Posts by moggy lover

Really sorry to hear of your injuries. The clinical way in which you described them masks traumas far more terrible than I am sure any of us can imagine. Glad to hear you are chirpy enough to keep us informed, and remember we're all friends here.

Cheers

4

Colossians 2:16 - 17 and who was Paul talking to?

by sinis in

a while back i spoke with my ms friend (who by the way thinks i am an apostate) about 2 col 2: 16 -17 and i basically said that i believe paul was telling the christians (gentile) that they could celebrate there holidays as long as they did not violate gods law.

now my ms friend said no, paul was talking to the christian jews and was telling them that it was ok to celebrate gods holidays, eventhough it was not necessary since the law had been disolved.

so he basically said it was not a blanket statement about celebrating anything but rather a christian could or could not celebrate past jewish holidays without any problems.

moggy lover

I feel that there is a sense in which you could be right. The city of Colossae in Asia Minor, some 170 kms from Ephesus was a trading and commercial centre based on the rich mineral deposits in the Lycus Valley, where this city was. There would have been a good mixture of Jews and Gentiles in the local church, to which Paul wrote his letter.

In verse 27 of chapter one of this letter, Paul specifically mentions the "mystery" of the Universal Church which was being revealed at that time among the Gentiles, which "mystery" was that Christ was in "you" - the Gentiles - his readers. So there is no doubt that there were Gentiles in the local community and they woud have read Paul's letter.

Also, in verses 11 and 13 of ch 2 he refers to his readers as having an "uncircumcision" of the flesh, and that their "circumcision" was indeed one "not made with hands'' So it seems quite likely that he was adressing the Gentiles in the church with his letter, but he would have included as well those who were former Jews and who had now come to be "in Christ"

The purpose of this letter was not adressing the distinction between the two groups making up the Church community of Colossae, but was attempting to allay a threat that was trying to outflank the Christians in Colossae. The threat of Gnosticism. This was a seminal belief system of various theosophies which contained several abstractions, including the need to take in an exclusivist form of knowledge [gnosis] from a tightly controlled centre. This germination of a heresy was clearly denying the Deity, hence supremacy, of Christ, thus calling for one of the greatest declarations of the Deity of Christ found in all Bible literature [1:15 - 2:9]

Evidently the Jewish element were counteracting this incremental influence of gnosticism by a reliance on the Mosaic Law, and may have tried to influence the Gentile believers in this way of thinking. Paul showed his readers at Colossae, both Jew and Gentile, that neither the Law, nor Gnosticism was the answer. The Answer was Christ, personally. The injunction of 2:16, 17, may certainly have made reference to the Law, but that was not the only concern of Paul. Remember at verse 18 he mentions the "worship of angels'' and "delighting in self-mortification" - NEB, as elements of this same injunction, which were prominent gnostic dogmas. So yes, both, Jews and Gentiles would have been included in 2:16-17. While the Jewish element was influencing the Gentiles so also the Gnostic element was trying to influence both groups, hence the statement at 2:16,17.

It is pathetic that the WTS and its followers have to resrict the contextual reference of this injunction, not because of its biblical implications, but to support their own untenable position.

Cheers

6

Bible Riddles-jokes (El Fluffo)

by monkeyshine in

jw
friends

i found this link to a few good bible jokes.

some are childish but funny nonetheless.

anyone have any good ones?.

moggy lover

Did'ja know that Paul had a horse called Izmee? Yep. Its darn tootin' right thar in yer own Bibles.

Did'nt Paul say "Whoa, Izmee" at 1 Cor 9:16?

It gets worse.

During the reign of J Edgar Hoover at the FBI, the Witnesses were called J Hoovers Witnesses

Hang on I ain't finished yet.

Samson was such a great stand up comic he brought the house down

Nope, you aint gittin away that easy:

Balaam was the tallest man in the Bible. Well, he musta been. He done tied his ass at one tree and hell if'n he did'nt strech hisself out at the other tree.Hot Damn! Now thats reel tall ! !

Cheers

50

The "Revelation Book" adhesive cut and paste instruction kit!

by Atlantis in

jw
friends

the revelation book adhesive cut and paste instruction kit!

this pdf-"kit" was sent to us from a friend of ours who is an elder in england who is thoroughly disgusted.

the file is being sent throughout many congregations by email to assist the witnesses with "corrections" for their "revelation" book.

moggy lover

Great work as usual, matey

keep up the good work

Cheers

16

Slight Differance, Big Change Ephesians 4:1-16 and the NWT

by drew sagan in

the discussion of this text is taken in reference to a discussion i had with a jw elder i know.

most of the time the discussion focused on things not even worth discussing, two things did come up i thought i would examine with more detail because something seemed wrong.

one of these things i discussed here.

moggy lover

I have been through the WT CD 04 looking up this quote at Eph 4:8 unfortunately none of the citations listed give an explanation for why Franz insisted on "translating" the dative construction with the expression "in" Most of the quotes listed on the CD adress seperate issues like "we need to be submissive to God's organisation because He has given us this marvelous "elder" arrangement".

In all these citations the common theme is that these "gifts [in] men" are the elders assigned to the some 70 000 WT congregations worldwide. the "Holy ones" in this pastich becomes the R&F which is odd since at the very start of this letter, adressed to the 'Holy ones" [1:1], a reminder is given that they have been assigned a position in the "heavenly administration" [ 1:10]

Eph 4:8 is the only place that to the best of my knowledge the expression "holy ones" is made to mean the R&F. The Dec 1st Wt pg 16 specifically states that the "holy ones" = R&F

Why then this "translation" - "Gifts [in] men"? One can only speculate, but my own feeling is that Franz saw an opportunity here to stress the "theocratic" arrangement, and that elders, in effect appointed by the WTS, can by inference be seen to be provided by Christ Himself courtesy of the Holy Spirit. In other words, among all the men in a given congregation, some are set apart as gifts. So the conclusion is that most of the men do NOT, repeat NOT, get any gifts.

Such a churlish idea is alien to the entire Pauline corpus. In fact the dative construction used here at Eph 4:8 reiforces an idea directly at varience with WT theology. The thing that is distributed is not the men, [among the many some are selected] but the gifts, [among all the men various gifts are given] In this respect, the word "Anthropois" used here, generically can refer to "people" So to [all] the people who are in the Christian assembly, gifts have been given. Some the ability to evangelize is given [hence not all evangelize] to some the gift of the pastorate is given, [hence not all are pastors] and to some the gift of teaching is given, [hence not all are teachers]

To the WT way of thinking this would mean that only some would go from door-to-door, pleading the lack of the gift of evangelism. [In fact given any excuse, all will opt out of the "joyful" work of going d-t-d !!] Hence, I believe, the almost sinister alteration. Strangely enough, by stressing the "elder arrangement" here, when the text clearly does not, referring to all believers, the WTS is acknowliging the existence of a clergy-laity division which they claim to have such an antipathy aganst.

Cheers

6

Writings of Charles Taze Russell

by kirani007 in

for informational purposes, there is a searchable database of the writings of charles taze russell at http://www.ctrussell.us/.

this site has a complete copy of studies in the scriptures, his watchtower articles from about 1897 through 1916 and various other of his works.

just thought you might be interested!

moggy lover

Hi, Kirani 007, thanks for the research and finding this Russell site.The most wonderful thing is that it is E-Sword compatible

I was wondering if you, or any one on JWD could find something out for me? Online on the Internet you can get: 1 All the WTs from 1879 right up to 1916, when Russell died 2 Then you can get WTs from 1920 onwards. BUT: What about those three years in between 1917, 1918, 1919 which are so crucial to understanding the Rutherford inspired coup d'etat and his taking over the WTS as a result. Anyone know where they are aviailable?

Cheers

12

(true) God

by elatwra in

i was reading auld souls post on a different thread and i noticed that in 1st chronicles the nwt has the word (true) inserted in parenthesis in front of the word god.1 chronicles 15:25-16:6. and david and the older men of israel and the chiefs of the thousands came to be the ones walking along to bring up the ark of the covenant of jehovah from the house of obed-edom with rejoicing.

and it came about when the [true] god helped the levites while carrying the ark of the covenant of jehovah that they proceeded to sacrifice seven young bulls and seven rams.

and david was dressed in a sleeveless coat of fine fabric, and also all the levites carrying the ark and the singers and chenaniah the chief of the carrying by the singers; but upon david there was an ephod of linen.

moggy lover

There is a sense in which the NWT has attempted to bring out a subtelty behind the original Hebrew wording of the OT and this could be applauded, if it were recognized as a scholarastic usage.

Evidently there are two ways in which the Heb inscribes the word for "God" You have "Elohim" and you have "Haelohim" The second being the same word but with the word "Ha" meaning "The" added.

There are at least two views regarding this as subscribed to by scholars:

1 That the two terms are interchangeable and essentially have no substancial difference in meaning. In other words, their usage is conventional, rather than doctrinal

2 That the "Ha" added signifies a name, hence :"Elohim" as a name. The Darby translation uses the expression "Elohim God" or even "Jehovah Elohim" [Gen 2:4,5 etc]

The NWT however saw another reason. They quote the Zorrell and Semkowski Heb Lecicon pg 54, which says: "In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated with this word Ha Elohim" [See the NWT Reference Edition Pub in 1984, pg 1567] Zorrell and Semkowski translate for an example, Dt 4:35 as: "Jahve is the [one true] God" Unfortunately for the WTS this Lexicon was published in 1940 and others published since have not necessarily endorsed it. For instance the "Theological Wordbook" by Harris, Archer, and Waltke pub in 1980 make no such distinction. [Pg 44]

Also, the word is used for UNtrue gods 8 times in the OT. Ex 22:20 for instance and so the NWT should have translated the word as "An [untrue] God", but instead leaves the word simply as a plural "gods" .

Where their attempt can be seen as ennobling the God of the Bible, I rather suspect it is an example of unnecessary pretentiousness on the part of Freddy Franz.

Cheers

46

Let's All Say "Thank You" To The People Who Run This Site

by Arthur in

jw
friends

i realize that threads like this have been done before, but i don't think that it hurts to do one again.. i personally appreciate this website so much.

it has been an absolute treasure-trove of information, research material, emotional support, and simple enjoyment.

and, it's free of charge!

moggy lover

Thanks Simon. You got a lot o' mates down under. And while we are about it:

THANKS TO ALL THE FORUM ASSISTANTS AS WELL !!!

You keep the lot of us IN line and the humbugs OUT

Cheers

Moggy 'n' Me

7

New Books Without Number of Copies

by GermanXJW in

in the old books of the watchtower they usually always gave the recent number of printes copies.

the convention releases would normally state something like "6,000,000 copies".

i noticed that in the new release it just states "2006 edition".

moggy lover

Incidently, what about the WTs and Awakes? Do they still print the number of copies? And has anyone noticed whether these have gone up or down?

We will need to remember that the Awake has been cut down to one issue a month so if the printing run is the same, it still means that they have halved the print of that mag.

Cheers