Posts by moggy lover

9

Re Gabriel's answer at Daniel 9

by Doug Mason in

daniel 9:24-27 records the answer to daniels prayer by angel gabriel.

interpretations of these verses have resulted in a wide range of interpretations.. .

my suggestions are intended to provide parameters that may assist when an attempt is made to unearth the meaning of gabriels answer.. .

moggy lover

Nice work, Doug.

You have a PM.

3

Lack of connection to apostolic church

by greendawn in

the jws claim they are the true christian religion even though they only appeared suddenly and very recently.

but what is it that connects them with the early apostolic church so as to make it possible for them to claim they are its successors?.

indeed if we check out their history we see that their immediate predecessors and teachers the adventists were rejected by them as a false religion, they believed in hellfire and the immortality of the soul.

moggy lover

The connection is nonexistent. It is made up material that is part conjecture and part interpretive humbug.

They first start with the absolutely unprovable proposition that the 1C AD Church taught, among other things:

1 That the Christian god was expressly referred to as "Jehovah"

2 That the message of the 1C AD Church was that of the Kingdom of God through "Jehovah's sovereignty", and not that of salvation in the name of Christ.

3 That the method of evangelism carried out by the 1C AD Church was that of a universal obligation on all believers, and by a door-to-door ministry.

4 That only 144,000 were to be with Christ in heaven.

5 That the 1C AD Christian Church was constituted along hierarchical/dictatorial lines with an anonymous GB in charge and with a coterie of compliant satraps carrying out the orders of these morons at the top.

6 That total subservience to this GB was of "first importance" and that Paul was mistaken when he said that of "first importance" was belief in the substitutional nature of Christ's death for sins, and His subsequent resurrection. [1 Cor 15:3]

Having established such improbable items that supposedly "identify" the 1C AD Christian Church, they then blissfully, and with their tongues in their cheeks, turn to their declining membership and quote: Who then resembles this 1C AD Church today?

The RCs? Nah. The Baptists? Nah. The Lutherans? Nah? Evangelicals in general? Nah.

Ipso facto, then, by default, it must, in all modesty and humility [sic] be us!!!! [Simple ain't it]

We can't help being right all the time. Even when we're wrong, we reserve the right to be right!

15

I want to buy my first book about the WT what should I get?

by bohm in

i have already read c.o.c.

and im not really interested in more about the doctrines.. i have read about the book "taking back your life", and mr. bohm has been pestering me about reading the book "releasing the bonds" by steven hassan.. which other books would you recommend?.

love, miss bohm.

moggy lover

Hi, Greenie:

There are several examples that I can give which Penton brings out throughout his book. But I will start with CT Russell, the Watchtower founder. A carefully crafted myth among the Watchtower leadership, and percolating down to the rank and file followers, is that Russell was led by "god" to rediscover the original "truths" of 1 C AD Christianity. Penton points out that all of CTR's teachings, and certainly most of his more important ones, such as 1874, the yearly celebration of the Lord's Supper, and others, actually came from other men he associated with, such as Nelson Barbour, George Storrs, and George Stetson.

On page 17 of the book Penton says: "The practice of celebrating the Memorial of the Lord's Supper once a year on the supposed date of the Passover was learned by Russell from George Storrs. This custom began among members of Storrs' church The Life And Advent Union in the 1860s". Therefore it was not as a result of a careful study of the Bible, but as a result of a precedent established by someone else, that the Watchtower began this observance.

Other teachings of Russell, attributed to divine intervention, such as the "Parousia" of Christ being an "invisible presence" are also examined. This Russell got from Barbour, and Russell continued in this absurdity, even after Barbour himself repudiated this when he realized how silly this was.

Another carefully crafted myth regarding CTR is that the two major schisms that fell upon his movement were the result of "satanic attacks" in an attempt to derail the infant Watchtower movement. Actually, Penton points out that this had a far more terrestial source. As CTR's theology was evolving, he began to construct doctrines that many found bizarre. One was that the words " The Christ" [as opposed to simply "Christ"] referred to the wider body of "anointed" followers of Russell. Many refused such an explanation and left the movement in 1878 and 1881, because they realized that what CTR was teaching was that the "anointed" actually participated in the redemption of mankind.

Later Russell also stubbornly insisted on a version of the New Covenent that became controversial. Several prominent followers felt that CTR was secretly trying to smuggle in non biblical teachings into the movement, and failing to reason with him, left. So, far from being devilish in origin, much of Russell's ealy troubles were of his own making.

11

GB and Field Service a Question for Ex Bethel Boys and Others in the Know

by nugget in

i have got the impression on here that jaraqz and the gb gang don't actually go door to door in field service.

it has aslo been stated that "judge" rutherford, who instigated it, didn't do it either.. is this true?

can anyone confirm it?.

moggy lover

Ray Franz addressed this issue in his book "In Search of Christian Freedom". In the book on page 200 Raymond Franz writes:

"During my experience there [Bethel] several members of the GB only rarely engaged in field service. Indeed, most of them did not attend the Tuesday night Book studies from where this was organized, and thus did not share in group service from those locations. This was particularly true of Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Grant Suiter, Milton Henschel. Many at [Bethel] headquarters were as cognizant of this as I was"

Regarding the question of Rutherford's participation in the d-t-d activity, Franz writes: "There is no evidence that Rutherford himself ever took any part in this door-to-door work. Based on expressions made by my uncle, Fred Franz and others, it appears that when inquiry when made about this, the answer given was that his "responsibilities as president did not permit his engaging in this activity". Thus he could at best say, "Do as I say, not as I do. " [page 192]

"Nor is it ever mentioned [in Watchtower literature] that Rutherford himself did not engage in the door-to-door activity" [page 442].

15

I want to buy my first book about the WT what should I get?

by bohm in

i have already read c.o.c.

and im not really interested in more about the doctrines.. i have read about the book "taking back your life", and mr. bohm has been pestering me about reading the book "releasing the bonds" by steven hassan.. which other books would you recommend?.

love, miss bohm.

moggy lover

Literature specifically designed to be read as information on the Watchtower Society tend to fall into one of two types:

1 Autobiographical 2 Doctrinal/Historical Exposures.

1 Of the former the most eloquent, and well written, I found, has been "Visions of Glory - A History and memory of Jehovah's Witnesses" by Barbara Grizutti Harrison. The late Mrs Harrison was a Bethelite in the 50s and 60s whose disillusionment with the lack of spiritual qualities in an organization she expected to be dedicated to the task of "pure worship" is well recounted in her book. The crisis ridden journey from true believer to sceptic and finally to spiritual renewal, makes for a worthwhile read. Apart from this, a bonus is her superb command of the English language [she was an award winning professional writer of note] The book is an intense, sometimes hilarious, but always moving autobiography of a beautiful lady who found eventual peace with herself, and who went on to become an inspirational writer in own right.

There is also "I was Raised A Jehovah's Witness" by Joe Hewitt, and "Why I left Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ted Dencher. Both are written from a male perspective and reveal the inner struggle that living in a high control, regimented religion affords. Other autobiograhies of note are; ""Held By the Watchtower" by Susan Thorne, "Pilgrimage Through the Watchtower" by Kevin Quick and "We Left JWs - A Non-Prophet Organization" by Edmund Gruss.

2 Doctrinal Exposures of the Watchtower abound in the market today, given that we currently live in a pluralistic society. And rather than give the titles I will recommend certain authors who specialize in certain sub-groups of Watchtower teaching.

If you are interested in reading about doctrinal infractions of the Watchtower as examined from a conservative, Evangelical perspective, the best author to read is Robert Bowman. He writes with clarity, dignity and is never harsh in his critisism. He has published several books on the Watchtower: "Why You Should Believe In the Trinity" "Putting Jesus In His Place - The Case For the Deity of Christ" [co-authored by Ed Komoszewski] and "Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses". Other respectable authors of note are:

Ron Rhodes, "Reasoning From the Scriptures with The JWs" and Edmund Gruss. Gruss is a third generation JW who subsequently left the Watchtower. He specializes in the prophetic speculations of the Watchtower: "Apostles of Denial" "The Four Presidents Of the Watchtower" "JWs - Their Mounments To False Prophesy" "JWs - Their Claims, Doctrinal Changes, and Prophetic Speculation" are specialist reading. Of this same subgroup is "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by Carl Olaf Jonsson. It is the best exposure of the Watchtower's 607 BC theology available. It is in its latest fourth, and expanded, edition.

If you are a Roman Catholic, you will enjoy reading:"The Gospel According To JWs" by John Francis Coffey, and "Answering HWs" by Jason Evert.

A good place to start looking for this sort of literature is to go to www.freeminds.org web site. Randall Waters, who runs the site, is himself a writer of perception with his own "Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses" book.

Probably the best book on the history of the movement, and a standard in its field, is "Apocalypse Delayed" by James Penton. In in you will find much information that debunks many of the urban legends of the Watchtower that have become streotypical Watchtower mythology.

Hope this helps.

13

Another problem for the WT, Isaiah 44:24

by Chalam in

here's a problem for the wt with their god father and "a god" son theology.. the wt major on proverbs 8 and give the title of "master worker" to jesus and insert the word "[other]" into john 1:3 colossians 1:16 etc.. however, there are plenty of scriptural problems, consider this one.

isaiah 44:24 (new international version) 24 "this is what the lord says .

your redeemer, who formed you in the womb: .

moggy lover

Peacedog raised an interesting point which set me out on a quest to discover why it was that the overwhelming majority of translations that I consulted read the last phrase as a straight nominative "By myself" and why so few, read it as a rhetorical question: "Who [was/is] with me?"

The translations that read as a straight nominative included all those which are well read and easily accessible: NASV, NIV, ESV, RSV, JB, etc. including the four Jewish translations currently available: JPS, Tanach, Harkavi, and Leeser. So does the Ancient Roots Linear OT translation. The two that I could find reading as a rhetorical question were: Young's Lit Version, and the Corcodant literal Version.

It appears that this is a textual problem and it depends on which Heb text the translator uses. You can get the Hebrew OT in its original consonant only form, and in the later verbal accented form, arranged by a group of ancient biblical scribes of the 2C BC called Massoretes.

The original reads as a straight nominative: "By myself", but the later accented text, adds a stroke to the word "me". This stroke is evidently called a "kethib" and alters the nominative into a rhetorical question: "Who [was/is] by me?" It is thought that the older form of the text is preferable, hence the vast majority reading.

Anyway, this discussion does not change the thrust of this verse. As peacedog stated earlier a rhetorical question is different from an interrogative, in that whereas the latter can elicit two different answers, the former demands only one, to conform to the proposition stated.

5

Our journey from Gilead to Bethel ...

by DocBob in

jw
friends

... only took about 15 minutes.

gilead and bethel are towns in maine, right on route 2. from bethel we proceeded to paris and norway (maine).

all in all, it was a nice drive..

moggy lover

As far as I'm concerned you guys can all go to Hell.

That's Hell, Norway, just outside Trondheim.

38

Does God believe in burning People?

by ssn587 in

reading the book, you can live forever in paradise earth, on page 81 end of paragraph two it reads, "this raises the question: did almighty god create such a place of torment?

well, what was god's view when the israelites, following the example of peoples who lived nearby, began to burn their children in fire?

he explains in his word: "they have built the high places of topheth, which is in the valley of the son of hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing i had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.".

moggy lover

There seems to be a broad enough consensus among scholars regarding the phrase "burnt with fire" They broadly suggest that the "burning" actually referred to the bodies of the those people who had committed this form of incest. The mode of execution in OT times seems confined to stoning, but whereas most others were later entombed, the incestuous sinners had their carcasses burnt. It appears that such burning signified the impossibility of a comfortable afterlife. [See Wycliffe, Henry, Clarke, Keil and Delitzsch, etc]

However there are other views:

1 Clarke [OT Commentary] suggests that this "burning" was in fact a branding with a hot iron to remind both the perpetrators as well the general populace of this particular sin.

2 A particularly gruesome interpretation is provided by the Jewish Targum of Jonathan. It is here suggested that this "burning" involved having molten lead poured down the throats of the guilty ones.

17

The land of Judah still had people on it during the Babylonian Exile

by Doug Mason in

the wts commences the seventy years of the babylonian exile when people from the city of mizpah left for egypt, following the murder of governor gedaliah.

the wts claims that the seventy years could not commence until judah was without a living soul or domestic animal, and that this departure for egypt marked that moment.

their position, however, is not supported by scripture or archaeology.. .

moggy lover

Another comment I can share:

"After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Babylonians in 586 BC, the city continued to be the focal point of the national aspirations of the exiles and those who had remained in Eretz-Israel. Pilgrimages to the Temple mount continued, not only from Judah, but also from Samaria. [Jer 41:5]"

Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, article on: Jerusalem, history of. page 591, by B Mazar.

112

the Watchtower, December 15, 2009 (PDF)

by possible-san in

well, the watchtower, december 15, 2009 (pdf) is downloadable now.. although i had stopped notifying of those pdf files here, am i good to notify you?.

.

http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/.

moggy lover

Thanks, Missinglink for the trouble. I have been able to download the PDF vcopy of the Dec 15 2009 Wt.

Just another piece of bother if I may be indulged? I notice that I have missed the downloads from the Sept 15, Oct 15, and Nov 15 issues of the 2009 Wt. Could you, or some blessed soul out there help me by providing the appropriate links? That will complete my set of study editions for the year 2009.

Ta, mate.

Cheers.