Posts by slimboyfat

36

Big News: August English Watchtower released on servers

by ukpimo in

big news.

just in from a friend who is fading.. disfellowshipping will no longer be a term used by jws.

study article 35, paragraph 4 footnote says this:.

slimboyfat

I don’t see it on the website yet. What does it mean “released on servers”?

Has any change been made to an earlier version of the magazine that would explain the delay in publication?

Have they removed the word disfellowshipping but not the practice? Or are they trying to water the whole thing down?

It seems a complicated situation but he is my speculation. (We’re allowed to speculate here.)

I suspect that the GB is divided over whether they want to significantly downgrade the practice of shunning or whether they just want to tinker with the wording and keep shunning practice in place as far as possible. The delay in publication may be a result of wrangling over the precise wording that would reflect either a significant change of policy or otherwise simply continue the practice under a different guise. I suspect the reformers will probably prevail in the end and, whatever the precise wording of this particular Watchtower, future articles, and JWs on the ground, will reduce the level of shunning to a significant extent.

If that’s the case, then the hardline shunning videos at the conventions of the past 10 years or so do seem a bit jarring in retrospect. I wonder if they will address that at all, or come out with a sort of antidote non-shunning video for example, minus the mea culpa, which they are of course not very good at.

25

Do we have "original" indipendent documents proving that Rutherford was an alcoholic?

by psyco in

i was wondering if you could prove with "original" independent documents that rutherford was an alcoholic.... .

i read penton, but since he is a former jw he could not be considered an independent source.... .

slimboyfat

I don’t think so. A source commonly cited is Olin Moyle, who became antagonistic toward Rutherford, after having served JWs as their lawyer. There are a couple of letters he wrote and there is a court case at which Fred Franz and others gave testimony, available online.

Some have claimed to present photos of Rutherford and associates drunk, also probably still online somewhere. Others have disputed this is what they show. Judge for yourself.

There is circumstantial evidence that Rutherford was at least pro-drink during the Prohibition era, as he described prohibition as Satanic in WT literature of the period. There are claims that JWs illegallly smuggled alcohol from Canada during Prohibition, but I can’t remember the source or the basis for that.

It seems to me entirely plausible that Rutherford was a hard drinker but I haven’t seen solid evidence for it.

2910

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

slimboyfat

On the other hand, perhaps indifference is what he’d hate most, and his ultimate just deserts as his support drifts ever downward.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

slimboyfat

Very interesting Earnest. I recall reading about that and thinking about the striking image of that angel in the Revelation book with the rainbow above his head and one foot on the land and one foot in the sea. I was surprised to find how many Trinitarian commentators also take this angel in Revelation 10 to be a description of Jesus, but presumably “not a created angel” - the usual formulation for acknowledging Jesus as an angel in scripture without admitting the implications of that.

Interestingly, Charles Gieschen in his book Angelomorphic Christology (1998) lists the NT texts where Jesus is overtly identified as an angel as follows: Gal 4:14; Rev 10:1; 14:14–15; 20:1. He argues that it’s implied elsewhere too (that’s the whole point of his 400+ page book) but again probably with Trinitarian inflection in his case because I gather he’s an evangelical.

51

2024-08-August-Edition-of-Watchtower!

by Atlantis in

jw
friends

it was translated so make sure everything looks ok.. 2024-08-august-edition of watchtower magazine.. .

https://smallpdf.com/result#r=c90d948913ed99d72872c0a1c609f388&t=share-document .

leopold.

slimboyfat

Not been following this. So, have they accepted gay marriage yet?

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

slimboyfat

Earnest is very knowledgable about the transmission of the NT text and is fully aware that other manuscripts preserved the original reading that Jesus is “the beginning of the creation of God”. The point I made, and that Earnest agreed with, is that scholars have pointed out that the scribe of the famous Sinaiticus Codex saw fit to change the text in his copy during the crucial period in 4th century when Jesus was being elevated to the Trinity. As Juan Hernández says, the text was apparently viewed as a “problem” in that crucial period.

50

My guess for August WatchTower: GB claims we're in beginning stages of Great Tribulation due to World governments turning on JW's

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

the september watchtower has already been released and is being discussed over on reddit.

some highlights: .

1. more hitting the flock on total reliance and obedience to god's representatives on earth today, the f&ds (the governing body, of course).

slimboyfat

July and August = Julius and Augustus Caesar

50

My guess for August WatchTower: GB claims we're in beginning stages of Great Tribulation due to World governments turning on JW's

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

the september watchtower has already been released and is being discussed over on reddit.

some highlights: .

1. more hitting the flock on total reliance and obedience to god's representatives on earth today, the f&ds (the governing body, of course).

slimboyfat

They’ve obviously eliminated the month of August because it has pagan associations. (Don’t tell them about January through June)

Or in order to give pioneers one less month they need to report. From now on there will only be 11 months of the year, calendars to be adjusted accordingly.

The name of the months will be renamed with the following easy-to-remember names: Mark, Sam, Jeff, Geoff, Steve, Dave, Ken, Gage, and Gerrit - scraping the barrel toward the end there. That’s only 9 names, so expect a couple more months to drop off in the coming period.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

slimboyfat

… and Micah that says the messiah has an ancient origin, and John 6 that says Jesus lives because of the Father. At least six different places that talk about Jesus being created/having a beginning. Seems like quite a lot to me. How many verses do we have saying that the angels were created? I don’t know any but I’d be interested to find out.

The teaching that God created everything through Jesus is broadly attested in a different parts of the NT from John 1 to 1 Cor 8 to Col 1 to Heb 1.

John 1.3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1.10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

1 Cor 8.6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things cameand for whom we live; and there is but one Lord,Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Col 1.16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

Heb 1.2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

These texts show that God is the source of creation and Jesus was the one through whom God created. Jesus is distinct from God and is obedient to him in creation as in everything.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

slimboyfat

I am not a Greek scholar and I can’t prove that Rev 3:14 means that Jesus is God’s first creation. But I think it is reasonable to point out the high quality of academic support for understanding this verse to mean that Jesus is God’s first creation.

Top lexicographers responsible for the Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek lexicon say that “first created” is the probable meaning of the word arche in this verse. They are aware of the range of possible meanings and they select this as the most likely. They also cite an example from the Septuagint where the creature behemoth is described using the same phrase.

Plus, in terms of the academic study of the apocalyptic genre, scholars hardly come more senior in the field than John Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins. They are professors are Yale and Adela Yarbro Collins is past president of the Society of Biblical Literature. They have published some of the most respected and widely cited academic publications on the topic of apocalyptic literature. What is their take on the identity of Jesus in the book of Revelation? They write:

In the light of the evidence that the author of Revelation portrays Jesus as the heavenly messiah who is also the principle angel of God, these sayings are best interpreted as associating Jesus with personified wisdom as God’s first creature … In Revelation the evidence suggests that he is God’s first creature, namely, the principle angel.

John J. Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins (2007). King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, page 203.

Just because senior scholars in the field happen to support the JW understanding of this particular point obviously doesn’t prove they are correct. At the same time it does seem reasonable to note that the JW reading has impressive academic support here and is at least a legitimate and reasonable way of understanding the text.