Posts by moggy lover

30

Is this a verse that J.W.s' don't have an answer to?

by hubert in

luke 23:43....jesus said to the "evildoer" (named dismus) next to him on the cross/stake...... "truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.

" (taken from the nwt).. now, jesus went up to heaven (in paradise) after the resurrection, right?.

so, the "evildoer" also went up to heaven in "paradise, with jesus, according to that scripture, and not paradise on earth, even if there is one, according to the watchtowers' teachings about an "earthly paradise".. so, since only 144,000 faithful and discreet slave class will be in heaven with jesus, does that make the "evildoer" that died next to jesus one of the "faithful and discreet"?

moggy lover

I think that one of the problems that we are having here is understanding the meaning of the word "Paradise" We assume that Jesus was referring to heaven. The evildoer on the cross was a Jew and he would have grown up with the teachings of the Rabbinical schools in his mind.

While that man [and Jesus for that matter] was alive he would have been taught the meaning of "Paradise" and the writings that he would have had were: The Midrash [ Gen 68, Ex 48, Lev 405 etc] and the Babylonian Talmud [Berakoth 173, Shabbath 589] both of which began to be written some two centuries before Christ.

During the intertestamental period the vast body of literature mentioned above, [called collectively "Rabbinic Literature" and which included such writings as the Midrash, the Talmud, and the Targums] began a detailed description of the afterlife, including the meaning of Sheol. In time a concept developed which saw Sheol as being made up of two compartments or divisions. One was a section of abandonment called "Abbadhown" and the other was called "paradise" or "Abrahams Bosom" This section, which was a place of concious bliss, was the eventual reality to which pious Jews would aspire to on death. To this place the pious would be carried by a vanguard of angels. Much of the rabbinical literature alluded to above even went to great lengths to discuss how many angels it took to carry the righteous to "Paradise" or "Abrahams Bosom"

This rabbinic understanding of Sheol formed the basis of Christ's parable of Lu 16:19-31. So, rather than disabuse the Jews of His generation of a concious afterlife, Jesus used their own teaching and thus gave it a Divine Fiat. Thus when Jesus made reference to "Paradise" He knew what that evildoer would expect. That on that very day, both he, and Jesus would descend into the "Blessed" section of Sheol.

So, yes, on that very day, Jesus and the evildoer went to Paradise.

In Pauline writings, however we see a development of understanding which took place after Christ's resurrection. Thus, Paul uses the language of transition when He speaks of Christ taking the righteous out of the "Paradise" section of Hades/Sheol and bringing them into heaven. Thus it was only then, that heaven became the abode of Paradise. Whereas "paradise" in the gospels referred to the righteous section of Hades/Sheol, by the time Paul wrote 2Cor 12: 2-4, it was now placed in the "third heaven"

The only places where one would read of some concious place of a future Paradise earth, is in so-called "pagan" literature such as the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta. Which means that when the WTS affirm their belief in a future paradise earth, their basis is something other than Scripture.

Cheers

6

Are the 144,000 elohim in WT theology?

by hallelujah in

are the 144,000 elohim (gods) in wt theology?

moggy lover

No. To be honest they would not be so regarded. However, you have brought up an interesting point. Strictly speaking, the JWs are not Monotheists, as they portray themselves to be.

The teaching that encapsulates their theology is called "Henotheism" [ the Grk ''Hen'' means ''one'' and hen-o would mean "one of others''] It is a belief that affirms the existence of a single, infinite and almighty God without the express denial of the existence of other, finite, and ''mighty'' gods.

In Jo 1:1 for instance, the WTS argues that the term "God" which refers to the deity in clause two, undergoes a shift in meaning in clause three and simply means ''a mighty one" So in their own minds, John is saying:"The Word was with God and the word was "a mighty one" "

So, according to the WTS anyone by virtue of being ''a mighty one'' can be termed ''god'' Not the Almighty God, mind you, simply "god" When one makes this artificial distinction in the meaning of "god" - between an Almighty God and a Mighty God - one descends into Henotheism. The only distinction that the Scriptures allow for is between The one True and Almighty God, and other false gods. In this understanding the terms "almighty" and "mighty" when referring to "God" become synonymous.

I do have this sneeky suspicion that maybe somewhere some JWs may regard the "anointed" as "mighty ones" - "gods" but they will never admit to this publicly.

Cheers

146

The Trinity... is it a false teaching as the WTBTS claims?

by Honesty in

in the old testament god revealed himself to his chosen people, the israelites as i am:.

ex 3:14-15 - god replied to moses, i am who i am.

this is what you are to say to the israelites: i am .

moggy lover

Hi, j2s, Actually yes, he does sign his name as "Prince of Wales" for instance when he signs a hotel register, or an invitation to come to some foreign land. When he becomes king, on the death of his mother, the Queen, he will then sign his name as "Charles third, Rex" [meaning "king"]

By the way, I personally am a republican, although I respect the office for which he stands. When one becomes a citizen of Oz as I had to when I migrated here, one has to affirm an oath of allegiance, not to an abstract concept such as the "constitution" or the "law" but to a person. You say something like: "I swear allegiance to her most gracious and Britannic majesty, Elizabeth the second, by the grace of God, Queen of Australia and to her descenants in perpetuity...." [or something similar. I took the oath some thirty five years ago] This implies that such concepts as "the law" and "liberty" are not disembodied principles, but are in fact articulated by the Soverign Personally. When you break the law for instance, it is the Queen, not the state who prosecutes you. That is why your case is called "The Crown versus so-and-so" [Not the "state" as in republics] Other countries who have this same arrangement are: The UK, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, The Bahamas, Bermuda, The Caymans, Gibraltar, The Falklands, and St Helena.

"Moggy" is a British term that has "migrated" to Oz. It is a contraction of "mongrel" and refers to any cat that is of indetirminate breed. So into my life wandered this emaciated kitten, abandoned and forlorn, more dead than alive. The vet suggested I put her down, since she probably would'nt make it another night. That was 15 years ago. She's turned into probably the spolitest bloody cat in the whole uunniverse. She's convinced my life revolves around her. The problem is that it does.

Sigh> I suppose if I had grandchildren, I would spoil them, and since I don't, well she scores.

Cheers

146

The Trinity... is it a false teaching as the WTBTS claims?

by Honesty in

in the old testament god revealed himself to his chosen people, the israelites as i am:.

ex 3:14-15 - god replied to moses, i am who i am.

this is what you are to say to the israelites: i am .

moggy lover

j2s, You seem to miss the point of your own argument. Within the privacy of the royal household the POW may indeed be called by a distinctive name, by members of his family. But you and I, who are not members of that arrangement are not ENTITLED to use any other name to adress him.

If you were to meet him and ask him his "name" he would reply: "My name is the POW" Thus in this respect, the terms "name" and "title" are synonymous, not mutually incompatible.As I said in my previous post, AS FAR AS WE are concerned, his name is "The POW" and THAT is the correct form of adress for us.

Titles such as "sherrif" and "mayor" are not unique, because there are several hundreds in the USA alone. Also, and this is most important, they do not reflect an inheritance that is a consequence of birth. These titles such as "mayor" remain relevant only insofar as the will of the people makes it possible for the holder to use them. Indeed, there are several "princes" in the world today, despite the wave of democracy sweeping the world, but only ONE "POW"

The relationship between us and the Holy Spirit is illustrated by a comment in Acts 13:2. Someone is said to be speaking, and is clearly identified for us: "The Holy Spirit said......" irrespective of whatever His distinctive name may be, AS FAR AS WE are concerned He is "The Holy Spirit"

Similarly, when the newspapers report that "The POW said today......" it is illustrating OUR relationship to the POW, not that of his mum and dad

Incidently, commenting on the verse at Acts 13:2, and obviously feeling the need to deflect any attribution of personality to The Holy Spirit, The WT of Aug 1st 87, said :"Evidently using the HS, Jesus, as the head of the congregation, said........" In all due respect, that is NOT what the texr says. The text clearly reflects our relationship to someone who is clearly identified.

And yes, the God of the OT is the same as the God of the New. My point is that attributing a name such as "jehovah" must, if it is to be applied, be applied consistently. It is only when this is applied consistently, that the identity of the God of both testaments is established. It is blatantly obvious, that the WT Bible, amusingly called a "translation" has intruded into the inspired text by selectively applying this word "jehovah" only insofar as it can justify their own teaching.

Cheers, mate.

6

Are the 144,000 elohim in WT theology?

by hallelujah in

are the 144,000 elohim (gods) in wt theology?

moggy lover

Sorry, mate, don't know what you mean.

Please elaborate.

Cheers

146

The Trinity... is it a false teaching as the WTBTS claims?

by Honesty in

in the old testament god revealed himself to his chosen people, the israelites as i am:.

ex 3:14-15 - god replied to moses, i am who i am.

this is what you are to say to the israelites: i am .

moggy lover

It is true that many have been confused by the absence of a distinctive name ascribed to The Holy Spirit.In fact as far back as the 15th of July WT of 1957, the anonymous writers bring up that very point. On pg 432 they say:"That the holy dspirit is without any personality is also indicated by the fact that it has no distinctive name" By this I assume they mean something like "Trevor" or "Denzil"

They fail to see that the Father of the NT also is never portrayed as having a distinctive name. It is a baseless assumption, fueled by a corrosive self-serving interpretation of the Bible, to conclude that the Father's name is "Jehovah" since the NT as inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself does not state this. It is the position of the WTS that printed translations of the NT made in Heb and dating from at least the 16th century hold more weight than the original manuscripts that have come down to us .

The ironic part, and something that to the best of my knowledge, has never been admitted to by the WTS, is that these Heb Translations, dating from the 16th cent onwards [called the "J" documents in WT mythology] were translated from a Greek text called the TR of the KJV - which means that they accept the inclusion of 1Jo 5:8, something the WTS argues is a Trinitarian interpolation. Somehow, in the illogical "logic" of the WTS, These Heb translations, made from a faulty text, have preserved a truth that surpasses even the divinely inspired originals!!

In fact even this has been done selectively.I know of at least one J Heb translation that says:" No one can say Jesus is YHVH except by Holy Spirit" at 1Cor 12:3 [J 18] Almost every other one uses the term "Adonai" a term exclusive to the God of the OT, Yahweh, in this place

A simple, yet relevant fact seems to have bypassed the WTS, and this is that when a "title" is unique it in fact IS a name. For example: If I were to say that the "Prince of Wales" were coming to town tomorrow, would any member of the writing staff of the WT choose to be confused? Why not? Would some idiot of a WT writer turn around and say: " I'm confused I don"t know who you mean, you are using a title. I need a name." No. The idea is absurd. And the WTS knows it. Why? because the "Title" "POW" is unique. No one living anywhere in the entire stretch of the universe can lay claim to this "Title". Not even the "god" of the WTS can call himself a "POW" Only One poerson living at any one time can possess this title. When the "POW" becomes king then the title will pass on to his eldest son, because he inherits it, thus again, leaving only one living person to have this "Title" I dare say if one does use the distinctive name for the POW, [Charles Windsor] one would in fact be insulting him and demeaning the office for which he is entitled.

In all the realm of space and time, in all of eternities past and future, in everything that ever was, is, or is to be, throughout the infinite stretch of all reality, there is NO ONE who can lay claim to the "Title" of : THE HOLY SPIRIT. You can't get any more unique than that. All we need to know is that the form of adress used for The Holy Spirit, is.........The Holy Spirit. This name makes Him no less Personal than any person who is unique. Demanding to adress Him by some other form of adress, evidently satisfying some sort of "need" to have a distinctive name, is crass stupidity, and comes dangerously close to insulting Him.

The very same pertains to the Person of the Father. This "Title" again is the unique possession of one single Being. No one can be adressed by the name "The Father"- except in the breasts of the blasphemous - than the One to whom it is a Divine Right. This mitigates the need for some mongrelized form of adress such as: "jehovah" [ I was amused one day to come across a web site run by someone who represents the "sacred name movement" and who went to great lengths to "prove" that the word "jehovah" is of pagan origin and should therefore not be used. Evidently he advocated the use of Yahweh. Poor Fred Franz must be turning in his grave]

Cheers

18

Meek inheriting the earth?

by dozy in

this question is really aimed at those who have exited jws but still retain a belief in the bible.

what did jesus mean here (mt 5:5)?

when i ask "christians" this question , they usually have no idea.

moggy lover

If Jesus were alluding to a future fulfillment of Matt 5:5 [which is doubtful since the context does not warrant such a conclusion] then doubtless He would have in mind the Jews as natural descendants of David, and the "earth" would be the "land" of Judah which is the subject of Jesus' original source material. [Ps 37:11]

However such a view is not necessarily valid, because I find that the context as a whole denies this. Remember that Vs 5 of Matt 5 is not a text that stands in isolation, but is part of a greater teaching of Jesus, imbedded in a larger section that takes in vss 3-11 All these verses begin with the Greek "markarios" which is best translated as "blessed" [although "happy" is not necessarily wrong. It is just that it conveys a jocularity that is not portrayed by the spiritual depth of the Greek original]

If vs 5 only has a future validation, then those who are "conscious of their spiritual need" can look for no spiritual sustenance today.

The two tier idiocy that is part of WTS "Christianity" is exposed when you realize that only one group can possibly be in view. Those to whom the Kingdom belongs [vss 3, 10] will: see God [vs8] Be called His sons [vs 9] Are the ones who will inherit the earth [vs 5] are the ones who will be comforted [vs 4] be shown mercy [vs 7] will enjoy the fruits of righteousness [vs 6]

Clearly as Nark and the others have shown above, the WTS is aware of this dilemma. Obviously, only one group IS in view. Because of the embarrasing implication of being the "Sons of God" [vs 9] the WTS has to restrict the application of these "Beatitudes" to the "anointed" most of whom being doddering old decrepits these verses are unintelligible. Evidently because of this, these verses which form a basic framework of "Christian Citizenship" and which are much loved by even the most unlearned of true Christians, have never been commented on in context by the WTS. As Nark has shown, it was some 45 years ago that such a comment was attempted.

Christians today recognize themselves as the "disciples" mentioned in vs 1 [although this does not discount a possible application to natural Jews in some restricted context] They are the ones who must portray themselves as Jesus dictates. To be gentle. Merciful. Pure in heart. Be peacemakers. These are the badges we exhibit to the world, and which stamp us as being the stuff of those who can truly be called the sons of God.

It therefore becomes unnecessary to look upon certain verses within the greater context as having some sort of superficial prophetic significance. In other words, it really doe'nt matter what "inherit the earth" means if you do not consciously portray yourself as a son of God

Cheers

11

Religions that do not go to war.

by jwfacts in

many jw's seem to believe they are the only pacifist religion that does not go to war.

here is a list of others that i found on wikipedia.

other religions that do not participate in war are the church of the brethren, mennonites and society of friends, amish, hutterites, and others in the anabaptist tradition, doukhobors, molokans, bruderhof communities, schwenkfelders, moravians many groups of brethren, and many groups within the pentecostal movement.

moggy lover

I believe the Seventh Day Adventist Church also will not bear arms in conflict.

They will, if pressed, allow their members to be conscripted into medical service, many of whom have served with distinction in some of the most dangerous combat situations.

The WTS in quivering self-righteousness insist that they do not go to war because they "love their neighbour" Indeed, if they truly did exercise such love, they would think otherwise.

No greater love had any man than that a man should lay down his life for his neighbour. If it was not for the fact that our parents and grand parents answered the call to arms, and sometimes even paid the supreme price, the JWs, like us would be in bondage to a foreign power, speaking another language, and bereft of those basic freedoms that they so casually take for granted. We owe those ones a debt of gratitude that goes beyond crass theological debate. The fact that we all, including the JWs partake of such freedoms as is evidenced by this forum, is a testament to the selfish and callous attitude of the WTS

While our forebears patiently and uncomplainingly went about the practical task of defending our rights from grasping tyrants, the WTS under the ignorant leadership of Judge Rutherford were mouthing futile and often hysterical exclamations of the soon-to-end world as we know it. Exclamations that the WTS blatantly now refuses to admit to. In fact, others have suggested a shameful connivance with dictators during the last major world war

Cheers.

146

The Trinity... is it a false teaching as the WTBTS claims?

by Honesty in

in the old testament god revealed himself to his chosen people, the israelites as i am:.

ex 3:14-15 - god replied to moses, i am who i am.

this is what you are to say to the israelites: i am .

moggy lover

The problem that Christians have when confronted by the JWs on this teaching, is that as the JWs themselves point out, there is no explicit teaching of the Trinity in the Bible. The JWs then wrongly conclude that because so-called "pagans" believed a teaching remotely descriptive of it, it therefore must be of ''pagan ORIGIN" We can with equal validity conclude that because these "Pagans" believed in the flood, that the flood must also be a teaching with a pagan origin. Indulgence never determines origin, and when the WTS asserts this, they merely indicate their own lack of scholarship.

The point is that no doctrine is explicitly taught in Scripture. This is because the thrust of Biblical teaching is to encourage personal investigation, so doctrine is tightly bound up in statements implicity imbedded in the Bible and capable only of individual scrutiny and conclusion. Indeed none of the the doctrines so beloved by the WTS is explicitly taught in the Bible, even in their own "Translation". The "last generation" teaching as expounded by the WTS has had to be modified at least on six seperate occasions, thus deceiving six seperate generations, precisely because it is not an explicit Bible teaching. The summation of WTS doctrine is arrived at by simply stitching together randomly collected verses and subjecting these to relentless interpretation.

It is true that the OT does not provide us with an incontroverible clue that affirms the existence of a Triune Deity, nevertheless, nowhere does it actually deny such a teaching which would later develop from the revelation of NT Scripture. The main contribution of the OT to the doctrine is to emphasize the unity of God. God is Himself not a plurality, nor is He one among others [Henotheism] God is revealed in the OT as single and unique. He is not made up of "parts" as if He were a three-in-one entity.

In the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity, arrived at by extensive and incremental study of the NT, especially over the first 4 centuries of the historic Christian Church, the unity of God is safeguarded by insisting that there is only one "essence" or "substance" of God. The Deity of Christ is fully asserted, because of revelation, and the individual existence of the Father and the Holy Spirit is preserved against the notion that these are only modes of God for the various purposes of dealing with man in creation and salvation.

Therefore the Trinity teaches that God is One [never three-in-one] yet Himself , and from all eternity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are three and at the same time one. To deflect any suggestion of a three-in-one Deity, the Trinity explicitly states that there be no ''confounding of the Persons, nor any dividing of the Substance" The Christian admits to the fact the Trinity yeilds to no adequate explanation, and that God inhabits a dimension beyond human reasoning, defying explicability.

When the early Christians, conscious of the clear implication of NT revelation, began their hitherto unexplored quest for the meaning of God, they never once denied the plain assertion of the "Sheema" of Lev 6:6, they merely extended its meaning and further developed it. Perhaps in a mysterious verse like Isa 48:16, in a strongly monotheistic context, we have a close approach to trinitarian formulation.

Cheers

5

Isn't 144,000....

by MissBehave in

.

just (a) gross a thousand times?

co-inky-dink?

moggy lover

It's also 1 more than 143,999

Cheers