Posts by moggy lover

15

JWD members why not write a book together?

by Qcmbr in

one of the things that attracted me here was the links to extra special threads listed on net soup and it got me thinking.

there have been several excellent research worthy threads here and it might be excellent to gather together all the best individual posts (perhaps have a poll?

) and then publish them in a book or yearly 'best of' publication.

moggy lover

I think Stevie Nicks ...oops I mean Serendipity...has a point [Wha happined to your beautiful mermaid??? Anyway, thats neither here nor there is it?] It would be best to confine it to human interest, or largely autobiographical material, but since many left precisely because of certain doctrines such as Chronology, or the trinity, etc we can weave these into the narrative.

Money can be a sordid business. So I think this should be avoided. Either convert some interesting JWD threads into a downloadable PDF file, for free, or as Carla suggests, put a cost but reimburse somebody. Why not JWD?

Whatever, it will take up a lot of time for those involved, who must be willing, and able to do so.

Cheers

3

Talking with the Dead... 1920 IBSA

by bitemeWT in

does anyone here know the difference between the two booklets, "talking with the dead" and "can the living talk with the dead"?.

both written in 1920 by ibsa.. i just had a question from an ebay customer, and while i don't have those items for sale... i'd at least like to give them some info..

moggy lover

To the best of my knowledge they are one and the same booklet. The official name, as published by IBSA was: Talking To The Dead? Notice the question mark. Doubtless this led many of Rutherford's followers to refer to it as Can The Living Talk To The dead?The booklet can be downloaded at:

http://reexamine.info/reex/

14

Can anyone give me references to the following flip-flop doctrine?

by ukescott in

who is the 'lord' as mentioned in romans 10:12-16.

1903 - 'lord' refers to jesus.1940 - 'lord' refers to jehovah.1978 - 'lord' refers to jesus.1980 - 'lord' refers to jehovah.

moggy lover

Unfortunately, I can only provide you with the last two references, the later ones. I have no way to access the earlier publications.

1 May 1st 1978, pg 12: Lord of Ro 10:13 = Jesus. Wt Comment: "This is only fair since the Son is Jehovah's chief representative"

2 Feb 1st 1980, pg 61: Lord of Ro 10:13 = Jehovah

I must say that the WT CD Rom is clearly deceptive since that earlier quote is absent from the '' search index '' thus making it impossible to research any information that is contrary to current WT teaching. When you scroll through Ro 10:13 in the index, it only provides the researcher with selective references, thus giving the false impression of consistency.

Cheers

11

The JW and the apostate -- who's faith is vulnerable?

by Fatfreek in

in this fantasy reality series, you are in charge of a hotel with 100 rooms.

they are empty with certain exceptions mentioned below.

you are also in command, for one day, of 100 jw's and 100 jw apostates.

moggy lover

I suppose it would be unrealistic to imagine that there would be clear cut winners in all or even in most cases. Variables will need to be factored in such as: 1 The degree of fanatacism on the part of the WT follower. 2 The unique ability that skilled followers have to divert attention from embarrasing facts. 3 The level of objectivity on the part of the '' apostate ''

However all things being equal, I would have to say that since the "A" is better informed of WT theology [and many WT followers are themselves surprisingly ignorant of this] the advantage must lie with the "A" Even if the discussion were confined to a specific subject like the interpretation of Matt 24, with the dizzying changes that the WT is making, many WT followers, and this includes many of the knowledgable ones, are not fully aware of what a specific verse may mean. Some verses, for instance only have one application, in the past, [vs 20] some only one, but in the future, [vs 29] some have two applications, past and present, and some verses have three: past present and future [vs 13] and on and on.

Again, all things being equal, I think the breakdown would be: "As": 0% change - WT Followers: As much as 30-40% change sides which is currently the statistic for those in the Org less than 10 yrs.

Cheers

13

Then Is Finished The Mystery Of God!--PDF--+QB

by Atlantis in

qb= question booklet.. abaddon means "a bad one".

apollyon means "satan the devil", finished mystery.

now jw's are taught the abaddon & apollyon are jesus christ.

moggy lover

Thanks pal, for this timely Christmas present. Yes it does bring back memories.

Have a merry christmas and a happy new Year, and keep up the damn fine work

Cheers

5

A Vivid J-W Dream

by truthsearcher in

last night i had a very moving dream.

i had placed an ad in the newspaper, inviting any ex-jws who would like some support and friendship to come to my house.

when i entered the living room it had grown larger and was packed with people.

moggy lover

When I visit the Watchtower of my dreams, I picture this enormous, derelict mansion, standing forlorn and grim, with an eerie wind blowing through its neglected and decaying tapestries.

And as I walk slowly through its many abandoned recesses, pondering its sad fate, I recall the happy times when I first dwelt there. It was a place of laughter, and constant, inoffensive chatter. Filled with people who were friends and relatives, running to and fro in merry and cheerful abandon, people moved by dreams of idealism, of hopes and schemes. I recall mostly the children, happy in their innocence, and feeling secure and at peace because of their congenial enviornment.

But most of all I recall the trust. Trust in a promise solemnly bestowed by a benign father figure. A father figure who eventually turned into a secretive, furtive monster, exploiting mecelessly that trust.

I recall the trust betrayed, the blatantly unrepentant arrogance of deceit, the final exposure of a mirage, and the final exodus out of this beautiful mansion that held such beautiful memories.

And I wonder, in sadness, as I contiue my ponderings, where? Where did they all go? Especially the children. Was their innocence shattered by doubt? or hate? or synicism?

The sad legacy of putting trust in an arrogant self serving bunch of exploiters. A legacy that will be brought to account. Someday.

Cheers

38

A QUESTION FOR THE CHRISTIANS ON THIS BOARD

by vitty in

what is the second comming of christ, i mean what will happen...............armageddon??????????

destruction for anyone who isnt a christian ?.

he he going restore paradise on earth ????????.

moggy lover

The first thing to say is that, unlike the followers of the WT movement, Christians are never told to be "on the watch" with regard to the "end of the world". Rather the Bible exhorts believers down through the ages to be on the watch for a Person. Their Lord. Nowhere is there any reference to looking out with a view to "surviving the end into a paradise earth"

Interestingly the absolute deceit of the false hope of the WT followers is exposed in a WT article such as that found in the Jan 1 2003 magazine, pg 18. First they quote Matt 24:44, and then they write: "Jesus said that the end of this system will come at an hour that we do not think it to be which is why we need to stay awake" However, if you actually read the Bible quote you will see that what Jesus said was that it was The Son of Man whose coming was to be the thing that was at an hour that no one expects.The title of the article was "Keep on the Watch"! Complete with dramatic exclamation mark. I believe that just as Jesus said, He will catch everyone unawares, and that includes the WTS. They will be endlessly prattling on about being "loyal to the GB", they will be going d-t-d with their hackneyed phrases, the elders will be ogling little girls and boys, Teddy and his GB members will be toting up their millions, dreaming of a luxurious cruises down some faraway place and ....wham!

The second thing is to say that, again unlike the WTS, whose followers live under a repressive dictatorial system where conformity to the expressed will of the leadership is encumbent on believers, there is no unanimity of opinion among the freely expressed ideas of Christianson this subject. This is because there is no chapter in the NT called "The Second Coming- What and how and when it is" The various clues are scattered around throughout the various books of the Bible, and how you string these clues together is a matter of interpretation. The churlish thing would be to abrogate your own personal view as that of the Bible.

There are several things that evidently will occur, sometimes simultaneously. The 70th week prophecy of Daniel 7:8-26, the rule of Daniels final beast of Dan 7:25, the attack of Gog of Magog who may, or may not be the current state of Russia [Ex 38] etc Suffice it to say that these can be summarized as 1 The Great Tribulation [which may last 3 and a half years, or 7 yrs] 2 The Rapture 3 The Millennium. Some feel that the Rapture will come first [these are called the Pre-Millennialists, and form the largest group within "Born again" Christian circles.] Some feel it will come at the middle of the GT, these are called "Mid Tribulationists'' and there are other, more complicated, views.

As far as I am concerned I am sure it will all pan out in the end thats why I am a "pan Millenialist"

Much has been made by sceptics of a vengeful God who will somehow enjoy destroying 99.99999 % of the world's population at this time. Such arrant nonsense betrays an ignorance of the God whom Christians, like me worship. First, no one and I mean no one, who is innocent will die. Destruction at the GT is not predicated simply on ones religious affiliation. It is based on ones satanic inclinations, sexual, monetary, willful, repressive, hateful. There will be no place for the selfish, the domineering, and the arrogant.

When Christ comes again, there will be a cleansing, resulting in millions and even hundreds of millions, finally being liberated and who will indeed go into a cleansed earth. These are the "tribulation survivors" These will not be Christians, because they will be with their Lord, wherever He is. No one, living or dead will endure loss.

The ignorant questions of the WTS like: if all Christians go to heaven, who will they reign over, is unworthy of people who consider themselves "students" of the Bible. [Did someone say Taliban? which means "student"?] It is not "who" but "what" Christians will rule over. There is an entire universe to oversee, including billions of uncounted billions of angels. So there will be plenty of work for all. Even you, if you want it.

Cheers

8

Does anyone have this? Cool if you did. Craking down on deciet.

by icocer in

from "should you believe in the trinity"the catholic encyclopedia also comments: "in scripture there is as yet no single term by which the three divine persons are denoted together.

the word [tri'as] (of which the latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in theophilus of antioch about a. d. 180. .

shortly afterwards it appears in its latin form of trinitas in tertullian.

moggy lover

Hi, Icocer and great to have you on the board.

I have good news and bad news. Good news: I have the "Trinitas Theological Encyclopaedia" in my library. Bad, bad, news: I don't have a scanner [would'nt know how to work one even if I did. The damn things probably give you cancer anyway] so I cant put it up on JWD

The only solution is if you PM me with your adress I'll photocopy the two page article and post it out to you. If you have a scanner maybe you can put it on JWD yourself

Cheers

48

"Jehovah God"

by Jeffro in

the expression "jehovah god" has always seemed strange to me.

even when i was a jw, i found the term awkward, and never used it myself.

both words are nouns intended to be synonyms of each other, unless the name "jehovah" is being used as an adjective, which is also weird.

moggy lover

You'll probably need Narkissos to tell you the technical details, but my very remote knowledge of Heb leads me to conclude that this expression may indeed have biblical sanction, since it occurs in the early chapters of Genesis.

Gen 2:4,5,7,8,15, 16, 18,21,22,; 3:8,8,9,13,14,21,22,23, use the expression YHWH ELOHIM which NWT has as "Jehovah God" and which the JB renders as "Yahweh God"

To the best of my knowledge this expression does not occur outside Gen chaps 2, and 3, but then I do not have a Heb language concordance.

I am not sure of the significance of this expression, but the OT Bible Knowledge Commentary says on pg 30: "The repeated emphasis on [Yahweh] God is significant. The sovereign creator of Chap 1 is also the covenant-making Yahweh of Israel.Thus Israel would know that her Yahweh had created everything and that it was He who had formed mankind by special design"

The Inter-Varsity Press Bible Commentary has a fuller note: "The combination of the generic "Elohim" and the proper name Yahweh, is found repeatedly in Gen 2 and 3. "Elohim" is used in Gen 1 for God as creator, and it denotes God as He is known through His revelation in creation, and general providence,including man's inward and intuitive knowledge of God. "Yahweh" is used alone beginning with Gen 4. It is God's personal name describing Him as revealed through His historical-covenental revelation as the Lord of eschatalogical purpose and soverign fulfillment.This transitional combination, "Yahweh God" in Gen 2 and 3 serves to identify Yahweh, the covenant Lord, as God the creator.Such multiple designations of Deity were common in the biblical world" [pg 83]

Cheers

7

What is the best way to rebutt JW's argument that Jesus is not "almighty"?

by ukescott in

i am in a debate with korean jw's over the divinity of jesus.

i showed them tons of scripture that imply that jesus is divine.

they reluctantly accepted those and argue that jesus may be a "mighty" god, not "almighty" god and that jehovah alone is almighty.

moggy lover

I suppose the best thing would be is to acknowledge that indeed they do have a point, and do not try to convince them otherwise. An appreceation of the deity of Christ is not achieved soley through a tiresome process of bandying about an x number of proof texts, especially if one uses OT references. If indeed it were so easy, then we would not have Unitarians. There has to be something... I dont know.... a "feel" an "awareness" It simply is'nt a mind game. Its deeper, and it took me a hell of a long time to accept.

Probably the best approach is to accept the biblical limitations. So Christ is not called ALmighty God, especially in the OT. The point is to accept what the text at Isa 9:6 means when it refers to Him as "Mighty" God. As a Jew, who did Isa believe the "mighty" God to be? Not what the followers of the current institution called the WTS, here in the 21st C make it mean, but Isaiah himself, 2600 years ago. Who was this mighty God to him?

For instance he prophesied that a remnant of Israelites would "return to the Mighty God" [10:21], who is also the Yahweh of verse 20, called the "Holy One" of Israel. We, from the standpoint of the 21stC could argue, with at least some justification, that since Christ is the "MG" of Isa 9:6, then this must be Christ here.

I find the adjective at vs 20 interesting. It was once pointed out to me that Yahweh here is only called the "Holy" one. He is not called the "Holiest" One. Ask the WT follower if there is a difference. In fact the term "holiest" does occur, once, in the NWT at Ps 46:4, and it does NOT refer to Yahweh! So, since He is not the "Holiest" One, simply the Holy One, then He must also be less than almighty since He is also simply called "Mighty" God at 10:21.

The interesting thing at Isa 9:6, is not that Christ is called "Mighty" God, but that He is called Mighty "God" Did those Israelites of old bandy the word "God" around so carelessly that it could mean anything that the WTS wants it to mean? Is there a difference between being a "Mighty" God, and being an "Almighty God"? If there is, then why leave it at that adjective? Hmmm? what about "Holy" and "Holiest"

I mean could Yahweh simply be a "nice" god and not be the "nicest"? Let the WT follower know that making artificial distictions in adjectival expressions can be a two edged sword.

Oddly enough, there is a text that has foxed the WTS and we might as well use it. As with so much about the Deity of Christ, it concerns the Gospel of John. [5:19] With almost unrestrained glee they will accept the first portion of this text because the Son says He does nothing of "His own initiative", suggesting, to the WTS system of thinking, some sort of inferiority on the part of the Son.

But let us continue on... because in the latter part of the verse, never actually commented on by the WT, the Son says. "For whatever things the Father does, the Son does, and in like Manner" Hmmm... hold on. Am I hearing right? You mean The Son can do what the Father does? But the Father is Almighty, is that not so? How can the Son possibly do whatEVER the Father does? Not some things the Father does, not most things, but whatever things. The things that the Father does is predicated on his Infinite power. But if, as He says, the Son can duplicate that then He must be .....No?

To suggest that the Son does only what the Father permits him to do is Interpreting the text, not reporting it. The point is simply that Jesus did not say I can do Whatever the Father permits me to do, and no more. So where the first part of the text rightly points out the subordination of the Son, it also rightly points out His equality of ability

Anyway, as I said it is not just a question of proof texts. The WT will never cease from inventing texts to deny the Deity of Christ. Don't be surprised if they say... "Ah but Christ is simply "A" Mighty God, but Yahweh is "the" Mighty God" etc it will never end.

Cheers