Posts by moggy lover

11

Watchtower Letter on literature change dated Feb-9.2007!

by Atlantis in

just in case some of the folks may have wanted this letter for their records.

at the bottom of this letter the watchtower states, "this new arrangement for publishing the watchtower will take effect in january 2008.. it is nice to know that the watchtower feels that armageddon can be delayed until then!.

please delete if already posted!.

moggy lover

Thanks Atlantis. This is an invaluable piece of history and has therefore been saved for future reference.

Interestingly I noticed the letter mentioned that the GB had "approved" this decision. I wonder if this meams what I think it means. Normally, when someone "approves" something, it means that the person is endorsing a decision that someone else is actually making. If the GB did not "make" this decision but merely "approved" it, does it mean that someone else, like their financial consultants, actually "made" this decision as a cost saving measure, then sent it to the GB for "approval" ??

Nah... could'nt be..could it?. The polite fiction in the WT arrangement is that the GB makes all the decisions............. even if they are men verging on senility isn't it?

Cheers

15

Is the GB "Christ"?

by Doug Mason in

where in scripture does the gb get the idea of being anointed?

jesus warned his disciples to watch out for the deceivers (matt 24: 4) who would falsely point to wars, famines, and earthquakes (verses 6 and 7) as the sign of the end of the age (verse 3).

at the same time, jesus told his disciples that these deceivers would claim to be christ (verse 5), which means anointed one.

moggy lover

I need to correct a statement I made in my previous post, above.

In the post above, I referred to James Penton as a man who served in a senior capacity for the WTS, having branch oversight in the Canadian Bethel. This is incorrect. I have been informed, that although Penton did do assignments for the WTS, he never served in the Canadian Branch office. The error is mine.

Cheers

15

Is the GB "Christ"?

by Doug Mason in

where in scripture does the gb get the idea of being anointed?

jesus warned his disciples to watch out for the deceivers (matt 24: 4) who would falsely point to wars, famines, and earthquakes (verses 6 and 7) as the sign of the end of the age (verse 3).

at the same time, jesus told his disciples that these deceivers would claim to be christ (verse 5), which means anointed one.

moggy lover

Two former members of the WT movement, one of whom, James Penton, served in a senior capacity as head of the Canadian branch, have written about this teaching, which for want of a better expression is called the "Mystery Doctrine"

Writing in his book, "Apocalypse Delayed" Penton tells us: "The Mystery, as understood by Russell, meant that not only had Jesus offered himself as a ransom sacrifice for mankind, but the body of Christ, the 144,000 members of his church also participated in the ransoming and atoning work" [pg 40] He further elaborated : "Russell felt that the mediator for the New Covenant was "the Christ" That expression meant, of course that the 144,000 actually paticipated in Christ's sacrifice for the world" [see pg 187 of "Apocalypse Delayed"]

This doctrine, which has never been discussed publically since the death of JF Rutherford, but which, equally, has not been repudiated either, teaches that the word "Christ" refers to a Person, the One we universally know as Jesus, but the expression "The Christ" has been invested with a seperate, deeper and almost sinister,meaning. It refers to the "Christ Class" those making up the 144,000 plus Jesus .

Edmund Gruss, the other ex-WT follower I referred to in the opening paragraph, in his book, "The Four Presidents Of The WTS" devotes an entire chapter to this monstrous teaching. He recounts meeting Freddy Franz, the self-appointed "oracle" for Jay Hoofer, who, when asked to elaborate on this teaching, refused to do so, unless Gruss admitted to being of the "anointed" This telling reaction indicates the secretive nature of this teaching as maintained by the WTS, and the way it is viewed by those claiming to be of the "Anointed"

It is true that Col 1:27 speaks of the "mystery which is now among the Gentiles, ie, which is Christ in you" This is not the bit that creates this doctrine, although the WTS indicates to those putting it under scrutiny that it is in fact so. Oh no. The real dangerous bit is the next phrase, as translated by FFranz esq, the One-and-only Oracle of Jay Hoofer hisself. The last phrase in the Greek is "The hope of glory" [See NASB, NIV, JB, AV, NKJV etc]

Freddy however felt that the inclusion of "his" in brackets [As in "The hope of [his] glory"] was needed to complete the sense. With that almost innocuous and unobtrusive insertion into the text, Franz shifted the expectation of the anointed from glory in the abstract, to the glory that belongs to Christ exclusively. In a sense therefore, taking on His Glory, they become Him, hence correctly termed "The Christ"

In researching this teaching Gruss unearthed the WT of June 15, 1911, where we find this gem of wisdom: "This Christ is composed of many members. This age will end when the full number of the "elect" shall have been found and tested. Then the body will have been completed.When the Messiah is complete, The Christ will be complete" [reprints, pg 4841]

The last public statement made about this teaching was back in 1927 in "The Harp of God", JFR's opus. This is what he said [pg 202]: "The Christ is a composite body made up of many members" He argued that it was through "this Christ" and not the Person we know as Jesus Christ, that the blessings to humankind must come.

Duane Magnani, who also made a study of this doctrine mentions that in the WT of 15 June 1942, [pg 188] the R&F were cautioned not to call the anointed "the Christ" yet, he says, the teaching was never officially repudiated. It has been retained to this day, but secretly.

By this truly arrogant and and Biblically inept teaching, the WTS leadership has permitted itself to slide into a cesspool of conceit and theological manure, and by covetting a glory that is not for them to possess, they are displaying the attitude of him who is their real spiritual father, the one who wanted to be as god,and for whom eternal judgment awaits.

Hope this helps

Cheers

5

Dating Babylon's Fall

by Doug Mason in

how does the wts calculate that babylon fell in 539 bce?

.

doug

moggy lover

The WTS arrives at the 539 BC date for the fall of Babylon through a curious blend of outright cynical manipulation of the historical data along with a dogmatic assertiveness that appears to overide any reservations that doubters may possess. It is this intellectual dichotomy that makes WTS "reasoning" on this matter so reprehensible.

CtheP mentioned the Aug 15 1968 WT which gives a detailed apologia for the WTS conclusions on this matter, and despite its having been written almost 40 years ago, an entire generation, mind you, it still remains the most definitive account yet published by the WTS.

In case either you, or others don't have access to this issue, we will hightlight at least two points that expose the blatant dishonesty of the WTS

1 On pg 488 of this issue of the Wt, the anonymous writer[s] make the fundamental error of referring to 539 BC for the fall of Babylon as an "Absolute Date". This is simply not correct. 539 BC is not an absolute date, because it is in fact historically calculated from an absolute date: 605 BC the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. [There are two absolute dates strewn about the Neo-Babylonian era: 605 and 568 BC, the 37th year of King Nebuchadnezzar which is established without any doubt whatsoever by a tablet called VAT 4956]

Since we know from the Nabunaid Chronicle that Babylon fell 66 years after the accession of Nebuchadnezzar, it therefore must mean that Babylon fell in 539 BC. It is simple as that. So you cannot have the date 539 BC without the former year-base on which it rests, 605 BC The utter gall of the WTS is to simply ignore 605 BC and accept 539 BC on its own, as if it somehow magically fell from the sky.

2 That same magazine article lists an impressive array of scholarship to establish 539 For the fall of Babylon Here are the 19 authorities:

a The Nabunaid Chronicle

b ANE Texts Relating to the OT: James Pritchard

c Light from the Ancient Past: Prof Finegan

d Babylonian Chronology: Parker and Dubberstein

e Encyclopedia Britannica

f Encyclopedia Americana

g Nabonidus and Belshazzar: Prof Dougherty

h Ancient History: Hutton Webster

i The Story of Ancient Nations: WL Westermann

j History of the Hebrews: FK Sanders

k The Jews- Their History and Culture: Louis Finkelstein

l Zondervan Bible Dict

m World History at a Glance: Prof Reither

n New Standard Bible Dict

o Darius The Mede: Prof Whitcomb

p Ancient and Medieval Hist:Hayes and Mon

r Funk and Wagnall Ency

s Outline of History: HG Wells

t Bibel Lexikon Herbert Haag [german]

Like an artful conjurer, or even a snake-oil salesman, the WTS emphasizes only that part which they want you to see. This impressive list is empty if you do not also acknowledge that ALL these authoritiesalso endorse 605 BC as the date for Nebuchadnezzar's accession [as opposed to the WTS date of 625 BC] They all accept the fact that it is only from 605 that one can arrive at 539 The imbecility of the WTS is that somehow, they calculate the 539 BC date from an accession year that they do not recognize, without actually realizing that there is simply no way you can arrive at the 539 BC date any other way.

It is only the outright intellectual dishonesty of the WTS which allows them to accept the conclusions of the above authorites, yet deny the process these authorities use to arrive at their conclusions.

The WTS would like 539 to be an independant date, not contigent on any other consideration. This is simply not true. You can only arrive at 539 the way that the 19 authorities above do so, and that is to acknowledge 605 BC as the base date first.

Hope this helps

Cheers

And Moggy says G'day

31

Question for Believers: How can God be PERFECT?

by kid-A in

several weeks ago the issue of god's 'perfect nature' came up on a thread.

the concept of "perfection" is a persistent in vitually all faith traditions and theological constructs.. jws in particular, have an obsession with the concept of perfection and use it regularly in their propaganda: "live forever in a perfect paradise earth"; "live forever in perfect health"; "humans and animals will live together in perfect harmony", etc etc...... the point was raised about the possibility or impossibility of god being perfect.

if we begin with the basic judaeo-christian tenet that god created the universe from nothingness, then he is the designer and creator of every single entity, sentient or non-sentient, and object within reality.

moggy lover

I guess one of the problems we have is our use of language and its application to certain philosohical concepts. The limitations of this creates certain conundrums that can be exploited to justify any contravening idea one wishes to express. In this case the idea of God being simultaneously the creator of good and "evil".

God of course, being Ulitimate Holiness, did not create evil, because in a sense "evil" actually cannot be created. It is the natural consequence of the removal of that which is created, good. This is where semantics breaks down and philosophical concepts become muddied.

But lets take an example from physics. It is well known that "cold" is a term we use to describe a condition that exists. But that which exits is not "cold", it is only the word we use to describe this phenomenon. The thing that actually does exist is HEAT. Now, being an energy, we have learned to manipulate heat for our benefit. By reducing heat, we "create" a condition that is a natural consequence of a loss of heat. We use a word to describe this - Cold. But remember we have not created cold, because "cold" is not an independantly created condition, but what we have done is we have actually manipulated a thing that is created, heat. To arrive at a point where heat no longer exists, we need to reduce the temperature to -273.16C [-459.69F] At this point all we have is cold. But "cold" as a phenonenon on its own cannot be created. To arrive at this point, Absolute Zero, there is nothing we can do to cold, as if we can "add" to it. What we have to do is constantly keep removing heat, till no more heat exists.

May I then suggest that "evil" is the same idea. You cannot create "evil" but what you can do, because of the divine gift of free will, is manipulate "good" - the thing which is really created. The more you remove good, the more "evil" is manifested. The absence of "good" is what we call "evil" but remember that "evil" is the semantical way we have to describe a condition for which we are, in reality referring to the absence of good.

"Evil" which is a condition that describes the "removal of good" does exist, just as "cold" does. The Bible injects a moral precept into the lifeblood of the human psyche. Just as "cold" ultimately brings death, so, the Bible warns, the removal of good, brings a worse kind of death.

Cheers

18

JW Terminology

by KW13 in

jw
friends

ok guys, list the ones ya know.. the truth/truth = the truth according to jw's is their religion.

for example someone baptized as a jw is baptized in the truth, whereas someone baptized elsewhere is not.. new light/light = a better understanding of the current status quo or 'light' in general which is just knowledge, new light allows for a complete change in beliefs without exception.. god's word = mainly the bible but anything else published by the wbt tract society is also acceptable.. true christians = refers only to jehovah's witnesses or suitable examples from the bible.. apostates = anyone who has been a jehovah's witness who opposes their beliefs (not necessarily people or individuals) and shares how they feel about the watchtower bible and tract society with anyone.

a person who hasn't been a jehovah's witness but does clearly oppose their message and beliefs may also be referred to as an apostate.. experiences = stories that will upbuild and encourage jw's.

moggy lover

My particular favourite is "System of things" An incomprehensible expression and one that is unknown ouside the patois used by WT adherants. The meaning is never fully explained, even to new recruits, who run into this expression for the first time. It is merely repeated, with monotonous regularity, in WT literature, and the assumption is that the R&F will simply accept it.

For what its worth, here is the official "explanation" of this term as published in the "Insight" book, Vol 2, pg 1054, where the writer[s] quotes at least two seperate scholars in support [out of context, naturally]: "It signifies time short or long, in its unbroken duration....but essentially time as the condition under which all created things exist, and the measure of their existence.....Thus signifying time, it comes presently to signify all which exists in the world under conditions of time.....and more ethically, the course and current of this world's affairs. It is the totality of that which manifests itself outwardly in the course of time" [The ellipses are in the original] Understandable?

Note that these scholars whom the "Insight" writers are quoting, along with the ellipses, are not endorsing the WTS use of the expression "system of things" but are in fact explaining the Greek word "Aion" which the WTS uses as the basis for its "system of things" idea. These scholars are endorsing the use of the word "Age" as a close enough equivalent to "Aion" to be understandable. Every other intelligent reader has no problem in understanding "Age" in such texts as "What will be the sign of Your coming and the end of the age"? Matt 24:3 [NASB]

To paraphrase the WT: "It is only in the WT system of things that the expression "System of things" has any currency"

Cheers

9

Jerusalem was not Destroyed in 607 B.C.E. New Web Site

by jdough in

there is a new web site devoted to the false claim by jehovah's witnesses that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 b.c.e.

please feel free to link to the site.

http://www.geocities.com/jerusalem607/

moggy lover

I hav read your stuff. I thought it was very good, comprehensive, and yet not too complex to miss the point.

The WTS, using nimble ambiguity and misplaced rhetoric, has produced a dogmatic assertion that satisfies neither scripture nor the abundance of factual evidence. Several of its auxillaries like the "Jim Space" of the WT approved site merely serve as an echo, not a voice, to this position.

Arguments on both sides of this issue can be at once impenetrable as well as prolix, but despite its complexity, I feel your site has avoided both conditions.

I can only encourage you to further your research and write more articles. We need all the information that we can get, and people like you, willing to stick their necks out, are our biggest assets.

The only problem is not with the article itself, but the site. The geocities board does not allow one to save this information to a computer. But that has nothing to do with the well researched subject matter you have produced.

Keep it up, and looking for more

Cheers

6

Book study week of 02-12 - Revelation 1:10-17

by Inquisitor in

hiya all!.

i would love to hear from you guys how mainstream christians and textual critics/scholars interpret the following features of revelation 1:10-17. i) the lord's day.

ii) the seven congregations - did these really exist?

moggy lover

See my post to your topic on the previous page, pg 301 on Feb 15.

Cheers

46

What Religion Are You?

by choosing life in

jw
friends

i know a lot of posters are not religious and others feel no need to attend a church.

but, for those that do attend somewhere, i was curious as to what type of church they chose after leaving the jws and what attracted them to that particular church or religion?

if you were not raised as a jw, did you return to the church you were raised in?

moggy lover

Baptist

11

New Jerusalem 607 B.C.E. web Site

by jdough in

jw
friends

there is a new web site devoted to the false claim by jehovah's witnesses that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 b.c.e.

please feel free to link to the site.

http://www.geocities.com/jerusalem607/

moggy lover

Incidently I can't link to the site. When I punched the adress you gave the page came up blank. Evidently your adress was incomplete.

For what its worth I can pass on something that I did pull up and which is relatively new. Its a WT favoured site and written in a manner to support WT policies. Its bright, even scholarly, and quite well written. I would reccomend it to anyone interested in a WT leaning justification for their chronology. It is written by someone called "Jim Space" [which may be a psedonym] and shows how bankrupt official WT writings are in that they have to rely on auxilliaries like "jim space" rather than themselves

http://geocities.com/jimspace3000/JWstrs/index.htm

Cheers