Posts by moggy lover

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

How Does One Get The Study Articles For The Wt Study?

by moggy lover in

this might seem a silly question but i have not been to a watchtower study in 28 years so am unfamiliar with the latest set up.

the study watchtower magazines are not printed anymore as they are available only on the internet, as electronic editions.. ok. so how does one actually bring or get a printed copy for the study?

is one expected to print his/her own individusl copy, or are they available at the desk for those who can't print these?

moggy lover

That is interseting. I did not know that the Study editions of the Wt magazine came out in two editions. One an electronic edition from the Net, AND a printed edition available at the local KH.

Does a Watchtower Follower need to pay for this or is he allowed to just take it and hopefully reimburse the publishers in the contribution box?

4

How Does One Get The Study Articles For The Wt Study?

by moggy lover in

this might seem a silly question but i have not been to a watchtower study in 28 years so am unfamiliar with the latest set up.

the study watchtower magazines are not printed anymore as they are available only on the internet, as electronic editions.. ok. so how does one actually bring or get a printed copy for the study?

is one expected to print his/her own individusl copy, or are they available at the desk for those who can't print these?

This might seem a silly question but I have not been to a Watchtower study in 28 years so am unfamiliar with the latest set up. The study Watchtower magazines are not printed anymore as they are available only on the internet, as electronic editions.

OK. So how does one actually bring or get a printed copy for the study? Is one expected to print his/her own individusl copy, or are they available at the desk for those who can't print these? If someone does not have access to a computer, how does he or she do pre-study, underlining the appropriate paragraphs to answer? Do friends print these prior to the study for these people, or what?

Also the "Our Kinfdom Ministries", are they still being printed, or are they only available as e-editions as we get them here?

55

Let me get this straight about the FDS latest thinking

by wha happened? in

so the fds does not include the apostles.

what part of the gospels aren't food at the proper time?

or am i just mixed up on who the fds are..

moggy lover

We know that the present day Watchtower Leadership is clear about there being no FDS in the first century. But was there a GB at that time? They have not make that very clear and I think there is where the confusion lies.

What role did the apostles and their sidekicks play in the first century? If they were a GB, what role did they play? It could'nt be providing food at the proper time, since that is the work of the FDS, who did not exist back then.

Evidently their task was as religious idiologues whose main task was to define what was to be believed, and to ensure unity/conformity by being empowered to expel dissenters. Thus, no actual food at the proper time was cooked, and the rank and file were not encouraged to be hungry.

7

Available: "The Kingdom That Never Came" - English translation of book by Norwegian Ex-JW

by PrincessPeachz in

repost here for lurkers and newbies... if you would like a pdf copy please pm me, i have permission to distribute the english translation electronically from the author's, joseph wilting, family (my family)..

moggy lover

Gasp! It's been several years since I PM'd anyone. How do I PM you? How much does a copy cost? I am certainly interested.

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

So the light begins to dawn.

1. From Leolaia we know that some nascent awareness of the significance of 1919 was present in that very year itself, through Uncle Joe's biblical importunings.

2. But this was tentative at best and featured other aspects of the Watchtower's self proclaimed prophetic ministry which were unrelated to this inspection and selection process that is so explicitly pressed today. [IE, the "Elijah-Elisha work" which has gone the way of all fiction, into the scrapheap of Forgettable Literature]

3. From Terry we can see that the period 1918-1925 was a period of JFR's bid for personal consolidation of power. What did the Communists of a previous age call it? Cult of Personality? By sucessfully destroying the cult of personality build around the revered figure of CT Russell, JFR succeeded in erecting the edifice of his own cult of personality. It appears that the irony was lost on him.

4. From Phizzy we can detirmine that the first mention of an "inspection" of some bizarre entity called "the antitypical temple" by "The Lord Jesus Christ" in 1918 was made in the August 1, 1926 Wt magazine, a year after the 1925 fiasco.

Significantly I think, one can see two propositions within this incredulous develpment.

1. A relatively high Christalogical manifestation as in calling Christ the "Lord Jesus Christ" something that is fairly infrequent in later Watchtower theology.

2. A corresponding minimalization of a certain deity, Jehovah, whose significance in Watchtower theology had not yet evolved.

5. From Ann O'Maly we learn that a year later, in 1927, the final act in the devaluation of CTR when he was demoted from his position of the "faithful and wise servant" [KJV] and the corresponding elevation of JFR and his coterie of sycophants to that position was enacted.

Oddly enough I must admit that I assumed that this theological development of the Watchtower leadership being chosen out of an exacting scrutiny made by Christ Himself would have taken longer to evolve. 1927 seems fairly early to me. I imagined that a clearer understanding of this deity, Jehovah and his significance in Watchtower theological develpment would have come first.

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

Thanks Leolaia for that. The impression I am getting is that the 1919 doctrine was an evolving teaching with several nuanced edges that do not relate to each other.

For instance, the above, although first acknowledged as early as 1919, did not recognize any particular relationship between the Watchtower Leadership and this Jehovah. Indeed, it was always assumed that CT Russell, and later Joe Rutherford, spoke in some unspecified way, for God.

But that this deity actually intervened in some way, and manifested some sort of preference for these guys in 1919 specifically, was a quantum leap in the theological blueprint of the Watchtower.

So, while slowly making its tentative appearance in 1919 itself, a fully rounded articulation of what that date signified would need to await some later, more audacious revelation.

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.