COC is more purely 'factual' and deals more with Ray's personal experience at the time of his crisis and why. SOCF expands more on other themes and errors of the WTS, but it takes the reader further, helping JW's who want to remain Christians to find a new way for themselves as a Christian outside the WTS organisation, something that can be immensely hard for ex-JW's to do. COC is powerful to tear down your faith in the organisation, but SOCF can help build up your faith again and get moving again in Christ. I personally enjoyed SOCF more for this reason.
yaddayadda
JoinedPosts by yaddayadda
-
13
Which of Franz's books is better, COC of CF?
by jwfacts inwhen i was rethinking the wts i did most of my research by going back to old books and steering clear of "apostate" material, so i knew the wrong dates, pyramids etc and made my mind up before reading any apostate sites.
when i finally read crisis of conscience i already knew a lot of the information in it, though i still really enjoyed it.
however, even after i knew the wts was a con i still did not have answers for some of the doctrines, like great crowd/other sheep and organisation.
-
-
-
10
Satan rides a white horse?
by sinis inhas anyone else read revelation 6:2 and came to the conclusion that the rider of this white horse is non other than satan?
the surrounding context does not support that of the christ, as the wts says.
any thoughts?
-
-
yaddayadda
I've often wondered about this. I've read Carl Olof Jonsson's theory but was not totally convinced. If the rider is Satan it seems incredibly odd that scripture would portray him in remarkably similar terminology and imagery as Jesus is portrayed later in Revelation 19, therefore I doubt that he is Satan.
If the other horse riders are symbolic for conditions or states, eg, death or famine, then to be consistent it would seem more logical to say that the rider on the white horse is also symbolic of something, eg, some type of conquest, rather than representative of a personality, like Jesus or Satan. Very puzzling.
-
28
Elders coming over next week to discuss my questions
by Goldminer inthree months ago an elder came to our house to try to answer some of my questions.none were answered to my satisfaction and it was obvious some seemed difficult to him so he said he would do some more research and get back to me.well,last night at the meeting he told my wife that he and another elder would like to come over next week to continue our original conversation.. my wife told them that i didn't really want to be a jw anymore and they said they weren't giving up on me just yet.they also said they like me as a person and i really don't think they want to df me anytime soon as this would be too traumatic to my wife and might push her out of the religion for good.. my plan is to start with the first question and stick to it until it is answered to my satisfaction which i doubt it can be.it is the following:.
where does the bible say that god has an "organization" on earth and uses a governing body to direct it?.
i have some research ready to use but i'd like to ask you if you have any comments or information you'd like to share that i can use in some way.i appreciate all your help on this one and i'll keep you posted on how it goes next week.thank you very much.. goldminer
-
-
yaddayadda
Goldminer, I think you would be taking a wrong tack to focus on organisation per se. It's just semantics. A good JW can make a strong case that a collective group of congregations that teach pretty much the same doctrine is loosely an 'organisation'. Also, there was a sort of administrative body in the first century, at least for the first few decades. Any group needs some sort of oversight.
A better tack would be to get them to prove that the GB is the rightful representative for all the other thousands of faithful and discreet slaves in the 'organisation'. Ask them to prove why the Watchtower Society and the GB alone have the right to determine absolutely every point of doctrine and belief that JW's adhere to. This would be a stronger position for you to challenge them on, because the WTS acknowledges that ALL anointed JW's make up the FDS and therefore would be doing spiritual feeding, not just a few. The elders will wholeheartedly agree on that of course. Then Ask them if all anointed ones in the case in the first century did such spiritual feeding? Again, the elders will have to admit that this was the case. Ask them why, then, it is today that all of anointed ones in the org besides the GB are merely parroting what the WTS feeds them and have no input whatsoever into what is being taught, and why these thousands of other anointed JW's are completely indistinguishable from members of the 'other sheep' except for the fact that they take the emblems each year? Put it to them that it is a known fact that the Society does not consider any input on doctrine from anointed persons outside of the WT heirarchy. Ask them at that point, given that Jesus said all anointed persons would be FDS's, whether it would be reasonable then for Jehovah and Jesus to perhaps provide spiritual insights and new spiritual food through some anointed JW's that are outside of the Watchtower heirarchy? They will be cornered and will have to admit that it is a possibility. Then put it to them that this is inded what Jehovah is doing and that you have read of certain new insights and interpretations from some of these anointed JW's (whether or not you believe that) that makes a lot more sense than what the WTS is still teaching, and that you believe the Society is in gross error on some interpretations and that these old interpretations should be ditched or revised. They will umm and errr. Then ask them why the Society are so eager to disfellowship other 'anointed' JW's who disagree with some of their teachings, when it has been agreed that, according to scripture, there is no distinction in Jesus' eyes between any member of the anointed class, ie, they are all born again spirit-begotten persons that Jesus said would feed the domestics, right? Point out also that the only extra authority that some of these anointed ones had was the apostles, but besides the apostles, they were all of equal authority - get them to agree on that, which they must. Then ask them whether the GB are apostles? They will of course have to say no. Get them to agree that the GB then, really have no greater spiritual authority or mandate than anyone else that takes the emblems amongst JW's? They will have to agree on that also. Then ask them pointedly why you are expected to agree with everyone tiny point of interpretation put forward by the GB under threat of disfellowshipment????? Then point out that the Apostle Paul was for all intents and purposes a loner, hardly contacting the body of elder men and his other apostles at all, instead going about writing numerous letters off his own bat without running them past the older men in Jerusalem first. Yet if an anointed JW tries to do this today they get instantly disfellowshipped? Point out that in the first century many in the congregations received the gifts of prophesying and teaching without approval of some representative group first. Point out that Jesus did not run his messages to the 7 congregations in Revelation through some 'representative' body first. Tell them that it is clear from scripture that Jesus would and still is using any individual anointed person whom he so chooses to provide spiritual truths and do spiritual feeding, so why therefore does the Society constantly tell all JW's that only they have the right to do that? Ask them why the GB practically claims to be the FDS itself. Put it to them that, scripturally, the GB has no legitimate authority to control all spiritual feeding in the manner it does, and further, that the GB is actually suppressing many new spiritual truths and 'beating' fellow anointed Christians by disfellowshipping them for speaking to others about these truths. If the elders come up with 'we should all speak in unity and agreement' and that kind of stuff, then say that there are certain beliefs all JW's should be united on but that the GB have become the absolute masters of every interpretations beyond those basic, fundamental beliefs, and they are unjustified in doing this.
Using this logic they will be completely unable to defend the GB's position of claiming to be the legitimate representative and spokesperson. Believing that the GB and WTS has the legitimate right to determine all doctrine and speak on behalf of all the other thousands of FDS's amounts to sheer credulity and they will really be cornered on this.
-
5
Service Meeting for Week December 5, 2005
by TheListener insong 38.
10 min: local announcements.. 15 min: local needs.. 20 min: "what our ministry accomplishes.
" * when considering paragraph 5, include comments on the february 15, 2004, watchtower, page 32.. song 26 and concluding prayer.. * limit introductory comments to less than a minute, and follow with a question-and-answer discussion.
-
-
yaddayadda
the poor sods, sitting there week after week on a Tuesday or Thursday night in some chilly kingdom hall, enduring this joyless, dry, dull stuff, year after year. It's about as exciting as sitting through a 2 hour work staff meeting once a week at night.
Poor zombies. Lord help them.
-
18
Does God care for people in India and China?
by JH in.
if only witnesses have the truth and only them will be saved, i guess that god doesn't care much for people in india and china (who represent together about half of the world's population).. out of the 2.5 billion people in both countries combined, how many witnesses can there be?.
a rough guess: 1 witness per 100,000 population
-
-
yaddayadda
Very good point. JW's clearly cannot be not fulfilling Matt 24: 14. The 'end' must still be a long way off.
-
44
Regarding the holy Trinity
by kristiano1122 ini want to know why jw dont accept the holy trinity even though there is enough biblical evidence in the bible regarding this.
the following passages are from the book of john .
1:1. in the beginning was the word: and the word was with god: and the word was god.
-
-
yaddayadda
There are only 3 verses in the bible that, if you had absolutely no prior knowledge of any kind of Christian belief at all, just picked up the bible and started reading it like a novel with no bias whatsoever, might make you wonder if Jesus had some kind of equality with God. Those are:John 1:1 - this is the trinitarians biggie. Yes, there is a strong case made by many scholars that it should rigorously be translated 'and the Word was God'. However, the fact remains that there are also some reputable scholars that make a strong case that it should not be rendered that way. And there are some bible translations that render it differently, as does the NWT. JW's are not unique on this. So who is right? It boils down to a matter of scholarly opinion. Everyone takes their pick according to their personal bias The point is, however, that the trinitarians view on this verse is open to debate and there is reasonable doubt about it. In a Court of law, if there is reasonable doubt about something the jury cannot convict with certainty.
John 20: 28 - Thomas' saying "My Lord and My God". This is a hard one to get around for non-trinitarians, admittedly. However, who's word has more authority: Thomas' or Jesus' about Jesus identify? Just a few verses earlier in the same chapter of John, Jesus said to Mary "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God". So Jesus is plainly telling Mary that her God was Yahweh, the God the Jews had always worshipped before Christ came onto the scene (the first and foremost Jewish teaching, that Jesus reaffirmed at Luke 4:8). If Jesus was God and knew himself to be God, he would not have said this to Mary and told her to stop clinging to him. He was deliberately taking the emphasis off himself and directing Mary's worship to the Father. So Thomas' comment cannot be taken as categorical because it is contradicted by Jesus own words to Mary on that same day. Also, when Jesus asked his disciples in Matt 16 who people were saying he was, Peter did not say "You are God", or "You are God the Son", like Thomas appears to have said; no, but Peter said "You are the Christ, the son of the living God". Peter made a clear distinction between 'the living God' and Jesus. So who is right, Jesus and Peter, or Thomas? Is the bible contradicting itself? Obviously not. Peter and Jesus own statements about Jesus true identify have more weight than some off-hand comment by Thomas, so we must look at Thomas' unusual statement in a different light.
John 10: 30 "I and the Father are one". Trinitarians love this 'proof text'. Yet it really isn't even in the ball-park. An unbiased reading of the context shows that Jesus was merely describing oneness of thought and purpose, just as he prayed for his disciples to all be 'one' just as he was 'one' with the Father.
There are a few other 'proof texts' that trinitarians rely on, but you would only read that Jesus was God in those texts if you were approaching them with a trinitarian bias. Trinitarians have to force and extrapolate these other verses to mean something that is not obvious at first. No totally impartial reader would ever read these other few texts as suggesting that Jesus was God.
-
9
Do convereted jews believe that Jesus is Jehovah?
by RevFrank inwhen i debate with witnesses and it comes to scripture about jesus making statements that lead to jews thinking jesus is making statements that he is god..many of witnesses denie that jesus was telling the jews that he was god.
i make them turn to john 10:33--->>>there the jews argue about it.
and when they read it..they try to explain,witnesses, it states something different.. witnesses do denie the exsistance of the trinity.
-
-
yaddayadda
Jaffacake, thanks for your thoughts.
Yes the bible does indeed refer to other Gods, as you surely must be aware of, however, there is only one 'true' God, ie, the almighty creator, the Father. All other 'God's' are inferior to the one true God, the Father. It's quite simple really. So it is ok for Jesus to be called a God, Theos, but it is a stretch to say that this means he is the one true Almighty God, the Ho Theos.
As far as the huge emphasis on Christ in the NT, that is understandable given that it was in the first century when Jesus appeared and that most of the early disciples were Jewish converts who already knew full well that God was one, their Father, YHWH. They did not need convincing of who God was, just convincing that Jesus was the saviour in whom they needed to put their faith, rather than continued works and obedience to the Mosaic Law. Interestingly, in Acts 17,in his speech to the pagans at the Acropolis, Paul made the main subject of his speech the creator, God, because those listeners needed to know who the one true God was. It was only towards the end of his speech that he mentioned Jesus, a man.
I agree with you re JW's emphasising the OT far too much and not putting enough emphasis on Christ. JW's rightly render sacred service to the Father, but they have gone too far and have adopted a kind of pseudo Jewish type emphasis on Jehovah. The JW religion revolves around two main things: Jehovah, the Father (commendable) and the Watchtower Society (lamentable). They thus honour their own leadership and organisation more than Jesus.
-
9
Do convereted jews believe that Jesus is Jehovah?
by RevFrank inwhen i debate with witnesses and it comes to scripture about jesus making statements that lead to jews thinking jesus is making statements that he is god..many of witnesses denie that jesus was telling the jews that he was god.
i make them turn to john 10:33--->>>there the jews argue about it.
and when they read it..they try to explain,witnesses, it states something different.. witnesses do denie the exsistance of the trinity.
-
-
yaddayadda
Thanks Jaffacake. U are right that most trinitarian religions do not say that Jehovah is Jesus, but many actually do. It boggles my mind. Having said that, most Christians religions pray to Jesus and worship him to the almost total exclusion of the Father. This flouts Jesus own words that we should render sacred service to the Father only, and his instructions for how we should pray. These religions feel it really makes no difference if Jesus is God, thus they slip easily and frequently between praying to and worshipping the Father and prarying to and worshipping Jesus. Eg, I recently went to a Christian church service (non-JW) where in one of the songs the words Hallelujah were sung and yet in the very next sentence the song praised Jesus as the Lord of all Creation and the Universe? Thus the confusion about who exactly God is and who we should be praying to, singing to, and otherwise worshipping.JW's do not deny that Jesus is divine. Theos in John 1:1 means of the divine nature. They acknowledge that he is a divine god, but that he is a lesser God than the Father.
I do not agree with you that the entire emphasis is on Christ in the Christian Scriptures. If you read Jesus own words in the Gospels you cannot but be struck with how much Jesus talks about the Father and tries to put the emphasis on the Father. The overall testimony of Jesus himself is damning to the notion that he was in any sense God like his heavenly Father is. It is only from Acts onwards where the emphasis shifts 80-90% to Christ and not 'God'.
-
44
Regarding the holy Trinity
by kristiano1122 ini want to know why jw dont accept the holy trinity even though there is enough biblical evidence in the bible regarding this.
the following passages are from the book of john .
1:1. in the beginning was the word: and the word was with god: and the word was god.
-
-
yaddayadda
Kristiano, JW's have rebuttals and non-trinitarian explanations to all the points/scriptures you make. You can read most of their case for the falsehood of the trinity on their website www.watchtower.org. The whole of their 'Should You Believe in The Trinity' brochure can be read on that site.Personally I reject the trinity, but at the same time I feel that JW's dont focus nearly enough on Jesus or give him enough honour. Emphasis on the 'faithful and discreet slave' and The organisation has supplanted Jesus.
For every scripture that one can say may support the trinity dogma you can find about a dozen that completely contradict it. What counts is the overall weight of testimony in scripture, not just what a few verses here and there seem to say. Trinitarians are too fond of plucking half a dozen scriptures to support their view but ignoring the overall body of evidence.
Jesus never once called himself God or God the son. Although he accepted worship (obeisance) of a type from his disciples on occasion, this was a different type of worship than that to be rendered exclusively to the Father. Jesus repeatedly and purposefully directed the emphasis towards his Father, (Yahweh in the old testament). Jesus could not be God if he could do 'nothing of his own initiative' (John 5:19), he could not be God if he denied being good saying that 'no one is good but God' (John 18:19). And God cannot ever die, even if he is 3-in-1 as trinitarians claim, yet Jesus was literally dead and non-existant for 3 days. I obey these scriptures:
Luke 4:8 - "In reply Jesus said to him: 'It is written, 'It is Jehovah (the Father) your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.' "
John 20:17 - Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”
1 Cor 11: 3 - But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God. (ie, even after his resurrection the Father was still the head of Christ - no equality there)
-
9
Do convereted jews believe that Jesus is Jehovah?
by RevFrank inwhen i debate with witnesses and it comes to scripture about jesus making statements that lead to jews thinking jesus is making statements that he is god..many of witnesses denie that jesus was telling the jews that he was god.
i make them turn to john 10:33--->>>there the jews argue about it.
and when they read it..they try to explain,witnesses, it states something different.. witnesses do denie the exsistance of the trinity.
-
-
yaddayadda
I think Ray Franz may be right that the tetragrammaton somehow found fulfillment in Christ. I think Christ has a kind of 'functional' equality with the Father and JW's do not put enough emphasis on Christ. But no way could anyone ever convince me that Jesus is Jehovah or is equal to the Father. It makes me puke the way some churches try and teach that Jesus is the NT version of the OT Jehovah.