just wanted to post this because i just discovered most of it, and you may be interested.
also, it is relevant to the victoria australia case, specifically the wtbts's defense.
if you read the transcripts, you will see how the lines are being blurred between who is a minister, and who is not.
sir82:
They haven't referred to the "all baptized JWS are ordained ministers" meme lately, in at least 2 or 3 years.
The 15 March 2010 Watchtower article partially quoted by blondie above is talking about all baptised JWs, and refers to them as "ordained ministers".
according to 1 samuel 13:1, in the oldest hebrew manuscripts, saul ruled for two years (assuming saul actually existed at all, for which there is no hard evidence).
however, various [christian] translators assume this 'must' be an error because acts 13:21 says saul reigned for forty years.
saul's age at 1 samuel 13:1 is conveniently missing from the oldest manuscripts.
mP:
Of course the story in its bible form never happened. Somebody back then heard a few "exodus type" stories and adopted them and made the travellers jews. I have never heard of the Ethiopic story you are referring too, but given the proximity of both home lands its of course quite a reasonable possibility.
The 'Moses' character is basically ripped straight out of an earlier Exodus story. I can't recall the specifics about the Ethiopic origins of the Exodus story, because it's been a few years since I've looked at that in any depth.
But note this 'co-incidence' provided in Insight:
*** it-1 p. 560 Cush ***
Cush, or Ethiopia, had come under Egyptian domination by about the time of the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, and it continued thus for some 500 years. A viceroy administering this domain under the Egyptian Pharaoh was known by the title “King’s Son of Kush.” Evidently toward the close of the second millennium B.C.E., Ethiopia freed itself from Egypt’s control. The Ethiopian capital was thereafter located first at Napata, near the fourth cataract, and later at Meroë, about 210 km (130 mi) NNE of Khartoum.
the watchtower states that the great tribulation.... will start when the united nations attacks babylon the great.
it appears individual states of the usa are starting to get that ball rolling right now.. .
with the world wide child sexual abuse cover-ups across the globe getting special attention from the media.. legislators across the usa seem to have lost the fear of getting the nod of disapproval of 'clergy', especially from the younger members.. law professor marci a. hamilton writes, "across the country, the movement for justice for child-sex-abuse victims is finding that conversations that used to begin with a discussion of the catholic bishops' opposition (and then often ended abruptly) are now started by a member's saying, "they don't deserve deference on this issue.
blondie:
(Matthew 24:44) 44 On this account YOU too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that YOU do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming.
Actually, that scripture is kind of accurate. JWs expect that 'the end' could be any time. And that's exactly when it isn't happening. Jesus, Santa and the Easter Bunny are not coming to visit. Ever.
just wanted to post this because i just discovered most of it, and you may be interested.
also, it is relevant to the victoria australia case, specifically the wtbts's defense.
if you read the transcripts, you will see how the lines are being blurred between who is a minister, and who is not.
*** w06 4/1 p. 24 par. 11 ‘Go and Make Disciples, Baptizing Them’ ***
The second question asks the candidate, first of all, if he understands that his baptism serves to identify him as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. After undergoing immersion, he becomes an ordained minister who bears Jehovah’s name. This is both a great privilege and a serious responsibility.
But apparently JWs being 'ministers' is not a serious 'responsibility' when it comes to legal obligations.
So which is it? Are JW publishers 'ordained ministers' or merely 'volunteers'? They want it both ways.
just wanted to post this because i just discovered most of it, and you may be interested.
also, it is relevant to the victoria australia case, specifically the wtbts's defense.
if you read the transcripts, you will see how the lines are being blurred between who is a minister, and who is not.
Also, it is relevant to the Victoria Australia case, specifically the WTBTS's defense.
I've been wondering for a while why this hasn't been a bigger deal. If all baptised JWs are ordained ministers, then they should all be subject to the 'Working with Children' checks in Victoria (and similar legislation in other Australian states, and other jurisdications worldwide). Particularly when any JW might at any time perform 'field service' on their own, and any might encounter homes where only a child is present.
JWs love semantics. When it's convenient, they're all 'ministers' and they have no clergy (particularly useful to avoid conscription). But that goes out the window when they want to claim 'clergy-penitent privilege' or (as in this case) the organisation doesn't want to take any responsibility for the actions of its members.
The Watch Tower Society's representatives claimed in response to the Australian Royal Commission (linked in OP) that there have only been two cases of child abuse in the last fifty years in Victoria, carefully relying on their convenient (temporary) definition of 'minister'.
I really don't know how they get away with it.
here's an interview with a jehovah's witness pornstar that we were going to run in the gangs vs. cults issue but didn't.
kim holland tells us how evangelism prepared her for a life in porn.. vice: what was it like growing up as a jehovah's witness?
kim: i was only ten when i joined.
There's always a Q&A section during which you have put your hand up to ask a question.
Um... no. That would be to answer a question.
http://www.watchman.org/blog/index.php/watchtower-society-changes-doctrine-of-1914-again/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed%3a+watchmanfellowship+%28watchman+fellowship%29.
.
not sure how to show the link properly..
Their doctrine still relies on 1914 as much as it ever did. The increased focus on 1919 is just a distraction to take some focus off 1914.
at the very moment i signed oni saw the quote related to demonic experiences next to the $600 question about the stones.. given my desire to increase efficiency i thought it might be good to combine the topics.. i am very dissapointed that i have never had a demonic experience.
the fact that i don't believe in demons may have impacted my lack of experience.
however, i would never spend $600 to seen any group or person - even if they were naked.. so, how about you?.
return of parakeet:
If doughnuts didn't tempt them to show up, $600 won't tempt them either. Nothing will. And I think I know the reason why.
Obviously you didn't supply enough doughnuts. $600 will buy quite a lot of them though. Buy $600 worth of doughnuts and invite the demons again. Then report back here.
according to 1 samuel 13:1, in the oldest hebrew manuscripts, saul ruled for two years (assuming saul actually existed at all, for which there is no hard evidence).
however, various [christian] translators assume this 'must' be an error because acts 13:21 says saul reigned for forty years.
saul's age at 1 samuel 13:1 is conveniently missing from the oldest manuscripts.
mP:
The story happened, its just the numbers and characters are made up. The Jews stole this story like many others from different peoples.
As I said before, the story of the Jews leaving Egypt never actually happened. If I recall correctly, the story of the 'Exodus' is stolen from an earlier Ethiopic story. Whether something remotely similar ever happened to anyone (though this isn't necessarily the case) doesn't alter the fact that it never happened to the Jews.
according to 1 samuel 13:1, in the oldest hebrew manuscripts, saul ruled for two years (assuming saul actually existed at all, for which there is no hard evidence).
however, various [christian] translators assume this 'must' be an error because acts 13:21 says saul reigned for forty years.
saul's age at 1 samuel 13:1 is conveniently missing from the oldest manuscripts.
John Kesler:
From the day that the ark was lodged at Kiriath-jearim, a long time passed, some twenty years, and all the house of Israel lamented after Yahweh.
The problem is that the ark was taken to the "house of Abinadab on the hill" before Saul became king (1 Samuel 10:1), Saul reigned for forty years (Acts 13:21), and the ark wasn't retrieved from "the house of Abinadab on the hill" until Saul's successor David was king (2 Samuel 6:1-3).
Indeed.
It's worth nothing though that the twenty years suggested in 1 Samuel is consistent with the twenty years assigned by Josephus for the length of Saul's reign (before being 'edited' by translators of Josephus' works who wanted to make it seem consistent with the faulty claim in Acts.
mP:
I remember some book i read a while back made a few interesting statements that Saul and Samuel were originally one character. Saul is simply a contraction of Samuel and this separation accounts for the break and errors in years that are brought up throughout this thread. Apparently Samuel was a king but then somehow this got rewritten as Saul. Naturally what we have now in the bible has been edited many many times but he did make several cases wehre this does make sense. Then again there are other parts that fail this combined single person.
It's possible that Saul never actually existed, and it's possible that 'Samuel'/'Saul' is a fictional archetype based on a self-appointed king of the early Jewish nation as an insignificant tribe in Canaan (who may or may not have been named a lingual variation of 'Saul' or 'Samuel'). The stories in the Bible attributed to 'Moses' are generally recognised as having been written much later (specifically, in the Neo-Babylonian period); in particular, Deuteronomy is broadly considered to have been part of the same work as Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. The books of Judges (seriously, Judges is just plain ridiculous) and Samuel (also actually from the same Neo-Babylonian exilic period) contain stories that seek to fill the gap between 'the Moses stories' and the later verifiable Judean/Israelite [Book of] Kings. All those books are possibly by the same author (or a group of colluding authors), working from a mixture of oral tradition and records available at the time, and influenced heavily by theological and political motivations.
The story of the Jews leaving Egypt and the subsequent 'invasion' of 'the promised land' never actually happened. The early Jews were most likely just another Canaanite tribe. The stories of not only the 'release' from Egypt but also of the Jews 'conquering' the [other] Canaanite nations is therefore just a lot of 'chest thumping'.
