Posts by moggy lover

21

Gilead 42nd Class 1966

by thaisun in

is there anyone out there who was in the 42nd class of gilead and has seen the light?

my name then was vivienne ainsworth.

i would dearly love to hear from anyone who remembers me.

moggy lover

Did you know of, or ever meet Lynton and Jenny Dower from St Kilda, Vic? I was not a Gilead member, but I met them when they were missionaries in India

Cheers

3

Emphatic Diaglott online complete with Greek intelinear text

by cabasilas in

i don't know if this has been mentioned before or not.

i've seen online files of the emphatic diaglott online before but they did not have the greek interlinear text portion.

here are pdf scans of the 1864 edition including the interlinear section.

This is a welcome technical breakthrough for readers of the online Diaglott. Previous editions of this interlinear only provided the English text. But this new edition not only contains the Greek, but retains all of Benjamin Wilson's analytical and textual footnotes which the original printed edition had.

Like Freddy Franz, Wilson, the "translator" of the Emphatic Diaglott, was "largely self-taught" and evidently belonged to an obscure fringe religion called "The Church of God - Faith of Abraham" His original edition was first published in 1864 and soon a copy fell into the hands of CT Russell, founder of the Watchtower movement. His attention was drawn to the peculiar rendering of "presence" for the Greek "Parousia" at Matt 24:3, and Wilson's use of "a god" in the interlinear portion of Jo 1:1 which, to Russell, seemed sufficient reason to back this version.

Using anonymous sources, Russell approached the original publishers and purchased the copyright to the Diaglott in 1902, and as far as I can gather, the WTS published three editions of this work starting in 1902. The final edition came out in 1942.

By 1952 the WTS copyright to the Diaglott ceased and it fell into the public domain. To the best of my knowledge, the Christadelphian church were publishing printed editions, but only for their own membership. Various editions of the online version are available, but previous to the one we are now discussing, only had the English text.

Cheers

8

Learning on the Loo / WT53

by ThomasCovenant in

wt 53 march 15th page 164.

wt53 april 15th page 227.

moggy lover

Good read, TC, and welcome to the board. I'm glad I'm not the only one who believes that the best place to read WT literature is on the loo.Especially if one has a touch of constipation.

Cheers

32

How many times does "Jehovah" spuriously appear in the NT?

by AuldSoul in

we've all heard it, i'm sure.

"well, the nwt has restored the name jehovah where it should have been to start with.

" ever wanted to slap that smugness with an unarguable fact?

moggy lover

Of the 237 occasions that the Freddy "restored" the name "Jehovah" to the NT text, the impression is created that, apart from a few minor exceptions, the "J" sources are direct quotes from some reference to the OT in which the Heb original had "Yahweh". In fact the opposite is true. Of the 237 citations, only 112 are OT references [47.2%] while the majority [52.8%] ie 125 citations, are merely a Freddy insert.

The earliest "J" is J2, published in 1385, which is cited 16 times. The most popular is J7, cited 181 times. Despite its published antipathy against the Erasmus TR text, the WTS has carefully avoided to reveal that all the "J" references are quotations of this text. Evidently we must be made to understand that a text in its Greek original is faulty, but becomes pristine in a Hebrew translation!! [The WT society often reminds us that the TR is "faulty" "defective" etc. this is primarily because of what is termed "the Johannine Gloss of 1Jo 5:7,8 Se for instance the "Reasoning" book pg 423]

I would have had a greater respect for Freddy's "scholarship" had he the guts to use "Jehovah" at 1Cor 12:3, where J14 uses the Tetragrammaton

Cheers

15

Book study and not Bible study and trinity question

by Sacchiel in

one of the things we are studying is how the bible is god's inspired and faithful word.

a paragraph mentioned how we should really study the bible with the aid of their book if we really appreciate the ransom.

at least nobody responded with such words, but instead we should study the bible.. i've got a question, in regards to the passage "but of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, neither the son, but the father only".

moggy lover

Hi Sacchiel. Good question and one that is not exactly new. I used to ask the same question with the urging of the WTS when I was a blind follower of the WTS.And this was back in the mid-70s.

There are in fact several ways in which those who, like me, uphold the uncompromising belief in the Trinity can answer a silly conundrum such as this.

1. If such is the case with the Holy Spirit, the same may be asserted of the WT "god" joehoover. Did he "know" that Adam and and Eve would sin, when he created them? According to the WTS, he did not. It then must follow, with infallible logic, that in that particular moment of time, jojogod was'nt in fact "god" In order to answer this conundrum, the WTS asserts that "god" excercised his ability of witholding foreknowledge, so that it was in fact only when the first pair sinned that joegod knew about it. Evidently this ability that "god" is supposed to have is limited by WT "logic" to the WT god alone. When orthodox Christians use it for the Holy Spirit, the WTS whines about this being a foul.

2. Such a view of the True God of the Bible, who is transendent above all limitations, and who exists in a dimension beyond human capabilty of comprehsion but which is defined as infinity, requiring to "learn" nothing since He is omniscient at all times, is in fact an insult to Him. With their puny limited vision, the WTS has fashioned a pagan concept of god which limits him into a physics defined matrix. This make "god" understandable, but not in fact God.

3. The next thing to say is that theology is not arrived at by the use of conundrums. The Saducees learned this to their cost. Because they used a conundrum which was appently infallible, they refused to believe in the resurrection. [Matt 22:23] Jesus reminded them that they neither knew the "power of God" nor understood the scriptures.

4. Theology is arrived at by reading the revelation contained in Scripture. And the testimony is clear that the Holy Spirit is Omniscient, thus knowing all things at all times. [1 Cor 2:10] If that is so, then why did Jesus evidently omit to mention the Holy Spirit at Mar 13:32?

Well, without going into too many controversial details, suffice it to say that Christians believe that Christ had within His being two what are called "natures", one inherent in His Being, that of Deity, and one acquired at the Incarnation, that of humanity. This latter "nature" limited Him in certain ways. Speaking as a human His ability to divine the specifics of the Holy Spirit was limited, as indeed is the same as all of us. Speaking as a human being do you know where your uncle Charlie is? No? Well do you know if Aunt Ethel knows? No? Welcome to the world of humanity. This was the case with Jesus Evidently at that time He was unaware of whether or not the Holy Spirit knew, because He was speaking as a human being for He had limited acess to this information. Neither did He know this information for Himself. In neither case did it ultimately impinge on either Him, or the Holy Spirit being Deity.

Hope this helps

Cheers

15

The Dreaded Brackets, share your favorites

by drew sagan in

i saw in the watchtower study article this past week there was an amazing 'dreaded brackets' quote which blondie pointed out in here .

christ's loyal "other sheep" keenly await their king's approving declaration: "come, you who have been blessed by my father, inherit the [earthly paradise realm of the] kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.

" (john 10:16; matthew 25:34) accordingly, may all subjects of the kingdom be determined to continue loyally serving christ the king.. .

moggy lover

Here's one from my personal notes. Unfortunately I don't have the Wt article with me.

In the Sept 15, 1983 WT, [have not got a page number however] the Wt quotes historian Paul Johnson as saying "[Apostate] Christianity began in confusion" making him say, by implication that the "true" Christian Church began as a tightly controlled, highly organized system, as represented by 21st C JWs.

Thats the best I can come up with......Sorrrry.

Cheers

17

Jesus Perfect Man

by praiseband in

just wanted to get your input on these thoughts before i shared it with any jw's.

1. how do you view jesus?

2. do you consider him to be the perfect man?

moggy lover

From the earliest periods of Christian history, theologians have pondered the meaning of Jesus' life. There are adequate texts in the NT to portray Him as sinless, hence perfect. There are however another class of Scripture which ascribe the nature of God to him as well. Merging this dichotomy between the human and divine absorbed much of the time and consideration of early Christians.

In this respect, we must needs place in perspective a fundamental flaw that is endemic to WT "reasoning" on this question. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, after two millennia of history, because it fails to see a fully developed doctrinal statement along 21st century lines on the subject of Christology, the WTS concludes that first cent Christians had no perception of the complexity of Christ's nature.

The WTS fails to see the significance of history and how an idea germinates, first in embryonic form before it is given full expression through debate and counsel. A fully developed understanding of Christology [The study of the nature of Christ] did not explode on the 1st C Christian Church, complete with doctrinal formulations locked into a total theological package.

Working with the statements found in the NT, and drawing conclusions from these statements , the early Christian came to cautious conclusions only through gradual increments. They accepted certain foundational truths and progressed from there along clearly defined and delineated theological lines. All along the way, they never lost sight of the basic concept of monotheism, yet they were becoming increasingly aware that the NT expression of God was more complex than they were aware of. Having first absorbed this idea, they then formulated, through measured progression, a vocabulary to accomodate this understanding.

A great deal of work, and much thought was poured out into the structured formulization of the doctrine of Christology. Also, unlike the tightly controlled and dictatorial system that is the WT structure, the early Christians were a community of free peoples. As a consequence, they thrived on debate, and were, or at least became, skilled practioners in the art of polemics.

Debate and discussion was no proof of disunity, as the WTS in its paranoia forces its followers to believe, rather it was a symptom of a living and flourishing association of believers. We today in hindsight, benefit from this.

For instance, the early Christians evolved the notion of the "Hypostatic union" which provided an explanation for the dichotomous relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ. Paul, at 1Tim 3:16, reveals that the union of these natures in the Person of Christ is a "mystery" [meaning that it can be understood only through revelation, not that it cannot be understood] Though above reason and inexplicable, it is yet not incredible.

The bond that unites the nature of God and the nature of the human in Jesus Christ, is not merely physical, as between mother and the unborn infant, or merely moral, as between parties to an agreement, or even fraternal as between brothers, or federal, as parties in a covenant, but it is wholly personal, a union of the inherent nature of God that was Christs because of His Being, and the acquired nature of the human as a result of the incarnation.

It is because of this that early Christians, and through extension, we, today, understand why Christ permitted worship to be effected to His Person, both from human beings as well as angelic beings.The problem that we have when engaged in a dialogue with followers of the WT movement, is their inability to grasp these features of Christology. Insisting on seeing the Deity in uni-dimensional terms as if God were made in our image, they prefer to ascribe only one nature, the human to the Jesus of the NT. They then press the scriptures depicting the Deity of Christ into a preconceived mould that in effect, empties those texts of any meaning.

Cheers

33

I can't believe they still include crap like this on the CDROM

by XBEHERE in

*** yy chap.

5 p. 39 par.

9 masturbation and homosexuality ***.

moggy lover

Hey, Jambon 1, can I do it till I need glasses???

Cheers.....tap...tap... now, where am I ??

15

The Dreaded Brackets, share your favorites

by drew sagan in

i saw in the watchtower study article this past week there was an amazing 'dreaded brackets' quote which blondie pointed out in here .

christ's loyal "other sheep" keenly await their king's approving declaration: "come, you who have been blessed by my father, inherit the [earthly paradise realm of the] kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.

" (john 10:16; matthew 25:34) accordingly, may all subjects of the kingdom be determined to continue loyally serving christ the king.. .

moggy lover

Indeed, brackets are a legitimate translational device to help the translator clarify or extend a meaning not capable of being adequately covered by the receptor language. And as long as the sense is extended but not altered, the provision of brackets is acceptable.

However, Freddie Franz took the concept of bracketing to another level not even attempted by other translators. It was obvious to all but the ignorant or the credulous, that he had a secret theological agenda to push. The main thrust of this endeavour was in the doctrine of Christology. In his blind dogmatism, Freddie risked being blasphemous, simply in order to "put Christ in his place"

For instance, the expression "Created all things" is an exact reresentation of the Greek of Rev 4:11. Freddie saw no hesitation in "translating" this clause without modification - why? - because it referred to "jehover".

But the very same expression did undergo a modification when it was used in Col 1:16. The modification consisted of brackets. This altered the clear meaning of Paul's argument. To Freddie, if Christ did indeed "create all things" then He would have to be the Yahweh of Rev 4:11. So the text, not Freddies ideas, needed to be altered. The judicious use of the brackets now made the Bible say what Freddie wanted it to say, that Jesus was NOT the creator of ALL things, but only of "all-but-one" things. He Himself being a creation.

Wonder if he is pondering his unwisdom in Hades with erm erm...... his father, the Devil

Cheers

41

Could You Forgive the Watchtower?

by Ms. Whip in

jw
friends

did that question make you feel anger?

did you automatically say "no way, never?

i've been reading a little bit about what anger, resentment & bitterness does to our health.

moggy lover

NO

Bugger 'em

Cheers