Posts by moggy lover

17

1 John 5:13-20 Jesus is the true God?

by NikL in

one of the main things i am trying to wrap my head around after waking up to the nonsense of jw.org is the deity of christ.. jws go out of their way to ignore him, it seems to me.

they make him out to be an angel or something.

yet, if one simply reads the scriptures, you get an entirely different picture.. doing some bible reading this morning i accidentally (long story) read the latter part of 1 john 5 and it's good stuff.. after reading it in the niv i read it in nwt and it is still pretty amazing even in that abomination of a translation.. it says.... 13 i write you these things so that you may know that you have life everlasting, you who put your faith in the name of the son of god.

moggy lover

This is a tricky thing, and is dependent on a grammatical construction that has limitations. The rule here can be called the rule of the nearest antecedent. There are two antecedents in this phrase both governed by the preposition εν in Greek, a preposition that roughly corresponds to our "in" [The NWT is particularly deceptive here in that in degrades the word "in" by two distinctive usages, neither of which is contextual:

"W know.....in the One who is True [the Father] ......in His Son Jesus Christ". He is the True God and life everlasting"

The two antecedents are

1.The Father

2The Son.

Then John uses the singular pronoun "He" [ ὁυτος the masculine form of "this", hence "he"]. Who is this HE? The Father or the Son, Jesus Christ?

When such a degree of ambiguity occurs the simplest thing to do is to go to the nearest antecedent and conclude that John was applying the "He" to the Son. This is the case in point in most occurrences of this construction. BUT NOT ALWAYS, and that is the catch. There are many occasions when NT writers apply the first antecedent to the pronoun, rather than the nearest.

The point is: can the Watchtower deny the deity of Christ here? No. Are you right in concluding that John is calling the Son God here? Yes. Let no one take that away from you.

And whereas I agree with you about the deity of Christ here, I cannot deny that others have the right to conclude otherwise. To me, I am told to go to the Son Jesus Christ for life everlasting [Jo 3:16, 36] so I associate "everlasting life" with the Son primarily, so I have no problem with concluding that the "He" applies to Him.

Also, remember, that what is said of the Father is said of the Son. We are IN the Father, and we are IN the Son, so accepting the deity of Christ here is not denying the deity of the Father, and accepting the deity of the Father here is not denying the deity of the Son either.

There are many evangelical theologians, such as Murray Harris who believe that the "HE" here refers to the Father, but this does not define his relationship with the Son as anything less than the Son being God.

22

144,000 & The Trinity

by Libby in

now that i'm looking beyond what the wt teaches i'm struggling to find information on three topics.

the 144,000, the trinity and prayer.. if anyone has 5 minutes could they explain:.

1. what do other religions think the 144,000 are or is?

moggy lover

Thanks for that, Libby. Remember that we are dealing with the most complex idea in all existence. The Being Of God. Not only are we struggling with the idea of an Infinite God while at the same time being finite, but we are also beset by the nature of sin which restricts us in pursuing any insight into this teaching, in the very first place.

We are thus like people racing along at the dead of night in a superfast train with windows that are muddied with mist and snow restricting our visibility at the passing scene. That's what Paul had in mind at 1 Cor 13:12. There are some verses in Scripture that can only be understood by some degree of Trinitarian application.

Unlike the Jewish Shema that encapsulated a creedal statement of belief in Yahweh, The God of the OT, "Listen, Israel Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh" [Deut 6:4 NJB],we have no such equivalent. No NT writer made any such statement as "OK, listen up you guys, our God is one God made up of three Persons, get used to it".

Augustine, preparing his students for the teaching of the Trinity once said:

"There is no subject where error is more dangerous, research more laborious, and discovery more fruitful than the oneness of the Trinity".

Train your mind to fly beyond the gravitational pull of human rationality, where reason and secularism is the only yardstick to thought, and embrace the greatness of the Divine that awaits discovery.

Cheers and be well. Always.

22

144,000 & The Trinity

by Libby in

now that i'm looking beyond what the wt teaches i'm struggling to find information on three topics.

the 144,000, the trinity and prayer.. if anyone has 5 minutes could they explain:.

1. what do other religions think the 144,000 are or is?

moggy lover

The Trinity is altogether another can of worms, and is often misunderstood. The teaching occupied the theological aspirations, and intellectual capabilities of the early Christian Church for over three centuries [which is a lot more than 5 minutes] before the issue was established.

It is often said that the Trinity teaching is not in the Bible, which is true. However, the Teaching of God is found fully articulated in those very same pages, and that has formed the basis of the Christian teaching of who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are. The teaching of the Trinity whether you agree with it or not, is simply not that "Jesus is God" and that's it. It is far more complex and circumscribes 6 main specifics:

1. The Father is God. [there is no "Jehovah" in the NT, and the early Christians, even in the first century, always appealed to this Personage as the "Father" and never "Jehovah". The earliest records we have such as "The First Letter of Clement" written sometime before the writings of John, speaks of how "we love the Father". Introducing the "name" Jehovah here muddies the waters and blurs the relation between the Father and Son]

2.The Son is God. The very same word used of the Father is used of the Son in the NT. To say that the word "God" [Greek Θεος] when used of the Father means "God" but when used of the Son simply means "a god" is not acceptable by True Christians whether from the first century of the twenty first.

3. The Son is also a Human Being. The same Gospel writer who calls Him God [John] also calls him Man. If one expression is literal so must the other. We are not required to understand it, or to modify it so as to conform to something called "human reasoning" but simply to accept it.

4. The NT also indicates that the Holy Spirit is God

5. Yet there is also only One God.The early Christians never abandoned their belief in Monotheism.Thus, in some way that passes all human understanding, the God of the Bible is portrayed as far more complex than a simple Monadic view [One Person in One God] would suggest.

6. Within the Trinity there is a titular distinction. The Son, although fully God, is nevertheless Subordinate to the Father. And the Holy Spirit is Subordinate to both the Father and the Son, despite being fully God.

Now, to answer some of your questions:

A. Jesus was able to pray to the Father because He was a Man who needed the spiritual proximity of God, as should we all.

B. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father. Don't blur the distinction in these words.

C.Trinitarians are specific in their vocabulary since the NT itself is. Thus we say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Distinct but not Separate. You cannot separate the three, because the Father is 100% God, the Son is 100% God, and the Holy Spirit is 100% God, Distinct but not Separate.

When you combine all the specifics in the Trinity it should answer such questions as:

How can Jesus be God if He was tempted, since God cannot be tempted, How can Jesus be God if He did not even know when He was coming again, How can Jesus be God if.......etc etc.

22

144,000 & The Trinity

by Libby in

now that i'm looking beyond what the wt teaches i'm struggling to find information on three topics.

the 144,000, the trinity and prayer.. if anyone has 5 minutes could they explain:.

1. what do other religions think the 144,000 are or is?

moggy lover

I am afraid you are requesting a teeny bit too much asking for explanations about two very complex teachings, one of which is found in a highly controversial book in the NT, called the book of Revelation,which is filled with largely symbolic language that is never explained. There are flying dragons and scrolls, and whatnot, all of which defy gravity, both literal and symbolic.

This means that we as humans need to supply the meanings attached to those symbols, and naturally not everyone agrees with these explanations.

It cannot be covered in 5 minutes. Vanderhoven7's crisp and clear video above is an excellent summation of the Watchtower position and required 14 minutes to explain.

1. The concept of the 144,000 can be either symbolic or literal. Take your pick.

The Watchtower Leadership, who conceive themselves to be the elite spokesmen for God, believe that they have an explanation that is uniquely divine, and is not open to dissent or debate by the rank and file followers.

They believe and teach that the 144,000 are part symbolic [made up of symbolic Jews from 12 symbolic tribes of Israel] and part literal [the number from these symbolic tribes is somehow literal]

2. Some [like the SDAs and other Reformed Churches] believe that the 144k are symbolic in that they are spiritual Jews who are thus identified as the entire body of believing Christians who have been born again, and who have replaced the Jews as God's people.

3. Those like me who belong to Dispensational Churches, [I'm a Baptist] believe that they are literally Jews from the 12 "Tribes of Israel" as Rev 7:4 says. To the charge that these tribes no longer exist and thus cannot be the literal Tribes of Israel the reply is that the tribes are not actually non existent, it is simply that the records to prove who belong in these tribes are lost. There is nothing to suggest that these records cannot be archaeologically recovered.

It must be pointed out that the 144k are not presently in view, but will be manifest only AFTER some items of prophecy have been fulfilled. See Rev 7:1, where John says that he saw the 144k only "After these things" which is what is portrayed in the last verse of Rev 6, which appears to describe the start of the Great Tribulation. Thus the 144k are, according to the literalist view, a purely Great Tribulation phenomenon.

In all fairness, a Watchtower Follower once told me that "After" in Rev 7:1 is symbolic, and must be interpreted as "Before these things", that is, going all the way back to 33AD.

Yeah, right.

5

2015 Wt Library CD Rom 2015

by moggy lover in

jw
friends

does anyone know if the 2015 edition of the wt library is available on cd rom?

does anyone have it for download?.

cheers.

moggy lover

Does anyone know if the 2015 edition of the WT Library is available on CD Rom?

Does anyone have it for download?

Cheers

6

Did you miss the gala?

by wheelwithinwheel in

jw
friends

moggy lover

Sorry. I don't know how to make the web site clickable.

6

Did you miss the gala?

by wheelwithinwheel in

jw
friends

moggy lover

Blondie: "Must be some inside joke".

This is the reference:

http://jwsurvey.org/general-information/watchtower-stoops-to-new-low-purchases-telly-awards-statuettes-and-publishes-phony-quote-on-jw-org#comments

Evidently there is this slightly decrepit sales organization that announces "winners" in a TV competition. Actually this is a gimmick and these "awards" are provided to anyone who actually buys these awards.

The purchaser can then announce themselves as the "winner" in whatever category takes their fancy. Since the WTS evidently purchased two of these "awards" they then are entitled to announce themselves as winners.

As the above article from JW Survey indicates, the WTS is not the only bogus organization to stoop to this level. It has great company in other organizations equally shady as the WTS, who also parade themselves as winners.

22

TWISTING context to produce false LIGHT (Tricks our Governing Body uses)

by Terry in

as a jehovah's witness:.

two things finally struck me:.

1. i was really in a grown up kindergarten and .

moggy lover

Excellent summation of Prov 4:18. How's this for a false dichotomy:

If the "light" gets brighter and brighter,

does it also mean that

the "Truth" gets "truther" and "truther"?

19

1950 Watchtower Bound Volume now Complete!

by Atlantis in

the 1950 september 15th watchtower is now complete and this will finish the 1950 watchtower bound volume.

a big thank you to jaydee for all of his hard work of scanning the watchtowers into jpg files which i received and converted into pdf files and made them searchable.

jaydee worked day and night to get these files finished for us and i really appreciate his kindness... we only had to darken out one name on one shipping label.

moggy lover

I think we should all stand and raise our glasses to the tremendous effort it has taken all those responsible who provided such a valuable historical resource for researchers everywhere.

For the first time in history, and especially in our lifetime, the entire corpus of Watchtower magazine literature has been made available, free to all who need it and in one sustainable package. It has taken almost 20 GB of digital information, collated into easy to read formats, and without even one syllable missing.

There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed.

Remember that the Watchtower is the chief theological journal of the Watchtower movement, and with its reduction to a digital format in the hands of a conniving Leadership it can, in later years, be edited to say what it needs to say.

Cheers, Atlantis and everyone responsible.

15

A new religion/cult?

by roberto avon in

jw
friends

a new religion?.

it has been a while that i didn't post.

as some of you may know i live in italy and ( maybe ) something curious is happening.

moggy lover

Have these guys reached out to a wider audience by translating their views in other languages like, say, English?