Posts by ljwtiamb

new delhi, india - hopes of a potential nuclear conflict dimmed this weekend, after the leaders of india and pakistan confirmed that the peace process between their two nations was "irreversible".

ljwtiamb

Maybe this can be applied to the JW 'cry of peace and security', which still inidicates an approaching end.

24

do the gb go door to door...i was just wondering with all their bethel work and convention running and globe trotting whether anyone has 'witnessed' (sic) them actually going from door to door..(studies dont count)

ljwtiamb

Not sure, but I remember someone leading Freddie Franz (he was pretty much blind) by the hand to a door.

12

help me understand the political dynamics of the kh heirarchy

by Check_Your_Premises in

the more i learn about the dubs the more i understand so many things that take place.

one thing that has been of interest to me is all the politics that go into choosing people for the various tasks.

i figure human nature is human nature.

ljwtiamb

What is a PO?

PO = Presiding Overseer

DO = District Overseer

CO = Circuit Overseer

BO = (oh well, you get the point!)

30

JW False Teachings About Roman Catholics

by rebel8 in

apologies if this has been done before.... .

when i left the troof, i happened to learn many of the things i had been taught about rcs were lies.

i thought it would be interesting to see how many jw false teachings about rcs we can list.

ljwtiamb

Myth: RCs believe the communion "hosts" magically turn into the literal blood and flesh of Christ before they consume it. Therefore, they are cannibals. (Fact: I've never met any RCs, including priests, who believe it is anything more than a blessed symbol.)

III. TRANSUBSTANTIATION

Before proving dogmatically the fact of the substantial change here under consideration, we must first outline its history and nature.

(a) The scientific development of the concept of Transubstantiation can hardly be said to be a product of the Greeks, who did not get beyond its more general notes; rather, it is the remarkable contribution of the Latin theologians, who were stimulated to work it out in complete logical form by the three Eucharistic controversies mentioned above, The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this significant expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of the Greek Emperor Michael Palæologus. The Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. iv; can. ii) not only accepted as an inheritance of faith the truth contained in the idea, but authoritatively confirmed the "aptitude of the term" to express most strikingly the legitimately developed doctrinal concept. In a closer logical analysis of Transubstantiation, we find the first and fundamental notion to be that of conversion, which may be defined as "the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being". As is immediately evident, conversion (conversio) is something more than mere change (mutatio). Whereas in mere changes one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively, as, e.g., in the change of day and night, conversion requires two positive extremes, which are related to each other as thing to thing, and must have, besides, such an intimate connection with each other, that the last extreme (terminus ad quem) begins to be only as the first (terminus a quo) ceases to be, as, e.g., in the conversion of water into wine at Cana. A third element is usually required, known as the commune tertium, which, even after conversion has taken place, either physically or at least logically unites one extreme to the other; for in every true conversion the following condition must be fulfilled: "What was formerly A, is now B." A very important question suggests itself as to whether the definition should further postulate the previous non-existence of the last extreme, for it seems strange that an existing terminus a quo, A, should be converted into an already existing terminus ad quem, B. If the act of conversion is not to become a mere process of substitution, as in sleight-of-hand performances, the terminus ad quem must unquestionably in some manner newly exist, just as the terminus a quo must in some manner really cease to exist. Yet as the disappearance of the latter is not attributable to annihilation properly so called, so there is no need of postulating creation, strictly so called, to explain the former's coming into existence. The idea of conversion is amply realized if the following condition is fulfilled, viz., that a thing which already existed in substance, acquires an altogether new and previously non-existing mode of being. Thus in the resurrection of the dead, the dust of the human bodies will be truly converted into the bodies of the risen by their previously existing souls, just as at death they had been truly converted into corpses by the departure of the souls. This much as regards the general notion of conversion. Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another ? the accidents remaining the same ? just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.

The application of the foregoing to the Eucharist is an easy matter. First of all the notion of conversion is verified in the Eucharist, not only in general, but in all its essential details. For we have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luther's doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ. Thus, too, the theory of Impanation advocated by Osiander and certain Berengarians, and according to which a hypostatic union is supposed to take place between the substance of the bread and the God-man (impanatio = Deus panis factus), is authoritatively rejected. So the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation sets up a mighty bulwark around the dogma of the Real Presence and constitutes in itself a distinct doctrinal article, which is not involved in that of the Real Presence, though the doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in that of Transubstantiation. It was for this very reason that Pius VI, in his dogmatic Bull "Auctorem fidei" (1794) against the Jansenistic pseudo Synod of Pistoia (1786), protested most vigorously against suppressing this "scholastic question", as the synod had advised pastors to do.

(b) In the mind of the Church, Transubstantiation has been so intimately bound up with the Real Presence, that both dogmas have been handed down together from generation to generation, though we cannot entirely ignore a dogmatico-historical development. The total conversion of the substance of bread is expressed clearly in the words of Institution: "This is my body". These words form, not a theoretical, but a practical proposition, whose essence consists in this, that the objective identity between subject and predicate is effected and verified only after the words have all been uttered, not unlike the pronouncement of a king to a subaltern: "You are a major", or, "You are a captain", which would immediately cause the promotion of the officer to a higher command. When, therefore, He Who is All Truth and All Power said of the bread: "This is my body", the bread became, through the utterance of these words, the Body of Christ; consequently, on the completion of the sentence the substance of bread was no longer present, but the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread. Hence the bread must have become the Body of Christ, i.e. the former must have been converted into the latter. The words of Institution were at the same time the words of Transubstantiation. Indeed the actual manner in which the absence of the bread and the presence of the Body of Christ is effected, is not read into the words of Institution but strictly and exegetically deduced from them. The Calvinists, therefore, are perfectly right when they reject the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation as a fiction, with no foundation in Scripture. For had Christ intended to assert the coexistence of His Body with the Substance of the bread, He would have expressed a simple identity between hoc and corpus by means of the copula est, but would have resorted to some such expression as: "This bread contains my body", or, "In this bread is my Body." Had He desired to constitute bread the sacramental receptacle of His Body, He would have had to state this expressly, for neither from the nature of the case nor according to common parlance can a piece of bread be made to signify the receptacle of a human body. On the other hand, the synecdoche is plain in the case of the Chalice: "This is my blood", i.e. the contents of the Chalice are my blood, and hence no longer wine.

Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism. On the other hand, complete clearness on the subject had been attained by writers as early as Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria in the East, and by Ambrose and the later Latin writers in the West. Eventually the West became the classic home of scientific perfection in the difficult doctrine of Transubstantiation. The claims of the learned work of the Anglican Dr. Pusey (The Doctrine of the Real Presence as contained in the Fathers, Oxford, 1855), who denied the cogency of the patristic argument for Transubstantiation, have been met and thoroughly answered by Cardinal Franzelin (De Euchar., Rome, 1887, xiv). The argument from tradition is strikingly confirmed by the ancient liturgies, whose beautiful prayers express the idea of conversion in the clearest manner. Many examples may be found in Renaudot, "Liturgiæ orient." (2nd ed., 1847); Assemani, "Codex liturg." (13 vols., Rome 1749-66); Denzinger, "Ritus Orientalium" (2 vols., Würzburg, 1864), Concerning the Adduction Theory of the Scotists and the Production Theory of the Thomists, see Pohle, "Dogmatik" (3rd ed., Paderborn, 1908), III, 237 sqq.

24

DO THE GB GO DOOR TO DOOR

by tijkmo in

jw
friends

do the gb go door to door...i was just wondering with all their bethel work and convention running and globe trotting whether anyone has 'witnessed' (sic) them actually going from door to door..(studies dont count)

ljwtiamb

I know you guys won't believe me but it IS true.

Even Ted Jaracz would go out in service. He gave several public talks throughout the NYC area and would actually almost always make it a point to go out in service. He would even refuse to work with an elder. (You can just imagine how they would jockey for position to work in service with a gb.)

I can't speak for their sincerity, but they really did go out or either offer magazines to passersby on street corners.

Actually, that was one of the few things that really impressed me!

12

help me understand the political dynamics of the kh heirarchy

by Check_Your_Premises in

the more i learn about the dubs the more i understand so many things that take place.

one thing that has been of interest to me is all the politics that go into choosing people for the various tasks.

i figure human nature is human nature.

ljwtiamb

You have all given excellent insight, minus an important trump card: ex-bethelite.

In this org, bethel on your resume is almost like having an advanced degree.

Often, but not always, the other elders will bow to such a brother if he has served in JW HQ for 5 years or more.

Now if he was a bethel-elder, (had internal elder clout, dept. head, speaking list, etc.) he was on an organizational level of a traveling overseer. So, he has immediate credit with ANY congregation that he walks into. Keep in mind, that this can be lost if he doesn't tow the local political line. However, generally if he plays his cards right, he immediately bypasses the locals by getting in with the circuit and district overseers with assembly talks, memorial talks, etc.

The problem is that all to often, ex-bethelites don't glamorize the local elder positions anymore. Having been at the org and seen the gb and writers, glorious ones, etc. all in person, they lose a lot of the appreciation for the position and just want to make up for lost time by making lots of money.

In fact, it's not uncommon for ex-bethelites, ex-circuit overseers, etc. to end up fading away or becoming the dreaded 'apostates'. Even at best, they usually don't try to attain such a high local standing again. I think the level of fade is directly proportionate to the length of time and level that they reached before leaving.

5

Don't you just love ex-JW women!

by ljwtiamb in

http://www.madblast.com/funpages/view.cfm?id=10715

ljwtiamb

http://www.madblast.com/funpages/view.cfm?id=10715

24

DO THE GB GO DOOR TO DOOR

by tijkmo in

jw
friends

do the gb go door to door...i was just wondering with all their bethel work and convention running and globe trotting whether anyone has 'witnessed' (sic) them actually going from door to door..(studies dont count)

ljwtiamb

Honestly, I can tell you that they did go out in service.

In fact, it was not uncommon to see them in the bethel neighborhoods almost every weekend.

No Kidding!

24

What the C/O overseer said

by NoAnswers in

jw
friends

on the brothers last talk he was talking about how we should be good host.

like abbrahan was to the angels anyways..... he went on saying that some brothers in other countries have the elders deal with their financial neeeds it sounded that they give the money to them and they share it among the congrecation.

he then went on saying that if the governing body would ask us in this country to do that what would we do ?

ljwtiamb

Genesis Chapter 18

1 Afterward Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mam´re, while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent about the heat of the day. 2 When he raised his eyes, then he looked and there three men were standing some distance from him. When he caught sight of them he began running to meet them from the entrance of the tent and proceeded to bow down to the earth. 3 Then he said: ?Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant. 4 Let a little water be taken, please, and YOU must have YOUR feet washed. Then recline under the tree. 5 And let me get a piece of bread, and refresh YOUR hearts. Following that, YOU can pass on, because that is why YOU have passed this way to YOUR servant.? At this they said: ?All right. You may do just as you have spoken.?
6 So Abraham went hurrying to the tent to Sarah and said: ?Hurry! Get three seah measures of fine flour, knead the dough and make round cakes.? 7 Next Abraham ran to the herd and proceeded to get a tender and good young bull and to give it to the attendant, and he went hurrying to get it ready. 8 He then took butter and milk and the young bull that he had got ready and set it before them. Then he himself kept standing by them under the tree as they were eating.
9 They now said to him: ?Where is Sarah your wife?? To this he said: ?Here in the tent!? 10 So he continued: ?I am surely going to return to you next year at this time, and, look! Sarah your wife will have a son.? Now Sarah was listening at the tent entrance, and it was behind the man. 11 And Abraham and Sarah were old, being advanced in years. Sarah had stopped having menstruation. 12 Hence Sarah began to laugh inside herself, saying: ?After I am worn out, shall I really have pleasure, my lord being old besides?? 13 Then Jehovah said to Abraham: ?Why was it that Sarah laughed, saying, ?Shall I really and truly give birth although I have become old?? 14 Is anything too extraordinary for Jehovah? At the appointed time I shall return to you, next year at this time, and Sarah will have a son.? 15 But Sarah began to deny it, saying: ?I did not laugh!? For she was afraid. At this he said: ?No! but you did laugh.?