Posts by slimboyfat

42

Two new Governing Body members

by slimboyfat in

jeddoly and rumph???.

who are they?

.

October Elder's Letter Delayed- Big Announcement at Annual Meeting

by Newly Enlightened in

https://youtu.be/93h5zpbil6k?si=ffatfxjuxmj_na9i.

slimboyfat

I find that odd because don’t elders get a letter every month. Whatever change is made, if a change is made, why not simply include it in the next letter?

56

Annual Meeting live updates

by ukpimo in

i have obtained the live link for the annual meeting tomorrow:.

annual meeting live link.

the meeting will begin at 9:45am eastern time, for those of us in the uk, that will be 2:45pm.

You mean anyone can press the link and watch it? Was it the intention of JW dot Org for this to be available, or are we sneaking in the back door? If that’s the case, might they not withdraw it if they become aware it is posted here?

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

slimboyfat

For JWs who believe that Jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how JWs managed to achieve a closer approximation to early Christian beliefs and practices than other groups. But is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

New Testament scholar James Dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:

We must attempt the exceedingly difficult task of shutting out the voices of early Fathers, Councils and dogmaticians down the centuries, in case they drown the earlier voices, in case the earlier voices were saying something different, in case they intended their words to speak with different force to their hearers.
James D.G. Dunn Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of Incarnation (1980), pages 13 and 14.

The reason JWs were able to arrive at a clearer understanding of what the biblical texts were saying was because they were willing to put aside the traditional dogmas of the church and creedal statements that had steadily drifted away from the teachings of early Christianity. The leaders of the Reformation were willing to do this to some extent, but they did not go the whole way, as they were unwilling to challenge the dogmatic statements of the fourth century church on Christ and the Trinity in particular. Another biblical scholar. Jason BeDuhn, invokes this as an explanation how those who translated the New World Translation managed to produce a version that is more faithful to the original:

The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, are more similar to the Protestants in their view that the Bible alone must be the source of truth in its every detail. So you might expect translators from this sect to labor under the Protestant Burden. But they do not for the simple reason that the Jehovah's Witness movement was and is a more radical break with the dominant Christian tradition of the previous millennium than most kinds of Protestantism. This movement has, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah's Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, would say that the results of this process can be naive. But for Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, with far less presumption than that found in many of the Protestant translations.
Jason David BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (2003), pages 164 and 165.

59

Proof of two destinies for believers in the Bible, heavenly and earthly

by slimboyfat in

the jw idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds.

even some groups, such as the christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some christians are destined for life in heaven.

yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers.

slimboyfat

Does that mean they believe there are two groups of believers, one that rules with Christ as kings and priests in heaven, and the other that lives as subjects of the kingdom in paradise on earth? Because that’s what I’m talking about.

31

October Elder's Letter Delayed- Big Announcement at Annual Meeting

by Newly Enlightened in

https://youtu.be/93h5zpbil6k?si=ffatfxjuxmj_na9i.

slimboyfat

I know churches where relatives of members are paid for “work” done that doesn’t amount to very much. It’s income for doing very little, and some members of the congregations are not happy about it. I didn’t know JWs were at it as well. There’s a word for it I only learned recently - it’s called a sinecure. Probably others know this term, but it was new to me, and I never heard about it among JWs.

59

Proof of two destinies for believers in the Bible, heavenly and earthly

by slimboyfat in

the jw idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds.

even some groups, such as the christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some christians are destined for life in heaven.

yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers.

slimboyfat

KerryKing, Yes, certainly, the Jews were given first refusal, and some did accept the invitation, when the covenant was kept in force “for one week” (Dan 9.27) until 36 CE. But as a whole the nation of Israel did not accept the invitation and therefore it was given to a new nation producing fruits, (Matt 21.43) the “Israel of God”. (Gal 6.16). Paul describes this process in Rom 11 where he says that people from the nations had to be grafted in, so that the number of “Israel” could be complete. (Rom 11.25, 26)

59

Proof of two destinies for believers in the Bible, heavenly and earthly

by slimboyfat in

the jw idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds.

even some groups, such as the christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some christians are destined for life in heaven.

yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers.

slimboyfat

The JW idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds. Even some groups, such as the Christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some Christians are destined for life in heaven.

Yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the Bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers. This is especially evident in the book of Revelation, which makes sense if JWs are correct that this prophetic book projects forward to the period when the second group of believers with an earthly destiny is to be gathered.

The most obvious indication of two groups of believers is Revelation 7 which contrasts the 144,000 “Israelites”, with the great crowd from every tribe and nation that no one was able to number.

On top of that, we have Revelation 14.4 where the 144,000 are described as “bought from among mankind as firstfruits”. If these believers are “firstfruits to God and to the Lamb”, that would imply there are other believers who are subsequent fruitage, though not part of this initial group.

Then there is mention of those who are part of the “first resurrection” in Rev 20.6, who are said to rule as kings with Christ for 1000 years. In verse 5 we were told that “the rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1000 years were ended”. Again, clearly we have two separate groups of believers, only one of which rules with Christ.

Which all makes sense when you consider that, in order for there to be kings and priests, there must be subjects of the kingdom for those kings and priests to rule over. The prospect of being rulers of the nations was held out to Israel. When they rejected the privilege it was given to another nation producing fruits, (Matt 21.43) the “Israel of God”. (Gal 6.16)

One more indication of two groups of believers comes in Rev 22.17: “the spirit and the bride keep saying, ‘Come!’ and let anyone hearing say, ‘Come!’ and let anyone thirsting come; let anyone who wishes take life’s water free.” Here, the bride of Christ extends the invitation to others to benefit from life’s water free. This must be the second group of believers indicated by the “great crowd”, and “the rest” who came to life at the end of the 1000 years.

What about Ephesians 4.4 that says: “you were called to the one hope of your calling”. Doesn’t this show that there are not two groups of believers? Two things to note about that: 1) when Paul wrote this letter there were only anointed Christians at that time, one group, and 2) although the anointed and the great crowd have different destinies, they both exercise faith in Jesus as the basis for their shared hope of salvation from sin and death. So in that sense perhaps JWs should drop the language of “two hopes”, or “heavenly” and “earthly hopes”, if that terminology causes any stumbling. It might be better to talk about two destinies for believers, either ruling with Christ in heaven, or subjects of the kingdom on earth, which is based on a range on biblical statements including the few reviewed above.

28

how do you feel about the use of the name Jehovah now?

by enoughisenough in

for those who still believe in god and the bible, how do you feel/think about the name jehovah now?

i am one who never wanted to bring reproach on god's name.

i will admit using the word jehovah now makes me feel rather icky...like i am promoting a lie of sorts.

slimboyfat

Very interesting. Vasileiadis is a JW from Greece from what I can gather. His essays are good. I recommend the book by Shaw, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of IAW, if you can get your hands on it. He amasses the evidence from various sources for Yaho.

https://www.amazon.com/Earliest-Non-Mystical-Contributions-Biblical-Exegesis/dp/9042929782/

Recently a couple of Evangelicals, John Meade and Peter Gurry, have published a book Scribes & Scripture, where they acknowledge that Yaho was the popular pronunciation of God’s name and are open to the idea that Jesus used this pronunciation. (See page 55) This is an advance on earlier Evangelicals who argued that Jesus would not have used God’s name.

https://www.amazon.com/Scribes-Scripture-Amazing-Story-Bible/dp/1433577895/

Do I gather from what you say that you’re someone who still holds the beliefs of JWs on the divine name but you don’t believe God is using the Watchtower organisation? What are your views on other beliefs, such as Jesus is an angel, future paradise, 1914, blood, the 144,000 and so on? Do you know others in a similar position as yourself?

28

how do you feel about the use of the name Jehovah now?

by enoughisenough in

for those who still believe in god and the bible, how do you feel/think about the name jehovah now?

i am one who never wanted to bring reproach on god's name.

i will admit using the word jehovah now makes me feel rather icky...like i am promoting a lie of sorts.

slimboyfat

FreeTheMasons is correct, the Greek pronunciation of God’s name is Yaho and this is perhaps the form of the divine name that Jesus used. I came across this in books by McDonough and Shaw. I wonder where you came across it? Because the textbooks of a previous generation claimed that Jesus didn’t use God’s name.