Posts by moggy lover

7

Cheap!

by Core88 in

this forum is so popular that i thought i would post here and say man i would love some feedback and peoples thought on my table of who?

topic in the other room.

=-) corey ps.

moggy lover

Oh good. You're back.

I'm sure somebody'll see you right, mate

Cheers

7

Cheap!

by Core88 in

this forum is so popular that i thought i would post here and say man i would love some feedback and peoples thought on my table of who?

topic in the other room.

=-) corey ps.

moggy lover

Huh?

Hope you wern't referring to me socks. I only bought 'em twelve years ago. Well... I did'nt actually buy 'em but what the hell who's missing 'em ....right?

Cheers

22

Can You Identify Your EmotiCons accurately?

by J-ex-W in

lol .

i was glancing through the active topics and read terry's thread this way.

had to do a double take--especially since i have had trouble identifying my emoticons accurately!

moggy lover

OK..OK.. so I'm a computer moron... what the hell are emoticons, and how do I get to love 'em?

Cheers

32

Happiness is.......?

by spoils_useful_habits in

jw
friends

getting through to customer service on the first try and the customer service rep. actually knows what they are doing and have your problem resolved on the first try!!!!

woohoo!!!!!

......do the little things make you happy or does it take a lot?...and for yourself happiness is................?

Cold, Snowy, Icy..Great day for Old Movies.

by El Kabong in

jw
friends

the weather kept us indoors today.

baltimore got about 6 inches of snow today, so it was a good day to stay indoors.

the turner classic movie channel showed 2 fantastic 4 star movies...gone with the wind, and casablanca.

moggy lover

Any of the old black-and-white "Road" movies with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. Oh and the lass who was with them... Dorothy Lamour?

Waddaya mean its cold? Certainly not from where I'm sittin' The temp was 40C yesterday [make that 101F to you Yanks] and here I am in my shorts guzzlin' all this beer. Pity.

Cheers, anyway.

33

What is your favorite Pagan Gods !

by 5go in

skadi .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ska%c3%b0i.

isis.

Bast, cat goddess of Egypt. The Greeks identified her with Artemis from whence the notion of the nine lives associated with cats sprang. Artemis was said to be the mother of the nine muses, whose invention of the seven note scale led to our idea of "Music"

It was said that dogs have always been the companion of the human family, but Bast waited till the human species became civilized to begin to live with them.

Cheers

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