Posts by moggy lover

25

Great Crowd Appeared in 1930's........or did it?

by drew sagan in

the basic premise for this post came from some comments td made in a thread many months ago.

(read the full thread here : link) .

the specific point i wanted to discuss is the 'great crowd' theology the wts puts forth, especially the timeline of events it presents as accurate.

moggy lover

I think you have raised a very interesting point, Drew, and one that I missed all the years that I was in the WTS. Like me, I am sure that most WT followers use the terms "other sheep" and "great crowd" synonymously, making them refer to several generations co-existing together. Actually, as you point out there is a difference, albeit a technical one.According to the WTS's own definition, the GC must only refer to those who attended the 1935 assembly.

At that convention in Washington DC, in 1935, those attending, and subsequent recruits of that generation, were identified as the GC. In fact as the WT of 15 Aug 1935 states: "Now we see a company that exactly fits the description given in Rev 7 concerning the Great Multitude"

This means that those attendees of that convention had every right to expect to go through the Great Tribulation in their own lifetimes. Anyone who was 10 years old then will now be a frail 82 and anyone old enough to make a mature dedication to the WTS diktat, say 20 years old, will be 92 at least. It is obvious that the vast majority of that generation have now passed away, victims of yet another gross misrepresentation of the WTS.

It must be remembered that to the WT leadership, truth is not an entrenched verity impervious to change, but rather is an elastic commodity, capable of being stretched, bent, and twisted into any shape that most serves the interests of the society. The WT leadership exists in its own self-made cesspool of deception and conceit, unhindered by any concern for other human beings other than themselves, and for this reason are untroubled by any inconsistency in any of their "reasoning"

All it will take to undo any embarrasing defaults in their theology is a glib redefinition of their malleable glossary, making the GC mean whatever they want it to mean.

Cyberguy: just a brief reference to an encounter I had with a young couple who, as WT followers were doing a street corner work. Accosting the young couple, I referred them to Eph 4:4,5 and asked them to explain to me this anomaly of the WTS actually teaching two hopes. The young lad, presumably using the kind of pliant logic that makes the WT follower unsuited to any coherent discussion, insisted that, in fact, the WTS did teach only one hope. One hope for the anointed, and one hope for the OS!! When I pointed out that his mathamatics was reminescent of what he insisted the Trinity to be, his apoplectic demeanor became apparent. Somehow to him, 1+1=1 and he considered me to be the one retarded enough not to "see" this wonderful "truth" !!

Good post, Drew.

Cheers

12

Is the WTS/JWs a cult? evaluated on different scales

by Lady Lee in

is the wts/jws a cult?.

since we had no jwd today i was busy.

odenoted where the wts meets the criteria red text are my comments.

moggy lover

Hey, LL, great research, and thanks for sharing. I think we should all save this information to our computers for future reference.

Cheers, Treasure,

ML

7

Anyone raised from the dead as a result of Jesus sacrifice yet?

by gaiagirl in

in conversation with a jw recently, i mentioned that i was a blood donor, and they replied that the best use of blood was jesus sacrifice.

my answer was that "i know people whose lives have been saved because of my blood donations, do you know of even one person who has been raised from the grave because of jesus sacrifice?

" as you might imagine, the jw claimed that thousands of people were in heaven.

moggy lover

In my opinion, the most blasphemous feature of the WTS teaching on the resurrection, is the artful way they have covered up their own involvment with the scripture at 2Tim 2:18.

At that verse, Paul makes reference to certain ones, who, having "departed from the truth" say that the resurrection has already occured. To deflect any reference to themselves, since they also say that the resurrection has already taken place, thus identifying the WTS with those "apostates" from True Christianity, [ In 1878? 1918? Who knows what jhoover reveals to these biblical misfits] the Inspired book, [Vol 1, pg 1164] says "Evidently these ones taught a spiritual resurrection" thus suggesting that the heretical nature of these beliefs was not in the time of the resurrection but in the nature of it. Possibly true.

But that is precisely what the WTS teaches!! Do they teach that a bodily resurrection occured in 1918? Of course not. The WTS teaching of an invisible, spiritual, disembodied resurrection reflects the influence of pseudo-pagan beliefs that they have either consciously or inadvertantly adopted for their own use, and which teaching was condemned by Paul

Like Paul says, the WTS has "deviated from the Truth" [NWT]

Like the True Christians of Paul's day, we confidently await the future resurrection

Cheers

12

Rutherford and 1914 "coming"

by Doug Mason in

i have seen the 1929 book where rutherford stated that christ's parousia took place in 1874. .

in the course of my research, i have seen people claiming that during the 1920s, rutherford dated the "coming" of christ at 1914. .

i do not want to repeat hearsay, and would like to hear from people who have the original documents or verifiable photocopies.

moggy lover

Hi, Doug,

I think the problem that we are having is wrapped up in the idea that JFR evidently believed in two seperate dates, both of which he pursued right up to 1929. As far as I can determine, up to the publication of his book "Prohecy" JFR believed, and taught:

1 That Jesus had come invisibly in 1874

2 That the Gentile Times ended in 1914, and Jesus began His rule.

Now the catch is that when JFR made references to 1914 in pre-1929 publications he always referred to no 2 above, not no 1. For instance in the WT of Mar 1 1925, pg 69, he wrote: "In that year, 1914, the Lord took up his power and began to reign" As can be seen the reference is not to the Parousia of Christ, which to JFR was in 1874, but to the taking up of kingdom rule.

So, yes, we will find occassions when JFR made reference to 1914, but never, to the best of my knowledge to the invisible presence of Christ taking place then.

Now, the interesting thing is, that JFR never mentioned the invisible presence of Christ as having taken place in 1874 ever again since the 1929 publication of his book "Prophecy" [pg 65]

What we will need to find then, are not just those places where JFR mentioned 1914, but where, prior to 1929, he used it for the second presence. I cannot find any.

Somtime between 1929-1940, JFR reversed himself, and merged the two events, the second Presence, and the taking up of Kingdom power into one date, 1914,which is the current understanding, and which most people assume is what JFR believed prior to 1929. I think this is incorrect, he did not.

The tricky bit is trying to settle when this merging occured, since there is no specific WT that announced this. Remember that there was no reasoned out WT which spelled out the details with regard to the Second Presence as taking place in 1914, as there was in the pre-1929 days when this was attributed to 1874. JFR merely made oblique references to this new teaching with no overt explanations, and the R&F were expected to follow along or buzz off.

My understanding is that it was only later that FF made copius references to arrows and squiggles and whatnot placing the second presence in 1914. I feel that all that was done was to appropriate all the arguments reasoned out for 1874, but now making them refer to 1914.

The failure of the 1874 doctrine must have been a humiliating experience for the WT leadership, and their nimble adjustment to 1914, made by using vague references to scripture, and downright and deliberate obfuscation of their own history, helped them to survive the crisis.

Cheers

13

Eph 6:15 Does this mean we have to preach to be protected?

by Verona in

jw
friends

our speaker who gave the public talk used this scripture to indicate that unless we have a good habit of preaching then we are not keeping our spiritual armor in good shape.

i'm wondering if there is a better, logical explanation for that verse?

would anyone know of any?

moggy lover

Hi, Verona and welcome to the Forum.

Nope. Your speaker got it all wrong. Which is not surprising since, to the exclusion of all else, the WTS puts all its attention on the preaching work. First of all, there is nothing in the NT that requires everyone to preach. The command to go and preach to all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, is what is called a "corporate" command given to the entire "church" as a body. Who among those who will actually do the preaching is left up to the Lord since He gave some, not all, to be evangelists. [Eph 4:11]

Eph 6:14-20 is one long sentence in the Greek, and the subject is not speaking of us to be prepared to preach, but to stand firm in the faith that salvation brings. The imperative in this long sentence is "STAND"! This is followed by four Greek participles that denote either the cause or the means of standing.In the NIV these participles are rendered as follows: "Buckled" "In place" fitted" and "take up"

Note that vs 15, the vs you mentioned, does not actually speak of spreading the Gospel, instead it refers to a True Christian believer's [as opposed to those false ones in the WTS] stability or surefootedness that comes as a result from the Gospel. In other words, because the Gospel has already been preached, you now have the means to stand firm.

It is this for which you can give thanks, and gain peace.

It is truly obscene that the leadership of the WTS puts so much emphasis on the preaching work, when in fact none of them in the higher echelons do any themselves. Ask Ted Jaracz when he last went out preaching. In fact Knorr, third president of the WTS, always booked three seats on a plane, one on either side of him, if he was flying anywhere simply because he did not wish to talk to anyone. [See the book "The Four Presidents of the WT Society" by Edmund Gruss]

Hope this helps.

Cheers

And keep asking questions and keep seeking answers

6

Greek "THIS faith"?? Luke 18:8 More slimey WTBCS doublespeak?

by hamsterbait in

the wt study for feb 4, says that in luke 18, jesus asks "when the son of man arrives will he find this faith in the earth"?.

a footnote in the nwt says "or "this faith" ", but does not quote any authority to back up this claim.. looking at the greek text, i see only a definite article.

i checked other translations, and none of mine said "the faith" - i assume because the definite article in this instance is like that in other languages such as german and french, where it would mean faith in general.

moggy lover

Good point, Hampsterbait. As you mentioned in your first post, the use of the definite article with "pistis" in Lu 18:8 most probaly refers to faith as a quality, rather than something definitive. This does not mean that it is essentially wrong to render "ten pistin" as "THE faith" However if one is constrained to do so, then I would at least expect the translator to be consistent at this verse. Why?

Because "faith" [or "belief"] is not the only abstract noun mentioned in this verse!!

The word "ekdikesis" [justice - NWT] also occurs with the definite article. The NWT should therefore, if it is going to say "THE faith" have said "THE justice" ie:"He will cause THE justice to be done to them....will he find the faith."

Most translations, evidently because of this, say simply "justice" and "faith" Of the 40 odd translations I have consulted, three use "the faith" and all consistently make allowance for "the justice" as well.

For instance, the YLT has: "He will execute the justice to them. ... will he find the faith on the earth"

The same goes for the Emphatic Diaglott. Rotherham's translation translates the first definite article as a demonstrative ie: "this justice" and goes on to say "the faith"

But then, convenience, and not consistency, was the prime requirement for Freddy Franz and his so-called NW "Translation"

Cheers

13

Is the "Kingdom" a "government"?

by Doug Mason in

my understanding is that the wts says the "kingdom of god/heavens" is a "government".

where do they get that idea from in scripture?

i presume that by "government" they mean "a system of exercising authority through an executive policy making body".

moggy lover

By the way, welcome to the Forum, DM.

Incidently, are you the guy who wrote the book "Witnessing the Name"?

If you are, great book.

Cheers

13

Is the "Kingdom" a "government"?

by Doug Mason in

my understanding is that the wts says the "kingdom of god/heavens" is a "government".

where do they get that idea from in scripture?

i presume that by "government" they mean "a system of exercising authority through an executive policy making body".

moggy lover

The repetitious use of the word "kingdom" in WT literature serves as one of several mechanisms to deflect attention away from Jesus Christ Personally, so as to concentrate on an abstraction. There are other mechanisms of course, the use of the hybrid word "jehovah" being another, and the focussing of attention on the FDS as a collective divinely appointed leadership also being one.

There are numerous examples of how this stress on the concept of the "kingdom" works:

1 The way WT literature treats Ps 72 is interesting in this regard. In recent years, since 1986 in fact, at least two publications have made reference to this Ps and explained it in terms of an abstraction, rather than as it is done in the Ps itself.

For instance, in the "True Peace and Security" book, published in 1986, we find this gem of wisdom, on pg 41: "With God's government by his Son Christ Jesus excercising dominion over all the earth, the ancient Ps of the Bible, Ps 72:7,8 will find fulfillment"

Nine years later, in 1995, referring to this same Ps, The book "Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life" says, on Pg 97: " Soon we will be able to rejoice not only because Gods Kingdom rules but also because it will bring blessings to the earth and obedient mankind - Ps 72:7,8"

However even a cursory reading of the text of Ps 72 tells us something different. Evidently initially referring to King Solomon, the Ps is also clearly Messianic in character, and rather than referring to an "it" that supposedly brings blessings to mankind, the Ps repeatedly refers to "HE" and "Him" as the bringer of these same blessings.[Vss 2, 4,6,7,8,9,9,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,15,15,15,17,17,17] As can be seen, if this Ps is futuristic in its application as implied by WT literature, then the future blessings mentioned in that Ps will be implemented by an individual Person, not an "it".

2 Perhaps the most blasphemous application of the "kingdom" into WT theology, and in direct contradiction of Jo 5:40, is an illustration found on the inside cover of the 1985 WT brochure entitled: "The Government That Will Bring Paradise" in this illustration, we see Jesus, surrounded by what evidently are His attentive disciples, pointing away from Himself to a glorious, radiantly crowned mountain, symbolizing God's Kingdom, as the bringer of "paradise"

There is not for a moment any shred of doubt in the minds of the WT leadership that the Kingdom as conceived by them is "A real operating heavenly government" [Knowledge book, pg 91] already constituted and prepared to take control of human affairs. In fact, it is so real, that those members that have died and gone to heaven already are, according to the Jan 1 WT of 2007, communicating with those members of the kingdom who are still alive here on earth. !!

Cheers

20

NWT Revisions

by Jeffro in

there is mention on a wikipedia article that there was a 2006 revision of the nwt.

is this true?

what differences are there?

moggy lover

To the best of my knowledge, the NWT text was standardized back in 1984. All subsequent editions have reflected that printing. What would make it somewhat impossible to make another "revision" is that, at least since 1999, when Milton Henschel, the last surviving member of the original committee, died, there is no one left to do the revision.

Cheers

14

Angel Christology

by POSTMAN in

new to this list so i am not aware what has been discussed perhaps i am requesting for repete answers forgive me if this is the case.

i am very interested in the christ michael argument.

could i be directed to all watchtower arguments where this belief is set out.

moggy lover

Narkissos, I found that they have indeed changed the format of their site somewhat. To access the article I am talking about you will need to:

1 Type in the Jehovah's Witness's United site on Google

2 When you get to the page click "site search"

3 This where they have changed the format. Previously, a series of articles would pop up. But now you need to type in "Is Jesus Michael" in the site search using the "advanced search" clip.

4 The first article that pops up is one researched and written by one Chuck McManigal, who may or may not actually be a WT follower.

Read it and let us know your critique.

If you still have trouble try : http://jehovah.to./exe/general/archangel.htm

Cheers