Posts by moggy lover

24

The Watchtower Denies Substitutionary Atonement

by Perry in

for 30 years i never heard one time that christ died for me personally.

i always heard that he died to pay back what adam lost.

that never made alot of sense to me, but i just went along with it as a kid and young adult.. then, after i left... it hit me just how simple the whole thing was.

moggy lover

Indeed.

I think the Watchtower position has been arrived at by two mistaken views of the Atonement.

1. Ever since the time of CT Russell, founder of the movement, the Watchtower has placed undue stress on the concept of what they term the "Ransom" theory. The term is relatively rare in NT writings, and is restricted to two contextual grids. In two texts, both referring to the same conversation by Christ, we are told that "Christ "GAVE" [not "paid"] His soul as a ransom for many." [Matt 20:28, Mar 10:45]

Protestant theologians during the Reformation, studying this aspect of Christian theology anew, concluded that the atonement was not simply a "price" that was paid since Christ was Himself this "price", neither was it a compact worked out under Divine Fiat, from whence one could, by deligently "exercising faith", work out one's own redemption. Rather, it was concluded, after logically studying the divergent threads on this subject, that Adam was not just a person who sinned and who passed this on to all. But rather since none of us could claim to have done any different were we in Adam's place, all of us deserve to die. None can say that were he/she in the original pair's shoes, they would have done differently. Hence there would have been no need for Christ to die.

Therefore, rather than each and every one of us dying, as we deserve, Jesus Christ died in our place, meaning that we don't have to die. This consequently led to the substitionary understanding of the death of Christ. Augustine, writing in Latin, hinted at this when he used the Latin "vicarious", meaning "a substitute".

2. I further think that The Wt position is compounded by an error of translation. At 1 Tim 2:5, the NWT informs us that the Man Jesus "Gave" [again not "paid"] Himself "a corresponding ransom" for all. Here the Greek "Antilutron" in the NW"T" against the united testimony of decalred scholarship, has used this espression: "Corresponding" ransom.

The "Insight" volume 2, page 736 reveals that this peculiar NWT rendering was precipitated by an understanding of what the Parkhust Greek Lexicon had to say about this word. A careful examination will however reveal that Parkhust [first published as long ago as 1845] actually shows the word to mean "CORRESPONDENT" ransom, rather than as portrayed by the writers of Wt material. Indeed, Parkhust was saying nothing contrary to Christian thinking on this issue.

But, "Corresponding" to what?

Official Watchtower Theology has always presented the view that this "corresponded" to Adam. Hence rather than the "Substitutionary" nature of the Atonement, the Wt forces the "Adam Corresponding" theory on its followers. Rather than die for us, Christ died as an equivalent of Adam, and in doing so only removed something called "Adamic" sin from us. Our individual sins, however, have still to be worked out, and worked at, by strictly applying all the talmudic regulations laid out by the Watchtower leadership.

In fact as one can detect when we study Wt material on the matter, that the Wt presses this concept, not so much as a variant on the Atonement, but rather than as an attack, warranted or otherwise, on the Deity of Christ.

Since Jesus was exactly the equivalent of Adam, then how could He be God, no?

25

When was the significance of the year 1919 first stated?

by jwfacts in

.

when was it first introduced that the watchtower organisation was chosen in 1919?

i expect this was something first published under rutherford, as a way of making his leadership more important than that of russell, but would like some evidence to back that claim up.. .

moggy lover

I have analysed the five sources that we have gathered so far and they seem to fall into two separate categories:

A. These represent quotes that only tell us that the year 1919 was assumed to have some improbable significance.

1. Mar 1 Wt 1925.

This seems to be the earliest mention of the year 1919 in Watchtower theology. Having reference to the release from detention of the then Directors of the Watchtower Corporation, this release is superimposed with prophetic significance. However there is no suggestion that Jehovah had actually reached out and, after testing these jokers along with the rest of "Christendom", "anointed" them as his favourites

2. April 15 Wt 1926.

This is the second reference to 1919 in Wt literature we have been able to locate, yet no application is made to being either tested or chosen for the great evengelizing work that the Wt now assumes took place in that year. Instead we are given yet another prophetic symbolism. This is of the Elijah-Elisha operation mentioned in the OT. CTR had stated that his generation was to be the last generation in human history. Now JFR hastily jumped in and justified a delay in the end by suggesting that there were to be TWO last generations.

CTR led a group who evidently represented the OT prophet Elijah, and he, JFR representing Elisha, was the lead the next generation into the promised land.

But still no concept of a testing and choosing by Jehovah who was supposedly at his temple doing this work.

3. Yearbook 1927. Here we have a third reference to 1919 but it only confirms the Elijah-Elisha illusion conjured up the previous year.

B. This class of quotes actually answers the question presented by JWfacts.

1. July 15 1930 page 214.

Here is the earliest notation that 1919 was not just a year of prophetic antitypes, but was a time of divine selection for the work of evangelism. For the first time we are informed that Jehovah came to his "temple" for the purpose of choosing his personal and collective representative here on earth. Having examined "Christendom" and rejecting them because of their sustaining and perpetuating "pagan" beliefs, he rejected them and instead settled on the WTBTS. This is despite the fact that there was no meaningful difference in "pagan" convictions held by the Wt leadership.

2. Aug 1 and 15 Wt 1930 paragraphs 45, 46. This reiterates what was stated a month earlier.

So, to answer the question posed in this thread:

The date is July 15, 1930, in the Wt magazine.

39

Christadelphians (Christ brothers/Sisters)

by Rip in

in my plan to exit the jw i thought it would be good if i adhere to another faith group, not cultish as the jw but non trinitarian.. this is decided for the sake of my children (two sons)'s spritual safety.

i researched the internet and in the non trinitarian groups i found these christadelphian.

any idea about this group?.

moggy lover

Despite the fact that they are non-Trinitarian, their view of Jesus is extraordinarily different from the Watchtower.

1. They have been around longer. They started in 1848 under the direction of one John Thomas, which means they began a whole generation before the Watchtower. They were already in existence for 4 years when Russell was born.

2. They do not accept the pre-existence of Christ. To them, Jesus began His existence in Bethlehem when he was born to the Virgin Mary. Thus when John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word", The "Word" mentioned here is not Christ, but is in fact an abstraction that defines the internal reasoning of God which is then manifested externally. Thus the "Word" here refers to God's "reason", "logic", or even "thought" capability. The difference is:

Watchtower: Word= Christ, but God = not God necessarily, it can have a nuanced meaning referring to "a mighty one"

Christadelphians: Word = Not Christ, but an Abstraction of God, but God = means what it says and refers always to Deity.

3. Implicit in the Christadelphian view of Christ being merely a human, is that His work of atonement for sins for the world included the need to atone for His own sins as well.

4. Because they are more Christ-centred than the Watchtower, they emphasize His name more than any other. Indeed, baptism in His name alone and not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a unique feature they share with Oneness Pentecostals.

5. Thus they are not dogmatic members of the Sacred Name Movement, and whereas they refer to the OT God as Yahweh, they do not import this name into the NT, nor do they continuously and monotonously insist on uttering this name.

6. They seem to have a more pertinent attitude to the Bible and its revelation than the Watchtower. They do not have an overbearing GB who defines their theology and to whom alligience is demanded and owed. Their interpretations, though unorthodox, are more "reasoned" and certainly not so transient as the average Watchtower Follower has to put up with.

7. Their eschatological theology is also radicallt different to the Watchtower. There is only one "class" of Christadelphians who will reign on earth with Christ for the thousand years, while the earth is restored to perfection. Israel as a nation will be unique to the national groups during the Millennium and will maintain its distict ethnicity. The promises made to Abraham will ultimately come to fruition during this time. Like Russell's original theology, the present state of Israel is believed to have prophetic siqnificance and its modern existence is the doctrinal barometer that intimates the state of prophecy as a whole.

8. They eschew the showy display of institutional religiosity so apparent in Watchtower credibility. Thus they do not usually have permanently established and owned property where their meetings are held. The local congregation, called an "ekklesia" either meets in rented halls or in the homes of the adherents who open up their dwellings for service.

9. They do not stress the door-to-door work, rightly viewing it as grossly inefficient for proselylising. Nor do they have universal preaching workers. They do however maintain an aggressive evangelism by organizing street work, or regular displays at halls or meeting places.

7

REVISED NWT IS TRUTHFUL!

by The Searcher in

well, in one verse at least!!

ephesians 1:15 - "that is why i also, since i have heard of the faith you have in in the lord jesus and the love that you demonstrate for the holy ones...".

do i hear you all shouting ' so what'?

moggy lover

It appears to be a textual problem.

The 1984 NWT edition was strictly following the WH text here where the expression "your Love" is missing. The later UBS text based on older and better mss does include this expression.

Hence the NWT Revisers whoever they are, discarded the WH text here and opted for the UBS reading instead.

This raises the interesting point of where else this has been done, and how much reliance has been placed in the UBS over the WH text.

32

List down all the changes in the new NWT Bible vs the old NWT that has signifance to the JW beliefs

by UBM101 in

i hope this thread can be a compilation of all the changes made.

it could serves as a good reference for those who want to help the loved ones to wake up.

please list down here all your findings if you don't mind.

moggy lover

For a start:

Adam no longer "came to be a living soul" [Gen 2:7]

Now

He "became a living person" [NNWT]

On the one hand, one may argue that the NNWT has "clarified" the meaning of "nephesh" by rendering it in various ways such as "soul" "life" "person" while in a contrary view it could also be argued that the NNWT is no long literal and consistent.

34

A JW apologist writes about VAT 4956

by VM44 in

a jw wrote the following in an attempt to discredit the evidence provided by vat 4956. comments on the author's logic would be appreciated.

does vat 4956 prove 587?.

many point to vat 4956 as proof that jerusalem was desolated in 587bce.

moggy lover

Great work, as usual AOM. I believe that the premise on which this poster based his/her conclusions is a false one. And this is that if an archeological document is a copy of an original then it must be questioned for its authenticity and, based on conclusions that defy any quantifiable logical analysis, should rightly be discredited. On this basis, however, one can question anything, even a round earth, and making false conclusions from such questioning, one can discredit the accepted position by scholars that science proves the earth circular, not flat.

In order for an ancient artifact to be discredited it must be done on the basis of verifiable data that is accessible to all, and not a select few. To really discredit VAT 4956 we need such verifiable data. But all we have been given is artificially rigged questions that then lead to false conclusions which themselves are without any factual basis. What this poster is obviously doing is proving something that he/she has already assumed to be true, and from this he/she builds a theme.

The only REAL way to discredit VAT 4956 is to produce a genuine archaeological tablet with the exact same celestial phenomena mentioned in VAT 4956, but instead, attributing it to the year 625 BC!! THEN and only THEN can the Watchtower and it apologists ARGUE THEIR CASE. In the absence of such data they are what Aussies call "all piss and wind".

Can we verify whether an astronomical tablet is a fake or at least if its data has been corrupted? Yes, as you pointed out, astomomical phenomena which has been recorded, verified, and attributed, becomes absolute, hence the expression "absolute date". Carl Olof Jonsson does provide one such example of a corrupted astronomical tablet.

The Watchtower, in an attempt to verify the date 537 BCE as the date for the Jewish return to Judah, have often quoted an astronomical document catalogued as "Strm. Kambys. 400" now residing in the Berlin Museum, I believe. It details celestial phenomena which is attributed to the seventh year of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus. The Insight book volume 1, page 453 approves of this document and says:

"Thus this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses as beginning in the year 523 BCE. This is an astronomically confirmed date"

Jonsson states:

"If the society's criticism of such documents as VAT 4956 are valid mainly because it is a later copy of an original, then such criticism would apply with equal force to their own favoured document, the Strm. Kambys 400".

He points out that as early as 1903 scholars such as one FX Kugler have pointed out that this document is a copy of a text that can be verified as defective. Indeed the copyist, having many gaps in the original, filled in these gaps [called "lacunae"] with his own sloppy calculations!! Jonsson quotes Kugler as saying:

"Not one of the astronomical texts I know of offers so many contradictions and unsolved riddles such as the Strm. Kambys 400"

Thus for a tablet to be true it must be:

Recorded. Verifiable. Attributed.

The problem with Strm. Kambys 400 is that although it has been recorded and attributed to a certain year, only a small fraction of the data is verifiable. Much of the celestial phenomena, including the lunar eclipses quoted by the Insight book are private calculations of the copyist hence are NOT verifiable!

[Taken from "Gentile Times Revisited - 4th Edition page 85 ff]

To defend an indefensible astronomical position the Watchtower [and its apologists] indulge in a curious blend of conjecture and double standards. Until verifiable astronomical data can be shown to prove VAT 4956 to be false, it must be held in the higest regard that it so richly deserves.

12

Historical Development of the Jesus/Michael Doctrine

by moggy lover in

i have a question about the historical development of the doctrine currently held by the watchtower, specifically about jesus being michael.

i am not interested in a polemic about whether jesus is or is not michael, but rather in how this teaching evolved in the historical development of the watchtower movement.

for instance we know that at least as far back as november 1879, page 4, [reprints page 48] the watchtower was teaching a doctrine contrary to what it currently teaches:.

moggy lover

Yes I believe so.

Remember that the square brackets in that 1879 quote are Russell's words not mine. Like Arius, CTR was a "homoiousion" believer where he posited the notion that, in having a nature which was "like" God, it was also UNlike that of angels. So Jesus was in some way HIGHER than angels but lower than God.

At some time in the historical and doctrinal development of the Watchtower however, which is the point of this post, Jesus was adjudged to be "UNlike" God and "like" the angels [a teaching historically referred to as "anomoism"]. Thus, from being "higher" than angels, the estimation of Jesus slided down to being on their level. I suspect that Rutherford had something to do with this.

From being like God, to being the same as angels is quite a plunge is it not?

But when did this radical change occur?

12

Historical Development of the Jesus/Michael Doctrine

by moggy lover in

i have a question about the historical development of the doctrine currently held by the watchtower, specifically about jesus being michael.

i am not interested in a polemic about whether jesus is or is not michael, but rather in how this teaching evolved in the historical development of the watchtower movement.

for instance we know that at least as far back as november 1879, page 4, [reprints page 48] the watchtower was teaching a doctrine contrary to what it currently teaches:.

moggy lover

I have a question about the historical development of the doctrine currently held by the Watchtower, specifically about Jesus being Michael. I am not interested in a polemic about whether Jesus is or is not Michael, but rather in how this teaching evolved in the historical development of the Watchtower movement.

For instance we know that at least as far back as November 1879, page 4, [reprints page 48] the Watchtower was teaching a doctrine contrary to what it currently teaches:

"Jesus' position is contrasted with that of men and angels, since he is Lord of both. Hence it is said , "Let ALL angels of God worship him; [that must include Michael the archangel, hence Michael is NOT the Son of God] and the reason is that he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent NAME than they"

So Russell appears to be an Arian in the classic sense of the word, but somewhere between then and now something changed and the Christology of the Watchtower plunged even lower, equating Him with an angel, an archangel, no less . The question is:

When did this first happen?

17

When Did Dr. Alexander Hislops Become A Pariah to the Watchtower Society?

by ÁrbolesdeArabia in

i am going to be speaking to the 45-55 years old plus generation here.

i bought my first copy around 1980, it was the thing to do because it proved most of christendom's believes came from nimrod, and by the end of the 1980s the book and the name faded away into oblivion.. .

the watchtower use to print that book or distribute it, am i correct or has my memory gotten bad?

moggy lover

You are probably referring to RALPH Woodrow a famous Evangelical preacher who once espoused the opinions of Hislop from his book the "Two Babylons" but who later retracted his statements. As far as I know he has no connection to the Watchtower.

I was around in the 50s, 60s and 70s when the Watchtower regularly quoted Hislop's book, but only selectively and with scant regard for Hislop's thesis. It was obvious that the writers of Watchtower material had not actually taken the trouble to read the work. This is not unusual since it is weighty, often contradictory, mixing fact with opinion, and largely bigotted in its conclusions.

As far as I can recall, the only occasions when the Watchtower quoted Hislop were to prove:

1. That the Cross was pagan

[Which is something that Hislop did not conclude. His stated opinion was that the CRUCIFIX of the RCs was. The RCs, like the Watchtower, still depict Christ on his instrument of death, revealing a theology that subscribes to the RC position that the redemptive work of Christ is still operative and that devotees must somehow accomplish works to acquire the distinctive formula for salvation.

His point, now considered more opinionated than factual, was that the RC Crucifix was derived from the Egyptian Crux Ansata, which was portrayed as a a T form with a round top, evidently depicting someone's head. It did not. It was merely a handle. The Egyptian crux also showed two lines extending from the upright post to the arms of the T thus showing someoine's arms. This to Hislop was a picture of Christ still on the cross.

Evangelicals on the other hand believe explicitly that when Jesus said "It is finished" that His work was complete. Thus they always display an EMPTY Cross. Hislop's point was that the RCs, and not Christians wholesale were "pagan".

The inability to distinguish the two was a point of ignorance on the part of Watchtower writers and not one of agreement]

2. That the Trinity was "pagan"

[Again, this is not true, since Hislop was himself a Trinitarian. His point, when carefully read, would show that he was arguing that the DEPICTIONS of the Trinity such as triangles, three headed gods, arcs, curlicues, and so on, were Egyptian in Origin, although Hislop was probably rather far fetched in his conclusions. ]

3. That Christmas Day was "pagan":

[Oddly enough Hislop did not use the Roman Saturnalia to prove this point, which would have had more historical value as a point of argument. He chose rather to stress the point that Nimrod, the great bogey man of Watchtower myth, was born on this day. As later scholars would show this is an idiosyncratic opinion which has no historical basis whatever.]

The Watchtower pulled any further reference to Hislop sometime in the late 70s, probably because someone may have pointed out that their references to him, and their quotes of him were ill considered.

165

Do Animals Have Souls?

by Cold Steel in

i know most jehovah's witnesses believe in the soul sleeping doctrine.

by this, given that neither man nor beast has a spirit, but that they do possess souls (or "intelligences" unique to themselves).

where this intelligence resides between death and resurrection is more than a passing interest, but again, assuming that yehweh can recreate one's distict soul, does the society believe that animals have souls?

moggy lover

Hi Tammy, no disrespect was taken, truly.

I understand what you're on about, but remember you are writing from a different perspective from what I was intending. You are writing from a position of Christian certitude, based on theological verities, which is a point of view that I share. But I was attempting to reach others who do not perhaps have this certainty.

Remember to most people on forums such as this, concepts such as "hearing the voice of the Lord" are alien, and are seen as tending to dogmatism rather than on a rationalism that is dependent of other points of view. If you were writing for your own Church paper the above is what you would write, but in an open forum where different views are openly expressed, you need, while holding to "the pattern of sound teaching", a differrent approach.

Of course a Christian DOES know for certain. But this is predicated on an assumption that all Christians make. That Christ IS the source of Truth, indeed He is truth. But how do you reach someone who does not make such an assumption in the first place? Remember this is not a forum for theology or for pressing a particular point of doctrinal persuasion, so we cannot assume Christian verities to be universally accepted.

My point of course was that of impirical knowledge. A knowledge that is verifiable from impirical, or physical evidence.

We know for instance, that a corpse is dead. By physical evidence we can discover the cause of death, the time of death, and we can garner a basic degree of knowledge about the lifestyle of the person while alive. These are truths that are verifiable, and confirmed by the evidence that is without bias, available to all.

But where is that person now? What happened to him at the moment of death?

You may believe that you know for certain, because the "Lord told you". But that is not impirically verifiable. It is a revelation, and you must first assume that that revelation is True, which is an assumption others won't make.

So, whether or not animals have souls, cannot be known by impirical knowledge. It can only come from revelation. But what revelation? Buddhist revelation suggets that they do, as does Hindu revelation. My point was that the biblical revelation is unclear, and for complete verifiable proof, we will have to await the time when, in glory, we will be told.