Posts by Death to the Pixies

As far as actual documentation I have not saved any, I could probably go find some. On Bnet they was a well read fella that I highly respected named Jwtruth. He would use that book like a textbook. The Bethel apostasy questions were extracted and placed in argumentation and the like. It was just an opinion on my part, I was not looking to argue or make some great point about it, just an observation that I think many would be forced to agree with.

40

I just received an email regarding the CoC book...

by kittyeatzjdubs in

jw
friends

...apparently i ordered a copy over the internet in a drunken online shopping rage.. .

btw...i am glad i ordered the book...been meaning to read it for awhile.. .

luv, jojo

Death to the Pixies

This is why I can only find patience to post on this forum once or twice a month . It seems that people from a certain POV cannot say anything without being whipped on some level. I am actually a peaceable, agree-able debater, but this is like the 4th or 5th or time someone has questioned my intelligence, said I was full of "bullshit", or called me a "bastard" since I have been here.

clippity clop, clipptiy clop- as DTTP scurries off on his horse to other forums til the next month or so... cippity clop, clippity clop...clippitty clop

Why the anger Happy dad? :>) And I have probably told more about myself than half the people here, that is just an FYI..

40

I just received an email regarding the CoC book...

by kittyeatzjdubs in

jw
friends

...apparently i ordered a copy over the internet in a drunken online shopping rage.. .

btw...i am glad i ordered the book...been meaning to read it for awhile.. .

luv, jojo

Death to the Pixies

I found Ray Franz to be a total bore in his books, Penton at least has some talent no doubt aided by the fact he is a scholar.. Though it was interesting after reading CofC to go back and count the number un-sourced plagerizations of this book I have encountered on the internet the last few years. Mind-boggling.

4

Coptic translation of Revelation 3:14

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

in an earlier thread i mentioned how witnesses are using the sahidic coptic translation to support their view on john 1:1. now witness apologists are pointing out that revelation 3:14 supports their view that this verse teaches that jesus is god's first creation.

whereas the greek uses a word that might be construed to mean "origin" or "ruler" rather than "beginning", the coptic word used is said to mean purely "beginning.

i wonder why the society have not made use of this before.

Death to the Pixies

I wonder why the Society have not made use of this before. Guess they just did not know about it, much like how Penton commented in Apocalypse Delayed on the fact that Watchtower writers seem unaware that Origen supports their view of Jesus as a "second god."

I am not suprised at all that the WTBTS seems unaware of that kind of iunformation. The folks who write for them are scholars of Watchtower literature and nothing else. that is why we probably will not see any meaningful innovation out of them.

Reply: Penton usually assumes a lot for the Society. Penton should probably be aware that Origen's "second God" in toto, is not what the WT means when they call Jesus "a god", Penton is arguing for translation though, so some good use of Origen could be made, but that does not eman they are unaware. Same with Justin Martyr as he was also pointed out in Pentons Apocalypse Delayed (pg. 174, 2nd edition '97) and he also feels the Society is apparently too ignorant of Justin to use. The Society has indeed recognized that Justin teaches that Jesus "is other than the God that created all things" (SYBTB) and also that Justin acknlowedges Jesus as "God":

"Since the Son was born from God, Justin does use the expression "God" in connection with the Son. He states in his First Apology: "The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God" (WT 4/1 92)

. So the fact he classifies the Society as "unaware" is most puzzling and probably little more than the typical jab that people like to make against the WT. As far as the Coptic translations used by some WT aplogists (John 1:1, Rev 3:14), they are not the most convincing arguements to the average Joe, the Wt will do better exegeting the NT which is going to be more convincing anyhow to the average bible study JWs come in contact with.

35

Death to the Pixies: A few questions, just for you...

by AuldSoul in

as an able apologist for jw dogma, i am wondering whether you give me answers with scriptural backing for a few questions.

in other words, whatever your answer is i would like scriptures to support the answer.

i hope that is not too much to ask.. (1) was charles taze russell ever the "faithful and wise steward" assigned to give people their "portion of meat in due season"?.

Death to the Pixies

I am going to tidy up some typo-s and clean this up a bit, and trust you have recieved answers to your questions on "shunning". I am kinda disappointed in some of the routes you chose, but I am not too dogmatical on these issues so it is not a big deal to me. "The Listener" has chided my lack of formatting (because the formatting here sucks!) so I will put your comments in quotes, and scripture/source quotes in italics. Hopefully it will be easier to follow. (BTW, thaks for following the thread The Listener)

:I find it odd that you use Barnes as a reference for your positions when he routinely directly contradicts the Governing Body on so many teachings. I asked that we have a Scriptural discussion, not a debate about whose quoted authority has greater weight, ala scribal arguments in First Century Judea.

Reply: I find it odd that you devoted so much space to discussing my use of Barnes. My first quotation:

"The Jews gave the name heathen or Gentile to all other nations but themselves. With them they had no religious contact or communion" I do not believe you dispute this quote, so why the fuss? It is a fact, Barnes was quoted only to give a historical relevence. I was merely helping you understand what the JW view is based on. Second quote:"The Church may here mean the whole asembly of believers, or it may mean those who are authorized to try such cases- the representatives of the Church, or these who act for the Church" Barnes was not defiining the word "Post-Nicea", nor defining it all, but rather like me, was exegeting based on the context of Jesus' words. He is not dogmatical here either. If you read both -prior to this quotation -and following- you will see the argument put forward by me, which went largely untouched. Barnes was just meant to show the different ways one could understand the phrase "before the Church" Again, I am not dogmatic in this case due to the nature of these topics.

The point is again, Jesus was addressing the Jewish system and was speaking under this context. He likewise does so at Matthew 5:22. Both show that the mass of believers as a whole did not make judgement, but rather officials and qualified older men did. Seems like we have arrived at a compromise: Let us say we have officials that judge the case in the Christian congregation (per Jesus example in 18:17. 5:22), and I will throw in a stenographer. Yes Yes? Seems fair. To be honest I believe the JW method is fine and not unbibilcal.

If you weren't ever intending to use the authority I plainly requested that you use, you could have saved us both much time by simply saying so.

Reply: I was commenting on scripture Bud, I believe this is mis-placed. . Now on to the typos:

However, in this latest reply you finally cited a few verses. I could not see the significance of Matthew 16:9 or how the "leaven of the Pharisees" applied "only to apostles." Did you mistakenly cite the wrong verse?

Reply: This is a typo, my bad. It is Matthew 16:19 and the authority given to "loose and bind" in the first century. This was not a gift for each individual. Certain ones had it- and their decisions were to be respected.

: Um, no, I quoted it directly. It did not say reprove all onlookers, it said reprove BEFORE all onlookers. The Greek word used for before is enopian and simply means IN THE PRESENCE OF. I asked for you to demonstrate any ambiguity. The instruction to "elegche" in reference to "hamartanontas" is pretty clear cut. Correct, rebuke, reprove, find fault with, demand an explanation from those who sin in the presence of all onlookers.
Again, where is there any ambiguity in this instruction?

Reply: This too was a typo, I was not saying "reprove on-lookers!" :>) I do not dispute the phrase "before". I dispute your meaning poured into the phrase. You appeal to the Greek for no reason really, as one can "rebuke" "In the presense of others" in the JW sense. Do you not agree that JWs "rebuke" (elegcho) before others? This says nothing in and of itself of "trying" before others. Maybe I am missing something in the Greek, but I do not see where your interp is demanded. So that is the ambiguity. Sorry for the confusion .

Assuming that you really feel that way, have you ever been involved with a project among equals? Doesn't cooperation among equals to acheive an objective require submitting to one another frequently? Doesn't the one submitted to change frequently during the course of the project? Then, according to your unequivocal contention, whoever is being submitted to at the moment has superior AUTHORITY over the others.

Reply: No-one has an authority in this case. Your Boss who *has* authority cannot "submit" to you, he can give you authority, but that is not submitting to your authority, which by nature you do not have. In the NT, we are dealing with people who have authority placed upon them. (Hebrews 13:7,17 2 Cor. 10:8)

Have you ever taken direction from your wife on where to move a piece of furniture? Then I must assume you believed at the time that a superior authority was being exercised over you by someone who was equal in nature.

Reply: That is giving authority, not submitting. And I believe you can submit to someone who has an equal nature, never denied that. However, I think this point of mine is not particularly strong, nor important.

You mentioned Ephesians 4. I wonder if you have read it...the entire chapter I mean. What is the one hope that goes along with the one faith, one baptism, one spirit, one body? What does it mean that God the Father is over all and through all and in all? What does it mean to cooperate as parts of a whole body? Is my eye superior to my leg in authority? Certainly, the only authority one can point to in the body is the head...which Paul reserves for Christ. The rest simply function as the head directs. Or am I misunderstanding what Paul wrote in Ephesians 4?

Reply: There is a relative authority given and assigned by the spirit to the teachers/older men. Hence my quotation of Hebrews 13. I will quote it here: "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word: whose faith folow, considering the end of their conversation. " The KJ is a bit aggressive here, the word for "rule over" is hegeomai as defined by Joseph Thayer : "to go before ,to be a leader, to rule, to command, to have authority over." We can be less blunt to be sure, but the idea still maintains. Sorry to submit to Thayers authority (yuk yuk!) I know how you hate this process. Likewise vs. 17: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as that must give account...."

The way we move toward truth is by putting faith in the brotherhood and the roles given within this arrangement. Time to accept this biblical fact. Paul himself expresses authority rather openly. His letters/commands are aimed at the whole mass of believers, the believers were expected to **submit** or obey his relative authority. Consider:

: "For even if also I boast something further concerning our authority, which the Lord gave to us for edification and not for tearing you down, I will not be ashamed"

: So then, my beloved, just as you always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, be working out your own slavation with fear and trembling."

:And we have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that about what we give strict orders to you, both you are doing and will do. Now may the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patient endurance of Christ. Now we give you strict orders, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be withdrawing yourselves from every brother walking about in idelness and according to the handed down teaching which they recieved from us...... not because we do not have authority but so that we should give ourselves as a pattern to you, for you to be imitating us (2 Cor. 10:8/Phi. 2:12/2 Th. 3:4-6,9)

Christ being the Head, placed authority on others for the maintaining of his Church.

Auldsoul: The odd bit is, the entire organization had no CLUE that the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" was the ENTIRE anointed remnant until the mid-30s. Which leads me to the question I asked. If they had already been appointed over all Christ's belongings in 1919, and were already responsible for giving food at the proper time, and were already God sole Channel of communication to mankind, why didn't they know that until the 1930s?

Reply: You still have not forwarded an argument on what a reasonable expectation of recieved knowledge in this Post-apostolic time is, or for any time for that matter. The job could still be done without a full revelation/identification in place. Since you are just giving opinion, I have little to reply to.

Thanks for the discussion,

Lynn.

35

Death to the Pixies: A few questions, just for you...

by AuldSoul in

as an able apologist for jw dogma, i am wondering whether you give me answers with scriptural backing for a few questions.

in other words, whatever your answer is i would like scriptures to support the answer.

i hope that is not too much to ask.. (1) was charles taze russell ever the "faithful and wise steward" assigned to give people their "portion of meat in due season"?.

Death to the Pixies

Auldsoul:<<<<Death to the Pixies: but he does lay out how the Church, when it comes to procedure, cannot necessarily support itself from scripture.

Oh boy, do I ever agree with you there. Any organized religion is unsupportable from the Scriptures—no matter how it is "structured"—if part of the structure includes any group of people being in a relatively SUPERIOR position to another group the group has instantly leapt from Scriptural basis to human organizational structure.>>>>

Reply: That is assuming a lot from my answer. I was discussing procedure and the ins and outs which are not directly covered. Also, I need to clarify because I am not sure if you understood the point of my Ehrman quote. It highlighted my contention that things have a biblcal basis, but are not directly handled in scripture. We could use "pornie" as an example, and your case about being spiritual head. All things canot be spelled out and maybe there is a simple reason an event or procedure did not make one of Paul's letters, like maybe the situation did not come up (or was disputed) in one of the letters that survived! So we must be careful not to hold too much weight in arguments from silence. They named a fallacy after it.

Auldsoul:<<<I submit the organizational structure as defined in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 2-4; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Galatians 1-6; Ephesians 5; Hebrews 2-5>>>

Reply: I would add Eph. 4 to the list which shows that growing into a mature spiritual man is not a solitary process, nor is it simply a process between you and the spirit; but you benefit from the spirit of truth by relying on the brotherhood and growing with them together as a unified movement.. In that, you have some as teachers, and assumingly have the bulk that submit to those qualified ones. (Hebrews 13:7) Question for Aulsold if I may: who would this apply to in your life?

Auldsoul:<<<Besides this, what else is needed? And if men are heads AS the Christ is head of the congregation then we will be alongside our wives, not over them. Just as Jesus invites his disciples under the yoke he himself bears and as he himself became "beside" his Father a master worker. (Matthew 11:28, 29; Proverbs 8:30)>>

Reply: Somewhat inventive, if there is a total equality in authority, then why does Paul call-out those who have a false authority, and who cause his authority problems? He, and the apostles in general, had an authority over teachings so the "ekklesia" would not be chasing every "wind of teaching". One cannot interpret Matthew 16:9 as applying to anybody but the apostles as a group (MAybe a rough read would have Peter alone). Every Christian is not being giving this individually.

You cannot "submit" to someone who has equal authority. You can submit to someone and be equal in nature, but not authority. As far as the "the master worker analogy" I believe you are reading more into this thought than is there. We know Jesus would never seize upon the Father and try to become "equal". (Phil. 2) Since the context is not nature (as the Son has the Fathers nature or form) it must be his superior authority.

Auldsoul:<<<<I especially applaud the direct response on question #7. That one affected me personally just recently, as my father (PO in my wife's congregation) informed her that since I am no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses I am no longer to be considered her spiritual head. I dealt with it by allowing her 2 weeks to find a Scripture to demonstrate that. She could not, despite asking my father for help. She does not mind if I pray for my family (just the two of us, for now) or study with her. She still asks me questions on Bible topics frequently>>>

Reply: They would probably point out that when one is Ex-comm from the congregation, both in Jesus' words in Matthew 18, and in Pauls call-back to the OT (1 Cor. 5:13), this required a total lack of communication in regards to spiritual matters, and all communication except to help when in need. As Scholar Albert Barnes points out with regard to Matthew 18:

"The Jews gave the name “heathen” or “Gentile” to all other nations but themselves. With them they had no religious contact or communion."

This is how Jesus specified this, Whether or not this is applied directly to Husband/Wife situation is not dealt with specifically I believe. I could be wrong as I have not gone thru the OT in its entirety.

Auldsoul:<<<On question #3, you mention that a requirement to confess sins was implied "given how shunning occurred" and you mention specifically "apostasizing" and Hymenaeus. You didn't include any Scripture to demonstrate the implication, and I have seen nothing despite having read the whole thing numerous times, to imply a requirement on Christians to confess to men. Hymenaeus and Philetus were very vocal in their teaching that the Christ did not come in the flesh and that the resurrection had already occurred—which is the only thing regarded so severely as "apostasy" in the entire NT.>>>>

Reply: I think common sense suggests this, and it has historical backing. The Didache ( around 100-120 ce) confirms this implication of mine at 4:14:

"Confess your unlawful acts in church, and do not come to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the path to life" (Ehrman's Translation)

While not being part of the canon, it does at least give us a glimpse at how this was understood by the Early Church. (See also BDAG under Ekklesia)

Auldsoul:<<<<<In answer to question #4 you wrote: "No, in the scriptural example, it is much more embarrassing and painful."

I agree. It is also Scriptural and public whereas the current method is in total darkness and secrecy, whether the accused wishes it so or not.

Despite what you wrote in response to question #6, the how of shunning is specifically laid out in the Bible. In detail, as a matter of fact. By Jesus himself. It is also clear—without need of inference or implication—that Jesus direction in this matter was still in effect under the Apostolic period. We have (1) a Scriptural example (as you noted) that is irrefutably clear cut and (2) a direction from Paul to Timothy that is equally clear cut.>>>>>

Reply: I will disagree with the "clear-cut"-ness you assign the matter. Jesus' words were spoken before the Jewish system was put to sleep. In this arrangment, older men/officials often decided judicial matters for the whole. (Ezra 10:4,Deut. 17:8,9) This is a possible understanding of Jesus' words. Even if we take a prophetic element to Jesus' use of "church" it is likewise not as clear cut as you may think. Again, Barnes for one sees an ambiguiuty in his statement:

"The church may here mean the whole assembly of believers, or it may mean those who are authorized to try such cases - the representatives of the church, or these who act for the church."

As far as Paul, in his letter back to the congregation after hearing of this problem, he quickly corrects the Church, and cleans up the mess. He tells them simply to remove the "evil man". This also goes to show, that even though the spirit may be operable, even in the 1st century, mistakes can happen. If the mistake can be made one way amongst a congregation, it can be made the other way too. We do not know how exactly the Church handled the problem initially (or failed to even a address it) ,other than they handled it poorly. And it also highlights my initial quote of Ehrman, which is there is nothing definitive in regards to all procedure directly. It is best not to be dogmatic IMO.

On Matthew 18, you offer this:

Auldsoul:In no place does Jesus indicate that certain persons should be chosen to accompany as the "one or two more" (as in, elders). In no place does Jesus indicate that "congregation" is euphemistic for "only those who are in a leadership role" but the word indeed means the congregated or gathered people.

Reply: It is not so much a euphemism we are looking for, as it is a fact if we take Jesus' words as being under the Jewish system. Officials represent the whole, so we can say "The United States has enacted the Patriot Act", but yet it was the elected officials that actually did this. Some individuals may agree with the act, some may not.

"Ekkelsia" can infer the Church as a whole, or a local church. In wider Greek thought it can mean simply a political body. But in this case, the defintion is not in dispute.

Auldsoul: 1 Timothy 5:20—Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear.Please demonstrate how this instruction is ambiguous. It does not say "announce the fact that reproving occurred" does it?

Reply: It simply says to reprove all-onookers. The CCJW does indeed do this. It does not in fact say "try the case before all on-lookers. I believe you are trying too hard to disagree.

Auldsoul:As to the "appeals" process you mentioned, they saw no need since they actually had God's holy spirit. The Bible never makes even an implied reference to any such arrangement.

Reply: True they "actually" had the spirit (I guess in conrast to the CCJW in your view), but having the spirit does not insure perfect judgement. Judgement errors are made by pretty much every key player in the OT. The example we have in 1 Cor. 5 has a **flawed** handling by a church. At best you are arguing from silence. Those who undestand imperfection, will use God-given common sense to cover that. (not to imply that anyone here does not have common sense, so please do not take it that way)

Auldsoul: One last point, on question #1 you mentioned you "believe that was held," and you failed to see the relevance of question #2. Here is the relevance: If Charles T. Russell was God's Channel of communication, of all people wouldn't HE know that? If all the corporate heads of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society comprised the Channel (at any time), shouldn't THEY, of all people, know that? And lastly, if—as is now held to be the case—ALL anointed are part of that Faithful and DIscreet Slave and always have been why didn't THEY, of all people, know that in 1919? I ask because that teaching wasn't firmed up until the early 1940s and was only hinted at during the '30s, with gradually increasing strength.

I would say, given the extraordinary claims of the organization relative to its professed unique relationship to God, this is an extremely relevant line of questioning. I am again curious about your thoughts on this point now that I have fleshed out the relevance.

Reply: Sorry, i do not believe you have fleshed out the relevence.You have given your opinion on how knowledge is to be recieved in this Post-apostolic period.

Regards,

Lynn

35

Death to the Pixies: A few questions, just for you...

by AuldSoul in

as an able apologist for jw dogma, i am wondering whether you give me answers with scriptural backing for a few questions.

in other words, whatever your answer is i would like scriptures to support the answer.

i hope that is not too much to ask.. (1) was charles taze russell ever the "faithful and wise steward" assigned to give people their "portion of meat in due season"?.

Death to the Pixies

Don't post much on weekends, I will make time for this in the coming week.

Thanks.

125

Their "BIG" news 'KNOCKING' documentary

by DannyHaszard in

knocking documentary newsletter #1 summer 2005. .

witnesses.

stories of real families to humanize jehovah's witnesses.

Death to the Pixies

Carla sums up and validates every point made.