Posts by moggy lover

12

When did the Watchtower first raise the idea of 1919?

by moggy lover in

with all the changes arising from the shifts in watchtower "understanding" of its own prophetic ministry, i think we can discern a slow but detirmined interest in elavating the date 1919 to almost iconic standards - soon to displace the other date of significance, 1914.. my question to those with access to watchtower material is: when in fact did the watchtower leadership first mention this date as having any significance?

popular watchtower mythology proceeds along the lines of jehovah coming to his temple in that year, and on inspecting the then watchtower leadership, chosing them to be his exclusive spokespersons on earth.. although this supposedly took place in 1919, it was certainly not in that year that there was any awareness that such was occurring.

it was many years after when this first began to be pressed.

moggy lover

With all the changes arising from the shifts in Watchtower "understanding" of its own prophetic ministry, I think we can discern a slow but detirmined interest in elavating the date 1919 to almost iconic standards - soon to displace the other date of significance, 1914.

My question to those with access to Watchtower material is: When in fact did the Watchtower Leadership first mention this date as having any significance? Popular Watchtower mythology proceeds along the lines of Jehovah coming to his temple in that year, and on inspecting the then Watchtower leadership, chosing them to be his exclusive spokespersons on earth.

Although this supposedly took place in 1919, it was certainly not in that year that there was any awareness that such was occurring. It was many years after when this first began to be pressed. My understanding is that this was not till the 1930s. Is that correct?

Cheers.

81

Do you know why God cannot KNOW?

by Terry in

logic prohibits self-reference.

it is a convention like not multiplying by zero.

live with it!.

moggy lover

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. You were insisting that God CANNOT know because of the verity behind self realization and logic. But the logical consequence of an ignorant God is His non existence. The reason I say this is because the existence of an ignorant God is....dare I say it?.....a paradox.

To paraphrase a Latism, He knows therefeore He is. If He cannot know, He does not exist. That is the premise I was working from. If I am wrong, then I must admit I have no idea what you are getting at.

You accept the existence of God but, in applying ignorance as an attribute to such a God, you basically believe in an ignorant reality.

81

Do you know why God cannot KNOW?

by Terry in

logic prohibits self-reference.

it is a convention like not multiplying by zero.

live with it!.

moggy lover

Again, I think the use of paradox is being misapplied. Remember we are attempting to encompass the meaning of Ultimate Reality. In other words, Reality beyond which nothing else exits. Now Reality is not a paradox. That is why it is real. It is only when we try and explain this Reality in terms of logical inference that we fall into paradoxical anomalies.

If we are trying to disprove the existence of God using "logic" and reason, then we fall into the trap of depending on paradoxical evaluations of this logic. That is what I am trying to say.

For instance: Is Ultimate Reality a paradox? No, because then no reality would in fact exist.

But: Does our intellectual belief in this Reality prove that God exits or does not exist? This is where we slide into metaphysical explorations that involve logical inferences, and which in turn can be sustained only through paradox. Thus to argue for or against the existence of God on certain perceptions such as self realization and logic can be a trap, because the use of this perception can be circular and inferentially paradoxical.

When we wrestle with the concept of the WHY of reality, we are involving ourselves in the interplay of cause and effect. We are not detirmining the HOW of things. When we say that reality exists because of the implied existence of the question of reality itself, we are interpreting reality in the nature of HOW, not WHY. In order to answer the WHY, we must delve into the interrelationship of cause and effect which detirmines the existence of reality.

For instance, when we ask: WHY does the universe exist? The answer must confront the importance of its cause, not its assumed existence. The universe must have a cause behind its existence. Otherwise it is Infinitely Real and has always existed. But as we have seen this is as meaninglessly meaningful as inferring that God has always existed. If the material universe has infinitely existed, and this is held to be unimpeachably true, why can't the same be said of an infinite God? How does self realization and logic infer the existence of one and not the other?

If we insist that it does valididate the existence of one and not the other, then this use of logic ultimately becomes inferencially paradoxical. To avoid the inference of paradox one will have to acknowledge the application of such logic equally to both possibilities.

Thus, we must all struggle with the existence of an Infinite Reality, and of our place in it.

81

Do you know why God cannot KNOW?

by Terry in

logic prohibits self-reference.

it is a convention like not multiplying by zero.

live with it!.

moggy lover

My understanding of "self realization and logic" is that it only attempts to explain paradoxes that appear as a result of applying conditions that are themselves inferentially paradoxical in the first place. But we are at this time attempting to understand another dimension altogether - a dimension that encompasses metaphysical exploration to explain physical realitiies.

For instance: Why is there something instead of nothing.

We inhabit a realm of physical reality, and what we are discussing is the nature of this reality. The universe for instance is the ultimate reality. But what, ultimately, is the nature of this reality? For instance is it "finite" or "infinite"? It can't be both and there is no third alternative that I know of. The terms that we use to explore this concept, "finite" and "infinite" are themselves subject to paradoxical infractions of logic.

For instance: If the universe is the ultimate reality then is it finite? If it is, then where does it "begin" and where does it "end"? If it ends at point Z then whatever exits beyond that point must reveal some other potential reality. Which means that the universe is NOT the ultimate reality. Something else exists beyond its edges.

Otherwise the universe then must be infinite. But if it is infinite, what is the nature of this infinity? Is it infinite in all directions, encompassing space, time, and all the consequences that accrue from applying "logic"?

If it is, then we are using meanigless meanings that are simply interpolations of logic to explain what is in reality a preconceived notion.

And this is the fallacy that faces all rational discussions such as this. Preconceived notions, founded on, and sustained by, personal experience. It also opens the door to that hoary old debate of faith verses reason. All intellectual belief is a form of faith. If you believe that the physical universe is infinite and that this meaningless meaningful concept proves the non existence of an infinite God, it is based on the faith you have in this logical approach.

Thus the proposition that God CANNOT know all things, because self realization and logic deny this, is based on the intellectual belief that God cannot know all things in the first place. Hence one is importuning self realization as a reason for this belief by indulging in something that again paradoxically, can only be defined in terms that involve the understanding of the word "faith".

If, on the basis of one's own reflection on the nature of things, one is led to believe that this universe, or ultimate reality, is both self-sufficient and uncaused, then one has already formed an impression of this reality and it provides for no room for any other causual reality. But this intellectual belief can be sustained only on the basis of having faith in the notion that physical reality is the only reality that exits. To be intellectually sustaining, it must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt to be true. But logic is a trap here. The only way to prove that there is no reality beyond the material universe is to assume that there is no other kind of reality in the first place.

On the basis of my own reflection on the nature of things, I am led to believe that there IS a reality beyond the material. Logic can be pressed into service just as meaningfully to predicate one's intellectual belief in this transendent, causual reality. A reality that exhibits personal traits beyond the credibility of human reason, and exits in a realm that defies exploration. Brighter than a thousand suns and infinite in all directions, transcendent beyond all discursive knowledge, this Ultimate Reality nevertheless relates to propositional thought and verbal communication.

Beyond the apparent meanlessness of human existence, this Ultimate Reality personally gives significance to the most insignificant life.

Thus this Reality, logically, CAN know and know in fulness.

But then that is my intellectual belief, and ultimately, the source of my faith.

30

Taking alcohol into the veins (WBT$ illo) - can someone deconstruct this for me?

by punkofnice in

ok. so i've heard that the wbt$ say that having alcohol into the body intraveniously (how do you spell it?

), when the doctor says you shouldn't have alcohol is baaaadddd!

so you wouldn't have a blood transfusion because invisible sky friend jar hoover says it's baaaaaddddddd.. no doubt the illustration is beyond crazy but how is the best way to deconstruct it?.

moggy lover

I think the problem lies with the word "abstain" which the Watchtower writers constantly keep using in the wrong contexts. The Watchtower "reasoning" goes something like this: Your doctor tells yah to "abstain from alchohol" right? Well, if God tells us "to abstain from blood" it must be equally valid, right? Would a person "reason" that I could not drink blood, but I can take it in intravenously? No! they coo.

The point is that they can! Because "abstain" here is being used ccontextually in a different sense. When we eat or drink something, we are utilizing the digestive system in our bodies. So when God tells us to "abstain" from blood, if such an injunction were still valid [most evangelicals believe that this was only operative in the first century when the peculiar Jew/Gentile controversy was in effect] it would mean that of either eating or drinking it, using our digestive processes.

But when we take blood into our veins, we do not use our digestive systems but rather our circulatory system which is an independent operation in our bodies. It is never classified as "eating" or "drinking" or even "feeding". It is merely circulating.

Now if God had said: "Abstain from circulating blood" in your system, then the ban on blood transfusions would be valid.

But then it would mean that we could drink it!

29

What happened in the Christian Congregation immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem?

by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat in

what 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

I am sorry for the format, which seems have to shifted off the page to the right. Hope it can be read.

29

What happened in the Christian Congregation immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem?

by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat in

what 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 in

the 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.

6

WT goes from 32 to 16 pages for the public in July of 2013?

by Elizabeth123 in

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 in

this 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.