jaffacake

Joined

• started 68 topics
• posted 1,506 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by jaffacake

• 
  28

  RATE YOUR JOB!

  by Mary in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what kind of a job do you have?

  rate it below: .

  i absolutely love my job and wouldn't trade it for anything

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jaffacake

  2. My job is pretty good and although I sometimes get frustrated, I can't really complain
• 
  18

  Does 2 Samuel 12:15 show the god of the Bible to be a god of justice?

  by scout575 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after king david commits adulery with bathaheba and arranges for her husband uriah to be killed in battle, does god execute the death penalty on david as prescribed by the mosaic law for adulterers?

  ( deut 22:22 ) no.

  rather than executing david, what punishment does god mete out?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jaffacake

  Hello again scout,

  I agree with what IP Sec said....however,

  Unlike JWs, I believe most of world's most respected Bible scholars, commentators, theologians and Christian church leaders would perhaps answer in a similar way to IP Sec. Those same Christians also believe that "God is love". How can such apparent contradictions be reconciled?

  I think the Bible can only begin to be understood, on several levels, in its entirety, and it therefore makes little sense to arrive at an important conclusion based on any selected portion. Perhaps that is why much of religion is in a mess.

  I think the issue you raise helps illustrate that for most Christians the Bible is something very different to what JWs and others perceive it to be - in its nature, form and purpose. In this regard JWs are no different to some of those who often describe themselves as bible-based, or fundamentalist Christians.

  I suppose to all Christians the Bible is central to their belief. But you are right to challenge Christians with such passages, of which there are thousands, that portray an unjust and vindictive God. However, most Christians are immune to such challenges, because frankly the apparent motive behind the question probably misses the point, and fails to recognise or understand how most Christians perceive scriptures. We don't all interpret scriptures in a one dimensional, literalistic way. Nor do we believe they were dictated by God. It is in Islam that people hold such beliefs about their own holy scriptures.

  For me personally, if the choice was to worship the God portrayed in your quoted text or reject God with all my being, then I would undoubtedly choose the latter. So in that respect, to me your challenging question above is perhaps preaching to the converted, except I suspect you and I have arrived at very different conclusions. It would be a mistake to think that someone who recognises the injustice and vindictiveness you point out could not therefore believe in the validity or importance of the Bible, or have love for God.

  Fortunately many believe there are deeper, spiritual meanings to scriptures. Many recognise the Bible does not contain a set of doctrines, much less a set of rules. Your questions are valid in order to challenge JW style Christians who still believe in the vindictive God portrayed in the OT and to a lesser extent the NT. Your questions would only challenge this significant minority of Christans. Most of us believers recognise that such a text is just one of hundreds if not thousands of examples of what is an ancient people's perspective about justice.

  I would argue that the vindictiveness that is clearly present in the bible, is caused by a limited understanding, including by some of its authors, of the punitive justice of God. What I have learned about the Bible is that human understanding of divine revelation is often very limited. This continues into the NT when the apostles plainly failed to understand Jesus. Even Paul, at 2 Thessalonians, 1:7-9 mistakenly thinks of Jesus as a vengeful warrier.

  However, the scriptures themselves, teach deeper levels of their meaning, both OT and NT. If God inspired the authors minds and imaginations, revelation was still received by fallible and very limited minds and cultures. I often ask myself - where did this modern, trendy doctrine that scriptures are verbally inerrant come from? That is certainly not what the Bible teaches about itself. Such doctrines are what sets the Bible up for attacks upon it.

  The Bible portrays a God of vindictiveness. The Bible portrays a God of unlimited love. Surely these two things are mutually exclusive. Why are there so many contradictions or paradoxes in scripture?

  The principle of sublation is very clear in scriptures. So does the God of vindictiveness trump the God of love...or vice versa? To many, the Christian scriptures provide a resounding answer on that key question "God is love" yet some believers wrestle with proof texts and somehow conclude that the God of 2 Samuel is the accurate face of God. I think the following texts are examples that give me some idea of how to answer your question about 2 Samuel 12:15:

  Matthew 7:12 Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them…for this is the law and the prophets

  Matthew 22:40 On the two commandments of loving God and loving one’s neighbour, “depend the law and the prophets”

  1 Corinthians 13 (English Standard Version)

  If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love,

  I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

  If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

  Love is patient and kind;

  Love does not envy or boast;

  It is not arrogant or rude.

  It does not insist on its own way;

  It is not irritable or resentful;

  It does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.

  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

  Love never ends.

  As for prophecies, they will pass away;

  As for tongues, they will cease;

  As for knowledge, it will pass away.

  When I was a child I , I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now, we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully even as I have been fully known.

  So now faith, hope and love abide, these three;

  But the greatest of these is love.
• 
  54

  "Witlesses", "JDumbs", other labels.. How do you feel about them?

  by AlmostAtheist in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've commented before that the watchtower goes out of its way to label groups of people it doesn't want you to like -- "worldly people", "apostates", "christendom".

  there are scores of these labels.. people in general use them too: "spick", "n*gger", "trailer trash".

  once we allow ourselves to refer to people by a label, we automatically change them from an individual to a member of a group.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jaffacake

  rebel

  I think most labels we use are fine, like dubs. What could be offensive or derogatory about that. They call folks on this board far worse.
• 
  12

  Did Jesus fulfil Hosea 11:1?

  by scout575 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  at matthew 2:15, the writer quotes an extract from hosea 11:1. his quote reads: "out of egypt have i called my son.

  " matthew applies this quotation to jesus in connection with jesus' return to israel from egypt, as an infant.

  does the context of this extract from hosea 11:1, and the tense in which it is written indicate that it is a messianic prophecy?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jaffacake

  Hi Scout

  A fair point, never use the word never, there is a mix of everything in the OT and indeed the new, which of course includes some literalism. I was perhaps overstating the dangers of too much literalism that is the cause of so much mis interpretation of scriptures by relatively modern religions, including JWs. Just my opinion.

  Many thanks for the feedback.
• 
  56

  Does your JW baptism still mean anything to you?

  by JH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  all i know is that jesus said to get baptized.

  he didn't say in what religion though.. although i don't go to meetings anymore and don't plan on going anymore, i'm still glad that i was baptized.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jaffacake

  Caryl,

  You may wish to look up the quotes & questions:

  Watchtower Quotes:

  Watchtower 1 July 1955 page 411

  “A Christian cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organisation, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This shows, amongst other things, that Christianity is not a denominational affair”.

  Watchtower 1 October 1966 page 603

  “We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organisation. No, we dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God Himself. This makes dedication a very personal relationship between us and Jehovah.

  Holy Spirit, 1976 pp148

  Baptizing In The Name Of The holy spirit, which Jehovah prophesied that he would pour out in the last days, has not ceased to operate, for the remnant are still baptizing disciples of Christ in the name of that spirit.

  According to Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus Christ told his disciples to baptize persons “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” In the Apostolic days, Peter and others called on people to “repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

  People were baptized into Christianity in similar ways to this for 1,900 years. For more than 100 years the Watchtower followed this Scriptural example.

  Why, in June 1985, were the questions changed to remove “the Holy Spirit” against Christ’s clear command? There was no explanation, just a comment in the 15 April 1987 Watchtower that the questions were “simplified” and reference to person being baptised “coming into intimate relationship with God and his earthly organisation.” Scriptures stress that baptism is into Christ only, and excludes earthly people, even the Apostles:

  1 Corinthians 1:13

  “Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?”

  So why the reversal from the scriptural position stressed in the 1955 and 1966 Watchtowers and the 1976 Holy Spirit book?

  Why is an earthly organisation led by fallible men now inserted into the “personal relationship with Jehovah”?

  Should we really ignore Christ’s command and replace the Holy Spirit with a human organisation which claims to be spirit-directed?

  Is this another reason why millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Watchtower leaders are now acting as idol gods?

  Matthew 12:32

  “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
• 
  56

  Does your JW baptism still mean anything to you?

  by JH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  all i know is that jesus said to get baptized.

  he didn't say in what religion though.. although i don't go to meetings anymore and don't plan on going anymore, i'm still glad that i was baptized.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jaffacake

  Caryl

  Baptism Questions 1956 & for years later with only minor variation

  1. Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as a simmer who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him the Father through his Son Jesus Christ?
  2. On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightenment of the holy spirit?

  New Questions from 1985

  At the close of the convention baptism talk, the baptism candidates will be in position to answer with depth of understanding and heartfelt appreciation two simple questions that serve to confirm that they recognize the implications of following Christ’s example. The first question is:

  1. On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?"

  2 . Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?
• 
  12

  Did Jesus fulfil Hosea 11:1?

  by scout575 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  at matthew 2:15, the writer quotes an extract from hosea 11:1. his quote reads: "out of egypt have i called my son.

  " matthew applies this quotation to jesus in connection with jesus' return to israel from egypt, as an infant.

  does the context of this extract from hosea 11:1, and the tense in which it is written indicate that it is a messianic prophecy?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jaffacake

  Another good question.

  Within Judaism there is a wide range of interpretations of who or what the Messiah is, from a political figure establishing the state if Israel to a supernatural figure who will miraculously intervene in history. Some see him as a symbol for the creation of a truly human, just and compassionate society under God.

  The Gospels do of course use Hebrew scripture texts to reinforce their claim that Jesus is the Messiah. All the things described in the OT are symbols, never literal. NT writers clearly believed Jesus was the Messiah and so he becomes the focal point for all the Biblical symbolism about the battle between good & evil.

  There is a problem applying OT Messianic symbols to Jesus, he did not overthrow the military Rome, nor become King of Israel, nor inspire the return of the 12 tribes to Jerusalem in triumph. He died accused of being a criminal, deserted even by his followers, and within 100 years the nation of Israel had ceased to exist. Not what some of his followers expected of a Messiah. After his crucifixion two disciples said 'we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel' (Luke 24:21). They still needed to learn that salvation had a different meaning and that his Kingship was not of this world (John 18:36).

  Kingship was not about liberation from Roman rule but the rule of God within the heart. There is the formation of a new Israel, a new covenant with God. Yes, there was still a historical dimension to the NT apocalypse - fall of Jerusalem etc in 70CE, rise of false Messianic claimants like Simeon Bar-Cochba, profanation of the temple etc. This all happened within one generation.

  Your questions about the validity of Christians claiming that Jesus fulfilled OT Messianic prophecies, seems to me to miss the whole point of what Christianity is, and the nature of symbolism in both the OT and NT. It appears to be a similar to the confusion of those two disciples in Luke's gospel, who were trying to match the Christ's accomplishments in some literalistic way with OT Messianic prophecies. In my view there is little point in trying to make such matches. That just perpetuates the fact that many of Christ's followers just did not 'get it' until later. It reminds me of Christ repeatedly being misunderstood during his life by even his closest fiollowers.

  I wonder whether these questions reflect to some degree the need for a JW-style literalistic interpretation of the Bible that is simply out of step with the very substance and form of scriptural revelation, and that misses completely the central meaning of scriptures.
• 
  37

  Now That The "Hope" Of Paradise Is Gone-----Now What???

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  are you aimless?

  are you happier?

  more confused?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jaffacake

  I don't believe the Bible teaches about a paradise earth. It is yet another myth like the supposed doctrine of new light.

  Someone show me where the words paradise and earth appear together in the same sentence anywhere in the Bible. Someone show me where the words new and light appear together in the Bible. Someone show me.........
• 
  37

  Now That The "Hope" Of Paradise Is Gone-----Now What???

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  are you aimless?

  are you happier?

  more confused?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jaffacake

  
  I agree with Onesong.

  As a Christian, I believe there is only one chance at a physical life and this is it, we should make the most of it. That makes me happier.

  Incidentally, I beieve there is scriptural evidence that paradise is a way of describing an interim state after death and before what is described as being saved. Many Christians believe the complete fulfilment of God's plan will not occur until after the physical heavens and earth - the cosmos - have passed away or dissolved.

  Of course I no longer believe that the symbolic wording 'a new heaven and new earth' refers to this wee planet and a physical cosmos like this one. We should make the most of this one chance we get as physical beings.
• 
  11

  Studies In The Scriptures... any difference?

  by Bryan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is there any difference between the printed years (different editions) for the studies in the scriptures series, other than the covers?

  and to me it looks like rutherford was the one who put the winged globe on the cover, is that correct?

  bryan

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jaffacake

  Wow NN,

  That's the longest post I've seen. Almost as long as Studies in the Scriptures. I'll save it on my PC thanks.