Posts by moggy lover

8

Wack ass J-dub apologist channel on YouTube.

by Joliette in

jw
friends

i'm trying to post the video, but the name of the youtube channel is named micheal rankin.

he suddenly stopped making youtube videos.. can't post in google chrome.. .

okay, never mind here it goes:.

moggy lover

It is debateable whether "epignosis" means "accurate" knowledge. We know for sure that it is an intensive form of "gnosis" - knowledge - because of the "epi" prefix. But what does this prefix indicate?

Most lexigographers believe that whereas "gnosis" simply means "knowledge" in the intellectual grasp of factual information, "epi-gnosis" would indicate a fuller understanding of its moral or ethical demands. Indeed, the word is used, in its twenty occurrences in the NT, only to the relationship that "epi-gnosis" has of spiritual matters.

For instance, believers need the "epi-gnosis" of the Son [Eph 4:13], the "epignosis" of the Will of God [Phil 1:9, Col 1:19, etc] and the "epi-gnosis" of the mystery that is Christ Himself [Col 2:2, 2Pet 1:8, 2:20]. There is also the possibility of being an absence of "epi-gnosis" when it comes to God [Ro 1:28]. The Israelites had, according to Paul, a zeal for God, but this was not based on "epi-gnosis".

There is also the possibility of having an "epi-gnosis" of sin [Ro 3:20] and of The Truth [1 Tim 2:4 etc]

Just as Mum [you from Aussie?] is aware of the tautology of saying "accurate knowledge", most lexicons will define "epi-gnosis" as "full" knowledge, or "complete" knowledge. The emphasis then, is on its totality rather than its accuracy.

One can have less than complete knowledge of God, which could lead to a missapplied zeal for God as in the case of the first century Jews.

Oddly enough, the NW"T" translators admit this in the use of the verb form of this verb, "epiginosko". Twice they translate this verb as "fully know" [Matt 11:27] and twice as "know fully" [Lu 1:4, Ac 22:24]

63

2013 DC new releases - rumors ???

by obarac in

there is rumors that in this years dc nwt will be released and also new tracts.

any other rumors about new releases?.

moggy lover

What about the "Reasoning from the Scriptures", or more correctly, "[Human] Reasoning from the Scriptures" book?

That has needed revising for some time.

I heard that the Watchtower leadership sold off their state-of-the-art MAN stich binding presses which they imported from Germany. For several years now they have been using smaller staple binding presses.

Then again, I also heard that they did purchase smaller stich binding presses from Japan last year and have only recently installed them in Patterson. So expect an improvement in the current crop of cheap publications. The prime example of this is the "What Does The Bible Really teach" book.

My The "Truth that leads to Everlasting life" is still well preserved since I got it in about 1968, but my "Bible Teach" book fell apart after just a few weeks.

25

"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel in

i've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.

why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?

(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.

moggy lover

Actually, Badfish has a point that answers your question. Let's just elaborate on what he mentions. From around the mid-second century, a theological viewpoint was emerging that attempted to struggle with the obvious implications of Christ's human as well as divine status. This viepoint suggested that, despite being born human, Jesus Christ somehow was elevated to some sort of divine or semi-divine status at His baptism. Something happened when the Holy Spirit invaded His Person which transformed Him into a bonafide Son of God. He was not born the Christ or Son of God [despite what Lu 2:11 said], but became such at that time.

This viewpoint came to be called Adoptionism, and over the next two centuries would evolve into several sub categories. One category, for instance insisted that the "Christ" was a divine creation of God, the "first of God's creations" who came into the human Christ at the baptism, and who left Him and went back to heaven at the crucifixtion, leaving the human Jesus to die physically.

The main difference between this viewpoint and Orthodoxy, was that whereas the Adoptionists saw Jesus Christ as an elevated human being who became the Son of God, the Orthodox position was that Jesus Christ, who always was the Son, was actually demoted, or devalued as a Person when He emptied Himself and and became human.

One such adoptionist, who created much controversy in the Church by the fourth century, was Arius. His viewpoint approximates the current Watchtower theological structure, which sees the human born Jesus changed in status from mere human to Son of God at the baptism. I am not sure what scripture Arius used to sustain his own theology, since much of his own writings have perished, but the one made by the Watchtower, Gal 4:26, is hardly contextual with the Person of Christ.

Naturally, being hide bound "organizationalists" the Watchtower sees the NT only through its own constructed "organizational" lenses. The "Jerusalem above"is precisely defined as "OUR mother"and not that of Jesus. [Know anyone who created his owm mum??] What then is this "Jerusalem above?

Dunno.

Paul himself does not explain at length what it is, thus there are several evangelical explanations. One, I believe, is that it is the Christian Hope. Paul tells us that whatever it is, it is an allegory [Greek "allegoria"]. He tells us of two women who represent two mountains. Hagar represents Mount Sinai from whence came the Mosaic Law which burdened the physical Jews with the hope of salvation through endless OBEDIENCE to its edicts.

But, Sarah we are told, represents the Jerusalem above, from whence comes the Christian hope of salvation through FAITH in Christ as a Person, in both His human and Divine status.

16

Governing Body's Doctrinal Errors Vs. Jesus Apostles' so called errors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

by I_love_Jeff in

if the apostles were guided by the holy spirit, how could they have made any doctrinal errors as mentioned by many jehovah's witnesses?

the governing body has admitted to making doctrinal errors and state that " you might as well condem jesus' apostles as well since they too had made errors.

i have read that the apostles had only made behavior mistakes not errors in doctrinal writings.. "the new testament makes it abundantly clear that doctrinal error can lead to eternal damnation.. didache is a noun found thirty times in the new testament to mean doctrine, teaching.

moggy lover

Further to the above posts, the relationship of the apostles to Christ must also be kept in mind. They were still disciples, a word which means "learners, or students". Like all good students they were always learning while in the presence of the Master, and what better way to learn than to ask questions. Thus, there is no evidence here that they themselves were expressing a doctrinal maxim, to be classed under "false expectations".

In fact quite the contrary. The only source of doctrinal imperatives is, now, as it was back then, Jesus Himself, and He made no statement one way or the other on this subject. Going insofar as to imply that this was none of their business. This should alert all potential disciples [or learners] that no definitive statement will ever be forthcomimg so the best methodology is: Keep your trap shut. This subject then becomes closed till He Comes again.

Those first century followers learned their lesson well never having made any statements regarding the exact time for the fulfillment of prophecy. Their role was to believe that they were, as we all should believe, living in the Last Days. Live as if this is the Last Days, but evangelize for tomorrow.

The GB on the other hand are not learning as disciples, but TEACHING. Just as Jesus taught the disciples, they have usurped this role for themselves and presume to TEACH the rank and file. So the comparisons are artificially created to excuse a massive fraud perpertrated on the the rest of the Watchtower followers.

A. Jesus taught the disciples. B. They learned by asking questions.

A The GB teach the rank and file. B. No questioning or debate is tolerated, even in the face of false teaching.

14

NWT Matt 18:2 Child referred to as "it"

by Red Piller in

the nwt translation renders matt 18:2 this way,.

"so, calling a young child to him, he set it in their midst ".

calling a child "it" made me curious.

moggy lover

Hi. Bobcat:

I'm sorry, but I can't answer your question definitively. I see two problems here. First, there are two parables under consideration. The one about keeping watch which is what Peter is concerned about, and second, the identity of the FDS as mentioned in vs 42. Does everyone, including unbelievers, have the responsibility to keep on the watch or is that exclusive to believers? That is what Peter wants to know.

To complicate matters, Jesus does not answer Peter directly but adds another parable, that of the FDS, asking, "Who then is the FDS...."

The second problem is determining the appropriate antecedent to verse 48. Is the part about "much is given" refer to all those willing to be on the watch, or to the FDS"? I don't know. I can only quote from a commentary I used back in the 50s when I was in school. Published in 1920 and written by W. Walsham How, it says:

"Our Lord does not answer this inquiry one way or other , but continues his discourse, leaving the Apostle to draw his own conclusion. That conclusion would be, that the lesson is for all, but for each according to the work entrusted to him by the great Master"

14

NWT Matt 18:2 Child referred to as "it"

by Red Piller in

the nwt translation renders matt 18:2 this way,.

"so, calling a young child to him, he set it in their midst ".

calling a child "it" made me curious.

moggy lover

The excuse of the NW"T" translators is that the word "paidion" - child - is neuter and any pronouns associated with it are necessarily also neuter. Thus at Matt 18:2 the text says that Jesus stood the "little boy" [KIT] - "paidion" - in their midst and said to "it" [Greek "auto"].

The problem is of course, that the pronoun is not establishing a cultural medium from whence children are addressed, but is simply following grammatical rules that are detirmened by Greek syntax. The English translator is not bound by grammatical restrictions of Greek syntax but must convey what is said into readable English.

The rule is that while children in the womb may still be referred to as an "it", when they are born and are living an independent existence they establish their own gender values. The conventional idiom is that if no gender is mentioned, to use "he", but some prefer to retain the expression "child" to translate the word "auto".

Having said that, however, there is a curious inconsistency when referring to Jesus. At Lu 2:27, the use of "auto" causes the NW"T" translators to refer to Jesus as an "it", but a little farther along, in verse 40, the same word "auto" is ignored and Jesus suddenly has gender! He is dutifully referred to as "him".

4

Who Is The REAL Evil Slave?

by mtwtf in

who is the real evil slave of mt.

my venting #7 mtwtf.

while this post is unlikely to achieve anything, just dragging the evil slave out of the shadows and into full view helps vent my feelings.

moggy lover

The point that I find significant and which the Watchtower Leadership has consistently neglected throughout its 133 year publishing history is the use of the unexpressed predicate in this parable. Very often in the Greek NT, the predicate [the verb "to be" in its various grammtical forms] is left unexpressed and is understood in the sentence. For instance, throughout the Beatitudes, the predicate has been ommited, yet the sentence, in Greek is unaffected.

"Blessed ARE the poor....Blessed ARE those who mourn...etc"

And we even find this in Matt 24, in this very parable under discussion. Verse 46 tells us "Blessed IS that slave who if his master...." If this is tenable in verse 48 as well, where the evil slave is mentioned, we then get:

"But if that servant IS evil..." [see NAB, NJB, NLT, NIV etc] which leaves us with an interesting propsition:

There are NOT two slaves, one faithful and discreet [conveniently interpreted by the Watchtower as themselves] and the other evil, [all those who oppose them] but only ONE salve. If he is faithful and dicreet he is commended, but if he is wicked, he is castigated. I think the NLT is the most explicit in this context:

"That servant will be blessed IF his master finds him doing his job when he comes. On the other hand, IF that servant IS wicked....then his master will punish him serverly" [verses 46, 48, 51]

Thus, as The Searcher has pointed out, the same servant is placed in either category, because of the two conditional clauses beginning with "If...." Whenever Matt 24:46 is fulfilled [evangelicals are debating this issue, some say it is past, in 70 AD, and others place it in the future during the Great Tribulation] those called to this responsibility can be of either class.

I think that the Watchtower Leadership, as a result of sullying its collective hand with false prophecies and pretentious arrogance, has forfeited the right to be the faithful servant and has placed itself in the position of the wicked servant fit only for punishment when the Master comes.

12

Eph 6:4 "Mental Regulating"

by BluesBrother in

moggy lover

Excellent point, Leolaia.

If you have not already written your doctoral thesis, what about considering doing it now? Hmmm?

You can write on "The Etymalogical Fallacies of the NWT and the Consequent Distortion in Biblical Semantics - An inquiry into how NOT to translate Holy Scripture". I think there is a compelling need for such literature to make a true evaluation of the NWT. From "torture stake" to "mentally diseased" there are so many words that have been theologically disembowelled of any meaning in Watchtower speak.

Most analyses of the NW"T" fixate on the "a" here, or a comma there, or the word [other] in brackets over somewhere else and so on.

12

Eph 6:4 "Mental Regulating"

by BluesBrother in

moggy lover

As Leolaia has mentioned above, the Watchtower "translators" of the NW"T" [which is another way of saying Freddy Franz] can stoop to blurring the distinction between "etymology" and "application" or "meaning" when it suits their purpose. The way words are used by the speakers of a language determines the meaning of words. In this regard most speakers then, as now, would be unaware of the etymology of the words they used but whose meaning would be accepatble with common practice.

A good example of this blurring comes with the word "Apo-luthrosis" which had a simple meaning in NT times, which even Franz acknowledged. The etymology of the word is "apo" - "away from" - and "luthrosis" - "ransom" which I suppose can literally be rendered as " a getting away [from someone] on the payment of a ransom". Because "ransom" is one of the Watchtower's favourite buzz words, they render this word as "release by ransom" six times, with "release by the ransom [paid]" once, [at Ro 3:24].

However, by NT times, the idea of an actual payment seems to have completely disappeared and the meaning simply came to be "deliverance" [as Franz acknowledged at Luke 21:28]

We see the same tactic here with "nouthesia". The etymology derives from "nous" mind, and "thesia" which Vine suggests could mean "put into". But that is not the way the word was used by the speakers who applied the word in the first century. The emphasis was not on the mind of the person so much, as the action that created an atmosphere of training. As Phizzy mentioned above, the word simply meant to "admonish" or "to train by word" which is contrasted with "training by act". "Training by word" could take the form of an "instruction" or in the face of danger, "a warning".

The word occurs three times in the NT, and Freddy used three separate "translations" to convey the meaning of this word:

1Cor 10:11 - "Warning"

Eph 6:4 - "mental regulating"

Titus 3:10 - "admonition"

Which gives him no excuse. He was aware that the word really meant "admonition".

33

Watchtower REMOVES "Trinity" Booklet---ONLINE! Video

by BlindersOff1 in

another great catch by "the snarky apologist" on youtube......................................................i'm looking for this pdf can anyone give me a link.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hihh1_uc9s4.

moggy lover

Does anyone know how many languages the Trinity brochure was translated into? It could tell us how widely distributed it was.