I am sorry for the format, which seems have to shifted off the page to the right. Hope it can be read.
moggy lover
JoinedPosts by moggy lover
-
29
What happened in the Christian Congregation immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem?
by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat inwhat exactly happened in the christian congregation immediately following the destruction of jerusalem?
what were the central issues being dealt with at the time?
was there a crises akin to what happened to jws when they weren't all raptured in 1914?.
-
-
-
29
What happened in the Christian Congregation immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem?
by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat inwhat exactly happened in the christian congregation immediately following the destruction of jerusalem?
what were the central issues being dealt with at the time?
was there a crises akin to what happened to jws when they weren't all raptured in 1914?.
-
-
moggy lover
The issue is relevant only if one presupposes that the Christian Church was patterned along the lines of the currently structured Watchtower community of believers, in that there was a secretive, anonymous body of men controlling doctrinal probity. This would then beg the question: What happened to those guys, and how was the Christian Chruch goverened then?
Actually, from the very start, despite all the Watchtower posturings that the Early Church served as a template from which their own organizational bias was crafted, the exact opposit is true. The early congregations were free communities of free people who were united along interdependent lines with the basis of that unity being a common love for the Person of Jesus Christ, not doctrinal propriety. What did those first century believers understand of doctrine?
We know that those first century believers believed in God, but the definition that would stabilize that sense of belief had not yet occurred. The opening chapters of Acts speak of "God" in terms that defy accurate explanation, and this was intersected in some paradoxical crosshairs that involved Christ in this estimation. In the very first days of Jesus' absence, in Acts 1, we see Christians unabashedly praying to Him, and whereas Jewish believers in OT times ascribed all miraculous events to the Yahweh of the OT, the Christians had no hesitation in ascribing miracles in the first century to either "Jesus" Himself personally, or as the inspired text says to the "Lord". It is only when a detirmined effort is made to emend the text to more comfortable contours that propound a "Jehovah" into the NT text that a Watchtower template can be illegally forged.
So the early Christian community were independent churches that had their own internal and self perpetuating structures. Some had elders appointed by a local body, some were appointed personally by travelling evangelists such as Paul, and some evidently like Titus, had single leaders.
When the Church began in 30 AD it was exclusively Jewish, but within 10 years, with the opening to the Gentiles the centre of gravity was beginning to shift. By that time two cities were prominent, Jerusalem which was Jewish in ethnicity, and Antioch, which was urban, prosperous, and Gentile. By 70 AD the shift away from Judaisim was almost complete with, as is evidenced by the many incidents reported in Acts, more persecution coming from the Jews than converts.
In the post 70 AD era, this breach was final and Chritianity broke away from its primal Jewish roots and began to flex its theological sinews along those Hellenized, Gentile lines. This interdependent congregational system continued with local leaders shepherding the flock. Three major centres of Christian theological and cultural influence developed. Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Dogma, hesitant, illdefined, and largely undeveloped would evolve along strictly scriptural lines from those three cities and issues would need resolution only with the cooperative effort of all three places.
-
22
I've been challenged by a JW apologist and need some answers please.
by I_love_Jeff inthe apologists states: "give at least one example in the bible where the word prototokos (firstborn) does not carry the meaning of "a beginning of existence.
or present any occurrence of the genitive phrase "firstborn of ..." which does not include the subject as part of the group.".
hi aggressive questions present the logical fallacy of false dilemma.
-
-
moggy lover
Engaging in a dialogue with Watchtower Followers can be a vexing task especially if you are playing by rules detirmined by objective analysis, as distinct from the eisegetical conditioning adopted by them and which sees them reading INTO a given text a meaning they want to see.
Your proposition entails two sub sets of investigation: 1. The meaning of "Prototokos" 2. The type of Genitive that Col 1:15 falls into
1.There is no scholastic authority that will deny the fact that "Prototokos", although it may have a single meaning, also has a dual application. The word pertains to being first. It may however apply chronologically to time, or it may apply personally to rank. So one can be "Prototokos" as if one is the one born first, or it may also apply to one first in rank.
THERE IS NO DENYING THIS.
The question then is: What application did Paul have in Colossians 1:15?
Interestingly, the Watchtower did at one time admit that "Prototokos" had a meaning of "pre-eminence". Writing in the Aid book, pg 584, the writer says: "David was called the "first born" at Ps 89:27 by Jehovah due to the elevation of David to the PRE-EMINENT position in God's chosen nation". The writer, presumably Ray Franz since according to his own testimony he wrote much of the book, was honest enough to testify to this application of the word.
Later, however, when grace vanished from the Watchtower corridors of power, the Keepers of the Flame, the Custodians of Temporal Doctrinal Probity, saw fit to alter this and a revised version appeared in the Insight book, Vol 1 pg 836, the offending word "Pre-eminent" was mysteriously excised from the text. The sanitized version, conforming to current Watchtower doctrine now reads: "It seems that Jehovah was prophetically referring to the one foreshadowed by David, God's FIRSTBORN Son in heaven"
I could cite: Louw-Nida, BADG, Kittel, Abbot-Smith, Vine, Liddell and Scott, Renn, AT Robinson, Mounce, and others who will testify to the multiple application of "Prototokos". Refusing to accept such overwhelming support from these scholars especially in view of the fact that the Watchtower itself quotes them, smacks of intelectual dishonesty.
2. Is Col 1:15 a partitive genitive construction? That is a matter of debate and the jury is still out. To assume that it is, without allowing for other considerations, is to create a theology of convenience which is unworthy of sound biblical exegesis. It is possible to construe it to be partitive, but there are other possibilities. All we know for certain is that it is a genitive construction, the type of genitive [and there are several] is uncertain.
An examination of those texts offered up to support a partitive genitive, taken from the LXX is far from conclusive, and their congruence with Col 1:15 in most aspects simply does not jell. When we consider those texts which tell us of Genitive partitive constructions following "Prototokos" in the LXX, we find that there are certain elements found in the LXX, and which in fact detirmine the partitive, which are missing in Col 1:15. In the LXX, the partitive construction following "Prototokos" always shows that:
Prototokos is generic, not personal
Plural, and not singular
They are always modified by some sort of personal pronoun, or possessive noun. For instance, among the several texts offered up by Watchtower apologists to show a parallel to Col 1:15, are:
Ex 13:15 - However : The "firstborn" here are generic, not referring to any one in particular, and is constructed as a plural and is modified by "of MY sons". Thus there is no congruence with Col 1:15.
Ex 34:20 - The "firstborn" are again generic and plural, modified by "YOUR sons"
Num 3:40 - The "firstborn' is again generic and plural modified by "OF THE Sons of Israel"
The factors that indeed define the entrenchment of the partitive genitive are missing in Col 1:15, making the case for that text also being partitive weak. Wallace suggests a genitive of SUBORDINATION prompting the translation of "Firstborn OVER all creation" [NIV]
For a detailed consideration of the factors involved in this text I can recommend "Putting Jesus In His Place" by Bowman and Komoszewski.
-
-
-
moggy lover
I heard that the change was effective from January 2013 as well.
-
75
The Society debunked the rumored new light on the F&DS in 1973
by Leolaia inthis is the summary of the rumored new light from the 2012 annual meeting, as posted by cedars.. the faithful and discreet slave was not appointed at pentecost 33ce, meaning that there has not been a continuous line of members of the slave class on the earth down through the ages.
the slave class was only appointed for the first time by christ in 1919.the faithful and discreet slave is a small group of anointed brothers during jesus presence serving at watchtower headquarters who are directly involved in the preparing and dispensing of spiritual food.
the individual members of the governing body are not the faithful and discreet slave.
-
-
moggy lover
I suppose one of the problems that the Watchtower leadership has solved with the the first century FDS is the role of women in this supposed group.
Let's "reason" like this:
All first century Christians were anointed, thus they all in some capacity or other served as the FDS.
ALL Christians?
Does this include women?
If women served on the FDS in the first century, did this mean that they went from d-t-d, especially if their husbands were not Christians? This is most unlikely given that unaccompanied women calling uninvited at someone's home would have suggested something other than soliciting for God!! All Watchtower illustrations showing the FDS/GB always portray men. And the first century d-t-d work is also an exclusive male domain.
If women served on the FDS in the first century, did they participate in preparing the spiritual food? Women??? Teaching men?? And in the first century??
If they did not participate in preparing the spiritual meals, then what role DID they play? Something meaningless probably.
Now the Leadership don't need to contemplate an answer for this conundrum.
It may not be relevant but it is the way my warped mind turns.
-
56
Does the Watchtower really parallel 1st Century Christianity?
by Emery ini wanted to get a list of arguments that illustrate how the watchtower society is or isn't following 1st century christianity today.
thanks again everyone!.
-
-
moggy lover
It would be extremely naive for anyone to deny that the Watchtower does have a clergy class. This is understandable since the rank and file are persistently mesmerized into believing that they do not. However, although the rank and file deny it, the Watchtower leadership THEMSELVES admit that they do have a clergy. Should anyone fall foul of the leadership and has need to sue them, he will promptly be told that "clergy priviledge" protects all Watchtower Followers who are professionally inducted into the movement. If you earn your living, no matter how much of a pittance, from the coffers of the Watchtower, you are regarded by the Watchtower as a member of its clergy.
It is also impossible to "prove" that first century Christianity was led by a secretive, largely anonymous group of self serving men called a "Governing Body". The expression is found nowhere in the NT, and considering the fact that Paul had so many clashes with them, the possiblity is reduced to pure fiction. The text that the Watchtower suggests as a prop for this doctrine, Heb 13:7 [especially as a ritualized footnote in the Bible with References edition] wasn't written until about 65-69 AD, almost a generation after the start of the Christian Church in 30 AD. What did the early Christians do till then? How could they endure a doctrine of a "Governing Body" before it had actually been revealed?
If the early Christians had a "Faithful and Discreet Slave" class BEFORE 70 AD, when the first fulfillment of Matt 24 was to take place, then who were they? Were they ALL "anointed" Christians? Women were as "anointed" as men back in the first century, weren't they? So, did the FDS include women who supplied this "food at the proper time" thus effectively teaching other Christian believers? Did Christian women go from door-to-door back in the first centiury? This would be particularly strange given that women NEVER called privately on anyone, unless of course they were soliciting business of a questionable kind!! Note that EVERY illustration that the anonymous Watchtower writers provide, shows MEN only doing this activity.
It would be difficult to show that first century Christians met in "Kingdom Halls", when the NT indicates that they met regularly in private homes. There is certaily no evidence to show that they observed the "memorial" of Christ's death only once a year. Indeed their approach to this was to observe His Resurrection as a living Saviour, not His death.
On balance it must be added that every cult believes it, and it alone, is the exclusive inheritor of the first century Christian legacy, and all make the same grotesque claims that the Watchtower does. Some claim that the early Christians spoke in tongues so modern Christians should do so, which then becomes a mark of exclusivity. Some claim that Sabbath observance was a vital link in the chain, others that the keeping of the original Jewish feasts such as Passover, Tabernacles, and so on, were symptoms of this continuity, and on and on it goes.
-
10
How's do jws explain Genesis 35:18
by loosie ingenesis 35:18 (new world translation).
.and the result was that as her soul[a] was going out (because she died) she called his name benoni; but his father called him benjamin.. .
.. i never asked them and now i can't .
-
-
moggy lover
I think the trick lies in the way Freddy Franz used, rather than "translated" the Hebrew word "yatsah" which occurs here. The word in its broadest sense means "to depart", that is, to leave one area and to transfer to another. That Franz knew the meaning of this word is evident from the way he "translated" such verses as Ex 16:1. Here, as in other verses, he used the word "depart".
But at Gen 35:18, the translation used was ambiguous enough to mean something rather different from an actual transfer from one place to another. In using "going out" as his preferred option, Franz allowed for a conclusion that more aptly referred to a light bulb, rather a departing to another location. When one turns a light off, or as someone mentioned above, blows a candle out, it "goes out" thus implying an "extinguishing" rather than a "departing". That is what Franz conveniently suggested Gen 35:18 meant.
In many ways, Franz used the notion of the NW"T" as being a literal translation to create a version that could, in many verses that are awkward to Watchtower theology, be so excruciatingly literal as to be totally unintelligible.
-
-
-
moggy lover
Well....I stand when I pee, so I must be male!
-
71
12/15/12 Watchower Study Edition - Higher Eduction = Thinking in a "complicated" manner
by yourmomma ini found this quote from the 12/15/12 p.29 study edition of the watchtower to be hilarious:.
"a college graduate in the united states.
says: i spent 18 years speaking and writing.
-
-
moggy lover
I can't seem to find this magazine on the web. It certainly is not available on the Watchtower.org site. Is there another web site that publishes current Watchtower literature?
-
7
Is KIT 1 or 2 available in any language other than English?
by moggy lover indoes anyone know for a fact whether the wts released any foreign language editions of either kit 1 or 2?.
such as french or german or spanish?.
-
-
moggy lover
Does anyone know for a fact whether the WTS released any foreign language editions of either KIT 1 or 2?
Such as French or German or Spanish?