's death or visit to Rome. Either way, it has no meaningful impact on the above discussion.

The fact that Polycarp was a student of the Apostle John is too well establish in the letters of the early Church Fathers and the historians of the day. It is too well established that St. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp.

I have not read the works of those you cited. If what they argue is wildly different from what I have presented, in such a way as to totally toss out one of the players, like St. Polycarp, then I would be most surprised.

Thanks again, Jim W.

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Thanks Blueblades, I will look for that chapter. I apprecaite the lead. - Jim W.

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Leolaia,

Okay, let's say the Apostle John died a few years earlier, maybe 96 or 94 ... so what? Polycarp and St. Ignatius were still his students, and these are facts that are certain and accepted by historians, both religious and sectarian.

Jim Whitney

41

Question about the Anointed

by Zico in

jw
friends

i have just joined this site after having been visiting as a guest for a few months.

i am searching for answers so please be patient with me.

a friend of mine in the congregation has directed me to this site as he has been having doubts about the organization, though he said he never posts on it.

Amazing1914

Zico,

I was openly an Anointed JW for 20 years of the 25 years I was in the organization. During that time, I served as a Ministerial Servant and then an Elder. I have posted much on this topic under my older screen name, Amazing. I will find some of those posts and send you some PMs.

The reason that there are those among Jehovah's Witnesses who proclaim to be anointed is that the religion sets up the conditions for this belief. They likewise set up the condition that keeps the number low. It was well over 12,000 when I became a Witness in the 1960s, has hovered around 8,000 since the late-1970s. If the Watchtower doctrine is accuract, then it seems that suddenly an awful lot of JW anointed become unfaithful and have to be replaced.

The entire Watchtower concept of anointed stands against what is actually taught in the Bible, and is one of many false doctrines, both from a Cristology standpoint, as well as a human nature standpoint. I will be happy to share more later, but essentially, and sadly, the JW anointed concept is nothing more than a fiction perpetrated upon what otherwise are normally decent people.

In the Bible, ALL Christians are anointed, and are also many other things, such as children of God, a holy nation, kings and priests, slaves, etc. The term "anointed" is merely one among these features. The Watchtower glorifies this title into something that is unchristian, and not in keeping with the humble setting of being equal brothers and sisters to one another as the Apostle Paul exhorted. He essentialy told us that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, male or female, for are all the same in Christ.

PM me and let me know if you wish for me to dig out my older posts and send them to you. Or you can use my e-mail address: [email protected]. Everyone knows that address, including the Society, so I give it out freely.

Jim Whitney

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Blueblades,

Thanks again. I will order the book and read it. Reviewing the abstract paragraph, I realized that there is a fundamental point being missed by the author, and by some posters here on JWD. It is this: The trinity concept was already well established by the very first disciples of the Apostles while they were still alive. True, the doctrine continued to be more precisely worded, and eventually by 180 AD the term Trinity (a functional term) was coined by a second generation Christian, St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Theolophus, of Antioch in 150 AD.

The author simply dismisses these critical facts by saying, "Later Christological developments beginning in the second century, and under the influence of pagan Gnosticism, misrepresented the biblical doctrine of God and Christ by altering the terms of the biblical presentation of the Father and the Son." The Apostle John lived until nearly the second century, dying about the year 98 AD. His students lived on until about the year 150 AD when the term "trinity" was first coined. By 180 AD, one of the first students of the first disciples clearly nailed the Trinity. There is little chance that the very first disciples were already misrepresenting biblical doctrine, as the Bible did not exist yet for another 300 years.

I want to read the book because I want to consider how a non-Trinitarian presents his arguments, especially since it is not based on Watchtower-styled argumentation.

The second point is that there is no evidence that any one was introducing the "Trinity" or its concept from the outside, trying to gain acceptance, but being rebuffed by Church Fathers. Rather, it was the other way around, with all other concepts, from Gnostics to the Arians and everyting in between that was being rebuffed by Trinitarian concepts ... concepts that were well developed by the first disciples of the Apostles and their subsequent students. To argue that somehow the whole Church in the then known world, from Spain and France, to Egypt, up to Greece and Syria and further east all at the same time sunk into a false doctrine called the Trinity is just not in keeping with history.

Thanks again,

Jim Whitney

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Minimus,

To suggest that GOD would be in any "subordinate" position because of humanity is absurd. That GOD could be persecuted, killed, etc. by mere humans is very ridiculous.To say that GOD was lower than angels for any period of time would surely take away from his almightiness. If GOD was really dead for 3 days, then GOD ceased to exist or at least a part of him.....Once again it makes no sense to me. I'm Arian, all the way, I guess.

If one uses Watchtower logic and limited definition based on Watchtower doctrine, then it is easy to see how one could frame such as argument as you did. I will show in upcoming posts how the Watchtower used slight-of-hand in these arguments. As far as your comment goes, let's look at it from another paradigm: "There is only one Humanity, but many humans. Each human is fully human, co-equal with all other humans. Likewise, there is only one Divinity (God, or Godhead) and three members. Each member is fully God, fully divine and co-equal with the other members. While humans are co-equal in their nature, not all are co-equal in position, authority, knowledge, abilities. Likewise, the three members of One Divinity are co-equal in nature, but not all are co-equal in position or authority.

When Jesus became human, according to St. Clement, he was fully a Perfect God and Perfect Man. Jesus subordination as a human is done out of love and respect and obedience as a example to us. For example, my son is an adult in his thirties, fully co-equal with me in nature and rights. Yet, my son may voluntarily subordinate himself to me out of love and respect for my position as his father. In other ways people subordinate themselves to others voluntarily out of love. We see this in marriage, where a husband may defer and subordinate to his wife, or a wife to a husband in matters of money or raising the children. Or they may take an equal share. So, to suggest that such is absurd for Jesus as a Divine person to voluntarily subordinate himself, especially on earth, to be absurd is nothing more than a vain attempt to play down what the Bible and the early Church Fathers clearly taught. Being lower than the angels for a period of time is exactly what the book of Phillipians says. Even if one believes as the JWs and claims that Jesus is a "created top-dog Angel," according to your argument then, this still means Jesus, as "a god," was demeaned by being a little lower than the angels. This is ludricris thinking, and clearly violates the very statements supporting Jesus subordination in Phillipians. Another Watchtower slight of hand is to argue that God was dead for three days. Jesus the second person of the Godhead did not die. Rather, Jesus as a human was dead for three days. Remember that there are Three (3) members of Divinity. So, when one says "God," one is referring to ALL three, much as when one says "humanity" one is referring to ALL humans. If one human dies, humanity still exist. So, even if Jesus as "God" were to die, there are still the other three members oif Divinity. I do not claim to be anything other than Christian. I am just reporting the news, and showing how this topic can be seen just as logically from the Trinitarian side ... and that is precisely what the early Chirstians believed and taught. Jim Whitney

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

XBEHERE,

Somebody has to right about this, what I want to know is why the WT is the only "religion" to create its own bible of recent times that disagrees so much with other translations on this issue. John 1:1.

If you look at the comments I quoted above from St. Clement, you will see that in the year 190 AD, he was applying John 1:1 to support Jesus divinity. Of course, the books didn't have numbered chapters and verses, but, the wording from John 1:1 is ovious.

XJW4EVR,

Thanks for the link. I will check it out. I know Randy fairly well, and visit his site fairly often. Somehow, I missed that particular article.

Minimus,

Too many scriptures suggest there is no trinity. I'm sure, you could find others that could be called "Christians" from the first two centuries that would say Christ was not part of a godhead and that God did not actually die. Just saying that sounds ridiculous to me.

Not so. The scriptures that show Jesus to be in a subordinate position are dealing with his humanity. These scriptures were used by the early Fathers to fight against Gnostic heresies which claimed that Jesus was only divine and was never really human. Later on, the Fathers used other scriptures to show that Jesus is clearly part of the Trinity. The modern-day scriptural proof text used by JWs, and those who continue to support their notions are little more than misapplication and misinterpretation of what the early Church taught. Jesus divinity did not died. His humanity did. This is the problem with non-Trinitarian interpretations, they fail to take into consideration what the early Church taught, and how to honestly keep the separation between Jesus divinity and his humanity. It made perfect sense to the early church. Jim Whitney

86

The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

[note: i am not promoting a religion, a church system, nor a set of beliefs.

i am merely reporting history as i find it.

the early, ante-nicene church fathers spent much time fighting heresies.

Amazing1914

Forscher,

Thanks, I will take a look at the link. I do have most of the early Church Fathers writings from the first through 4th centuries. I have read a great portion, and in some cases, the entire body of writings be certain authors. They discussed a lot of issues besides the Trinity. They dealt with unity, and keeping the church together, among many topics. My focus for my paper is on the Holy Spirit, and so it is necessary to discuss the Trinity. PS: I went into the link you provided and examined how the site deals with early Church Father quotes, in Part 6, as highlighted. Sadly, the author highlights quotes in a way that makes them say things that they do not say. St. Clement, for example, clearly believed in the Trinity in no uncertain terms [See above quotes]. But, like the other early Fathers, when fighting heresies, resorted to strong over-statements to make his point [No, the Trinity is not an over-statement because it too clearly defines just who God is, and who the members of the Godhead are ... it is a "positive affirmation. Some early Fathers were fighting Gnostic views that Jesus was only her ein appearance, but was not human. So, the Fathers would go to great extremes to prove his humanity. Then, another group would challenge Jesus divinity, and the Fathers would go to extremes to prove his divinity. In these cases, the strong over-statements were "negative" affirmations designed to defeat the heresy. These are good classical argumentatioin styles. Clement and Irenaeus cleared up everything by showing that Jesus is both perfect God and perfect man ... a "positive" affirmation that is totally consistent with the Trinity.

Thanks again for the link,

Jim Whitney