Posts by moggy lover

17

Looking for info on the WTS development of baptism ?'s & requirement's

by jwfacts in

in a recent thread blondie mentioned that the baptism questions were not introduced until the 1960s.

what do an interested person have to do prior to then in order to be allowed to be baptised?.

it got me thinking about the wts justification for the questions.

moggy lover

Hi, Jwf, I'm not sure if this is the information That you are looking for, but here goes:

Ray Franz in his second book, ISOCF, adresses this issue on pgs 117-124, and here is a summary of his views. Initially, among Bible Stidents of Russell's day, no issue was taken up with people who had been baptized in some other denomination, as long as thy clearly understood its meaning, ie they were accountabe adults, and their baptism was by immersion. This position lasted for the first seven decades of the WTS [1879-1955]

As late as the July 1 WT of 1955, pg 412, the society stated that "Rebaptism was necessary only if the previous baptism was not in symbol of a dedication, or if it was not by immersion"

However, exactly a year later, in the July 1, 1956 WT [pg 406] this position was reversed, and now it became mandatory to be baptised in the WTS scheme of things. The rationale used in that WT, was that other religious organisations, although seeming to baptize in the name of "The Father, and the Son, and the holy spirit" yet did not recognize these ones as the Higher Powers [A view that even the WTS now rejects. From 1928-1961 the official position of the WTS was that Ro 13:1 referred to Jehovah and the Jesus]

Six months later, in the Dec 15 WT 1956, pg 763 in the now infamous QFR, the qualification was made that only those who had been baptized after 1918 needed to be rebaptized, for those immersed before that date, where ever it had been performed, the matter was left upto their conscience. Why 1918? Because, according to the article, that was the date when Christendom was officially rejected by Jehovah, hence anything done by them after that date was invalid.

The WTS has however been baptizing their own recruits since Russell's day, and until 1942, no public affirmation was required in the form of answering any questions before an audience. This began in 1942, when the first two questions asked were:

1 Do you believe in Jehovah God the Father, that salvation belongeth unto Jehovah, and that Christ Jesus is his Son, in whose blood your sins are washed away and by whom salvation comes to you from God?

2 Have you therefore confessed your sins to God, and asked for cleansing by Christ Jesus, and therefore turned away from sin and the world, and consecrated yourself without reservation to God, to do his will?

This form lasted until 1956, when the new requirement of rebaptism came out. The only major alteration was the introduction of the mention of the Holy Spirit, which as you can see, was not referred to in 1942, and a change from "consecration" to "dedication" The questions were now: [WT July 1 1956, pg 407]

1 Have you recognized yourself as a sinner before Jehovah God, who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him the Father through his Son, Jesus Christ?

2 On the basis of this faith in God and his provision of salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightenment of the holy spirit?

Another, and the most revolutionary, change came about as a result of the June 1 WT 1985, where as has become well known, the recruit was to affirm publicly, his/her association with "God's spirit directed organisation"

The following is my comment, not RF's: I can see a clearly developed trend in the evloution of the public questions:

1 No Holy Spirit 2 Enlightenment of the holy spirit "through the Bible" [WT publications?] 3 All references to the holy spirit now replaced by the introduction of the "Spirit directed Organisation"

Hope this helps

Cheers

31

New Testament support for the name Yahweh?

by WhatSexRU in

excuse me if this has been discussed before but im looking for evidence that any of the nt authors knew that the name yahweh (yahveh, jehovah, yhwh, or any variation) existed.

im testing a naive hypothesis that says that the nt authors were reading from the lxx and that they only saw kurios.

keep in mind im a complete novice and a (friendly) dangerous idiot.

moggy lover

Nakissos and Dttp: Mea culpa on both counts. Yep it was 100 BC, and Countess is ambiguous.

31

New Testament support for the name Yahweh?

by WhatSexRU in

excuse me if this has been discussed before but im looking for evidence that any of the nt authors knew that the name yahweh (yahveh, jehovah, yhwh, or any variation) existed.

im testing a naive hypothesis that says that the nt authors were reading from the lxx and that they only saw kurios.

keep in mind im a complete novice and a (friendly) dangerous idiot.

moggy lover

Dttp: My comment on 4Q LXX Lev [a] was based on the book:" The Jehovah's Witnesses New Testament" by Robert Countess [pg 30] where he writes:

"Dated as having been written about 1000 BC it contains Lev 26:2-16 the present writer observed this manuscript on display at the University of Pennyslvania Museum in 1965where it was featured along with other Dead Sea Scroll materials. A statement appended to the fragment read: ' This fragment is now the oldest copy of the LXX.' This portion of Leviticus contains two verses in which the MT has the Divine Name in Tetragram form, in neither instance did YHWH appear. The copyist maintained his usage of the Greek throughout"

As you can see, that last sentence is crucial, and I assume Countess implied that the copyist maintained the Greek usage of "Kurios" throughout.

Cheers

31

New Testament support for the name Yahweh?

by WhatSexRU in

excuse me if this has been discussed before but im looking for evidence that any of the nt authors knew that the name yahweh (yahveh, jehovah, yhwh, or any variation) existed.

im testing a naive hypothesis that says that the nt authors were reading from the lxx and that they only saw kurios.

keep in mind im a complete novice and a (friendly) dangerous idiot.

moggy lover

Briefly the WTS arguments are summarized:

1 The original LXX contained the Tetragammaton in Heb charcters

2 Most LXX scholars recognize this

3 Several ancient Heb manuscripts [called the "J" references] use the Tetragammaton

4 Jesus recognized the importance of Gods "name" [Matt 6:9, Jo 17:26]

Now the facts:

1 The WT's claim of the "original" LXX having the Tetragrammaton rests soley on the evidence of a Papyrus MS dated to the 1C BC called the Fouad 266. This set of fragments contains portions of the book of Deuteronomy, and in 49 places the Tetragammaton can clearly be seen in Hebrew characters among the Greek. It is sheer nonsense to conclude that because the Fouad 266 is one of the oldest of LXX MSS that it represents the original.

There is at least one other fragment of an LXX MS - found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, catalogued as 4Q LXX Lev [a] which in fact does not contain the Hebrew name. It uses "Kurios". Also dated to the 1CAD it may be older than the Fouad 266, by at least a generation.

It is impossible to determine what the "original" LXX said, because ever since its first publication in the 3C BC it was published in several "recensions" [editions which had an original syntax]. The only thing we can say for certain is that by the 1C AD when the NT was being written, several copies of the LXX were in circulation, of which one, representing the book of Dt, contained the Divine Name.

2 This is an exaggeration. Most scholars do not in fact recognize this. One scholar, Prof George Howard did, back in 1977 write an article for the Journal of Biblical Literature where he suggested that the NT writers may have had access to LXX MSS which contained the Divine Name, however, whether they then actually wrote the Tetragammaton down was not proved. He admitted his idea was only a "theory" and subject to scholarly debate.

The WTS however, not only concurred with Prof Howard's views, but made him say much more than what he actually did. They posited his "theory" as fact [See BRef pg 1564]

3 There is no Hebrew MSS of the NT available. The Hebrew texts that are being referred to by the WTS are in fact "translations" of printed texts [hence not hand-written MSS] of the NT dating from the 13th C at the earliest. Two problems arise from the use of the WTS using these "J" documents. Many of them are in fact based on the Erasmus RT NT text, which the WTS has rejected as being false. Evidently a corrupt NT text can preserve a better representation of the NT than many of the earliest Greek MSS. Secondly, many of these "J" references were published after the NWT was brought out!! For instance J 20 was published in 1963, J 22 in 1979, and J 23 in 1975.

4 It is true that Jesus proclaimed the "name" of God. But what name? The evidence cleary shows that the "name" Jesus proclaimed was "The Father" [capital "T" capital "F"] To suggest that The Father is only a title and not a "name" is facetious, to say the least, since even the WTS admits that the word "name" refers to one's position of authority.[ Compare the expression, "in the NAME of the Holy Spirit", and see "Insight" Vol 2 pg 464]

Hope tis helps

Cheers

25

Revelation Climax bookstudy week 1: Ch 1, paragraphs 1-9

by M.J. in

going to the bookstudy tonight .

hope you guys can help me get through this bookstudy over the next several months at least.... here's tonight's reading:.

revelationitshappyclimax!.

moggy lover

Well, all I can say is: Have fun and better you than me, mate.

Nine paragraphs? You young'uns have no idea what going through a book study is really like! Now take my time [violins in the background, maestro, please]

Heck back in the 60s we had to go through the "Babylon the Great has fallen" book and at a hefty 704 pages, it still holds the unenviable records for being: 1 The longest darn book used at a Tuesday book study Yep. Took the likes of two years to go through its lofty rhetoric 2 The most incomprehensible book ever written by Freddy Franz, the exclusive "oracle" of God.

Actually, my sympathies were with those unfortunate souls who got the assignment to translate the book into another language. Gobbledegook in one language is bad enough, but to translate it.....sheeesh.

The WTS shold be charged with crimes against humanity for making their membership go through that ordeal

Cheers, and keep your sanity and your posts coming

Moggy

32

Last days, great tribulation and the return of Christ

by S EIGHT in

my journey out began when i came across a google news report highlighting the "quotes" legal case.

although i had "questions" prior.

so that's where i am at the moment although still very "in".

moggy lover

Hi, S8 and welcome to the Forum. As you have rightly pointed out, the answer to finding the question about the Coming again of Christ lies somewhere in Matt 24, among other verses in the Bible.

The problem arises when we ask the legitimate question: How is Matt 24 to be understood?

Unfortunately there is no one answer to this question, and herein lies the debate. There are at least two ways that Christians through the ages have viewed this chapter:

1 There is the "Preterist" view which holds that all that Christ said there was exhausted in its fulfillment by the 1st C AD and was completed in the 70AD holocaust which saw the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies. So Matt 24 was a "prophecy" only for those 1st C Christians, and is no longer relevant as a prophecy for our time. Any consultation of this portion of Scripture becomes a matter of polemic and syntactical investigation. Several countless Christians have sincerely held this view down through the centuries

2 There is the "Futurist" view which holds that somehow in His prophecy of Matt 24, Christ managed to entwine two references, one for the past, back in the 1st C AD, and one for the unspecified future. This view holds that Matt 24, which was a prophecy back in the 1st C AD is still a prophecy for us today and the events mentioned therein are still relevant as a study of future events for us today. Like view number one this position has been held by countless Christians, especially since the 16th C when the study of prophecy became a major biblical preoccupation of Bible "students" and which by the mid 19th C gestated the WT movement

Our problem is that the arrogance of WT belief has led the leadership of that organisation to perpetuate a third and fraudulent view. A view made all the more easy to assimilate because of the constant, almost mesmerizing jargon that intimidates the rank-and-file to accept, without question, and without the opportunity of debate, the position that the leadership of the WTS acts as an exclusive spokseperson for the God of the Bible.This view is that what Matt 24 is talking about is occuring in the present, in the here and now. And with the WTS as the centre of the universe, what is being said there, reflects their relationship to prophecy. In other words, what is happening in the Bible, is what is happening to them. Exclusively.

Lets take a single example: Matt 24:14.

According to the prterist view this was in fact well accomplished back there in the 1st C where scripture tells us that the "faith was being proclaimed throughout the whole world" Ro 1:8

According to the futurist view, this will be accomplished in the unspecified future, during a time of unprecedented trouble called the "Great Tribulation" and which according to some evangelical believers will last for seven years. Despite the agony through which the world will be going through, still somehow, this gospel message will be proclaimed, so that without exception, every single person alive will, and I mean will, hear this message. Many evangelicals believe that this message will be proclaimed by a group of 144 thousand Jewish "Billy Grahams" Anyway, however it will be done, it is, according to the futurists, an event that is still to occur.

The arrogance of the WT view is that this being fulfilled at the present time, and exclusively by them. The insipid folly of accepting this view is seen when you consult the record. Despite the fact the WTS has been proclaiming this message with mangled contradictions for the past 127 years little is genuinely known about it. Even in the very heart of WT country, round the corner from Bethel HQ, very few of the general citizenry will be cogent enough to explain the WT message. Then there are the huge swathes of territory virtually untouched by the WT message. A camel trader in Uzbekistan knows as much about the WT message as does the man in the moon. He will probably be better informed about the "golden plates" of Joseph Smith, or the dietry observations of Ellen White.

Such groups as the Mormons and the SDAs have surpassed the penetrative volume of the WT message.

And we are asked to believe that the flawed and puny counterfeit perpetetuated by the WTS is imperative to our future

Cheers

18

God's Kingdom Of a Thousand Years Has Approached!----PDF!

by Atlantis in

(credits go to carm).

god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached, 1973, p.345-47.

"the slave who lived to see the sign".

moggy lover

Thanks once again, Atlantis, for the hard work.

Great work, as usual

Cheers

32

How often should the Lord's Supper be celebrated per year

by avidbiblereader in

i have always had a problem with this from the scriptures, i understand the old law and replacing the passover but those laws did not apply to the new covenant and my question centers around pauls words to the 1 cor 11.

1 cor 11:17-20 .

17but, while giving these instructions, i do not commend you because it is, not for the better, but for the worse that you meet together.18for first of all, when you come together in a congregation, i hear divisions exist among you; and in some measure i believe it.19for there must also be sects among you, that the persons approved may also become manifest among you.

moggy lover

In my opinion, there is simply no way in which we can be dogmatic over an issue in which the Bible has left silent. Placing a frequency on this celebation would be to make the Bible say something that it does not say, a tactic practised by the WTS, for which we are all familiar.

The only two clues we have are the two expressions: "Do this is memory of me" said by Christ, and "As often as" used by Paul [1Cor 11:25,26] Neither of these imply necessarily a once-a-year routine, in fact the evidence, as we have it , suggests otherwise

1 How often would "doing this in memory" of Christ be? Again, the only clue we have is the word "Memory of" which is the Greek: "Anamnesis" Apart from its Lord's Supper association, the word is used only twice more in the Sacred Text, both in the OT Grk LXX.

At Lev 24:7 it is used in regard to the weekly changing of the Shewbread in the tabernacle, a ritual that Yahweh says, is a "Reminder" [anamnesis] to the Jews

It is then used at Num 10:10, which refers to the blasting of trumpets that were to usher in the various Jewish festivals.The blasting of these trumpets was to be a "reminder" [anamnesis] for the Jews. How often were these trumpets blown? The answer varies, depending on what constituted a "festival" It could be at least quaterly, every four months, or if the observation of the New moon is considered, it would be every 28 days approximately, or if the Sabbaths are taken into the account every week. So, whereas an annual celebration cannot be discounted, it is the least remote of the possibilities to be understood

So the evidence leaves room for interpretation, and with the work of the Holy Spirit operating on an individual group of believers, makes for a possibility of various permutations. And it is no business of others to interfere.

It would have meant "annualy", only if Christ had said, as Yahweh said to the Jews regarding the Passover, "Keep this day in memory of me" which of course He didn't

In the Jan 1 WT of 2003, on pg 32, in the infamous QFR the anonymous writers of the article, presented a disingenous line of '' reasoning '' to make the Bible authorize an annual form of celebrating the Lord's Supper.

They pointed out, for instance, to the Grk term "Hosarkis" used by Paul at 1 Cor 11, which means "as often as" and argued that since the word occurs at 1 Sam 1:7, where its usage is clearly meant to be a "yealy" occurence, that the case for a yearly celebration was closed and not open for debate.

It is only when you actually consult the citation mentioned - 1 Sam 1:7, that you realize the extent of the brazen deceit of the WT writers. The word "often" does occur in the English, in various translations, but certainly not in the majority, but it does not translate the Grk "Hosarkis" because the word does not occur there.

In fact, apart from Paul's use at 1 Cor 11: 25,26, the word does occur once more in the Sacred Text, at Rev 11:6, and here it clearly means "frequently" Wanna know why the WTS kept that text locked up? Well go figure.

Then they implied, that, even if the word does mean "frequently" the fact that it has been observed at least 2000 times in the past 20 centuries by "true Christans" - the FDS, it demonstates the meaning of the word. Trouble here is that there is simply no evidence of this occurence. The claim, as is so often the case with WT reasoning, is simply asserted with equal amounts of bluster and rhetoric with no consideration given to even a modicum of scholarship.

They then argue that since Paul referred to "Christ as our Passover" [1 Cor 5:7] that this was convincing enough for an annual obsevation. Again the point is, that the WTS has not yet learned that Paul said "Christ" was our Passover and not "The memorial is our Passover"

By insisting on keeping the celebration to once a year, the WTS is encouraging a fascination with a ritual, rather than focussing on the central position of the Person involved.

Finally in that article a historian by the name of Von Mosheim is referred to, who evidently in an unnamed work, made reference to a remote Christian community in the 2nd C AD who celebrated the Lord's Supper just once a year. Unfortunately, something that has evidently escaped the WTS, is that these believers would have been apostate in the eyes of the WTS, since they in no way rendered worship to the jehoover so beloved of the WTS. There were other communities at the same time who held to other views of the frequency of the "Lord's Supper.

Remember, that according to WT theology, by the end of the 1st C the Christian Church slid into apostasy, and needed to be revived in 1879, for true worship to be restored.

The varieties of Christian experience in the early years of the historic Church preserves a history of a vibrant, living community of scattered believers, whose love for their Lord led them to worship Him in many ways. They were in no way, even remotely, patterened on the cultic existence of the currently constituted WTS

Cheers

5

RUTHERFORD'S COURTESANS

by badboy in

jw
friends

it is alleged that rutherford had courtesans.. any info on this?.

moggy lover

According to the book "The Four Presidents of the WTS'' pg 31, fourth generation ex-JW Edmund Gruss, tells us that in the post-1925 period, after the failure of his "end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it" prophecy, JFR was a changed man. Something evidently cracked inside him and he began to manifest some odd and bizarre behaviour traits.

His drinking, which at the best of times was scarcely moderate, began to get so bad that it verged on the alchoholic. His language became abusive and profane, especially to those who, like Freddy Franz considered themselves close to him. His temper, which had in the past always been a problem, became almost violent in its explosiveness.

And there was his sexual proclivities.

Conniving with his younger accolite, Nathan Knorr, Franz saw it in his best interests to shuffle JFR off to the western retreat of the WTS, Beth Sarim in California. Franz would create an itenerary, and concocting the idea that the peace and quiet there would encourage JFR to better literary creativity, see to it that the Leader departed, leaving Bethel HQ to the conspirators.

When JFR travelled, he insisted on doing so with style. Sometimes using first class train service, or one of his two chauffeur driven sixteen-cylinder Cadillacs, he was always accompanied by two important items:

1 Copious amounts of his favourite Canadian liquor [in prohibitionist America]

2 Four, [yep, not content with one, or two, or even three] ''Spiritual sisters'' whose purpose it was to "wait on his every need" He even had a pre-arranged system for summoning them: each had a whistle that would identify them, one whistle for one, two whistles for another, and so on.

>Sigh< What a life. But then someone had to live it, so.... why not him!!

37

Death Sucks

by Undecided in

jw
friends

there were twelve actors that i liked that died this year.

most of them were about 10 years older than me.

that means, that if i'm lucky, i've got about 10 years left.

moggy lover

I like the way Blondie put it. The present is a gift live it to the full, because:

Death is the greatest trip of all, that's why they leave it for last.

Cheers