Posts by Pahpa

17

How long did take to feel comfortable in a church?

by lighthouse19something in

after years of being told clergymen are shysters, it took over a year before a relaxed and quit worrying 'bout "babylon the great"

Pahpa

anewme

The Watchtower seems to ignore the practical application of Christian teaching by putting a "spiritual" meaning to everything. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses justify their lack of social programs by saying the "most important" thing for a Christian to do today is to "preach" the good news of God's kingdom. They ignore the fact that Jesus did both.

The truth of the matter is that the Watchtower does not want to channel valuable financial resources into programs that would not benefit the organization directly. But how are people going to listen to the message if they are hungry, ill clothed and homeless?

7

Who will govern in the Kingdom?

by Perry in

jw's scoff at the biblical hope of christians, saying that they are egotistical to think they'll go to heaven and return with christ to rule over the earth.

the mantra is: "who will they rule over?

that doesn't make sense.

Pahpa

Heathen

There are still a lot of questions unanswered about the 144,000. Some Bible scholars feel that since John describes them as coming out of the 12 tribes of Israel they represent the converted Jews. Others, like the Watchtower, note that Revelation is a very symbolic book and this symbol represents "spiritual Israel." Even the number, 144,000, is taken literally or symbolically depending on interpretation. Various scriptures could be cited to support either side.

I'm always wary when a religious organization makes an arbitrary decision as to what interpretation has to be accepted by its members. We all have the ability to read and to draw conclusions on our own.

7

Words and Meanings

by rassillon in

i was just reading jwfacts topic about the change in the teaching about "worshiping" jesus, and i wanted to get this off my chest so to speak.. i started a new thread because these comments are not really inline with his thread, nor is this a rebuttal.... .

for some time even since before i got to the point which i did not agree with the wts teachings i have been researching things and this whole thing about people and having their battle about words and meanings seems a little short sighted to me.. i will take the "worship jesus" example (i am not arguing a point either side here).

we have to accept that the english bible was translated from another language (latin, greek, aramaic, etc.. depending on the translation).

Pahpa

The real issue of "worshipping" Christ or "doing obeisance" to him is whether or not one believes in the trinity doctrine. Trinitarians will insist that the proper word is "worshipping." Unitarians will demand "doing obeisance." The scriptures allow for either translation. Likewise, one can find scriptures to support either side. Personally, I prefer the simple explanation of the Bible that Jesus was the SON of his heavenly FATHER, God. It is a very human relationship that we can understand without the complicated reasonings of the theologians about Christ's "essence" or "nature."

Orthodoxy demands belief in the trinity as the "central belief" of a Chrisitan. But isn't this just as judgmental as the Watchtower that condemns Christendom because of its "false teachings?"

23

I'm dating a JW, and need some advice!

by changtech in

i'm new here, and have read a lot of topics here.

this site has been very helpful to me in the short time i have been here.. what has drawn me here is the fact that i have been dating an active jw guy for about 9 months now (i was raised catholic, but am currently searching for a faith that i feel is right..i have yet to find it).

we are very much in love, but our differences in beliefs have caused a lot of problems.

Pahpa

Blondie's advice is invaluable. You've already experienced the attempt of Jehovah's Witnesses to control your life. It will be a hundred times worse if you become one. The young man may have many wonderful attributes. But he sees you only in the context of his religious leanings. This alone should be an alert.

7

Words and Meanings

by rassillon in

i was just reading jwfacts topic about the change in the teaching about "worshiping" jesus, and i wanted to get this off my chest so to speak.. i started a new thread because these comments are not really inline with his thread, nor is this a rebuttal.... .

for some time even since before i got to the point which i did not agree with the wts teachings i have been researching things and this whole thing about people and having their battle about words and meanings seems a little short sighted to me.. i will take the "worship jesus" example (i am not arguing a point either side here).

we have to accept that the english bible was translated from another language (latin, greek, aramaic, etc.. depending on the translation).

Pahpa

Let's face it....a translator is going to render a translation according to his own personal religious views. The gospel of John illustrates this point. Unitarians like Jehovah's Witnesses render John 1:1 ..."and the Word was a god." Trinitarians get bent out of shape over this. Yet, a few verses (Vs. 18) down they have no reservations about rendering "the only begotten Son" as "the only begotten God" or "God the One and Only."

One would think that the readers of the Bible need to be extraordinary experts in the original languages and intellectuals in the field of Biblical exegesis. The fact is that most of the Bible is written in plain and simple terms that the average reader can comprehend regardless of languages. The Catholic church once used the argument that only the priests had the ability to understand and explain the Bible. But the Reformation corrected this view. The Watchtower is close to this when it says that as God's representatives on earth they alone have the correct understanding. But, as illustrated by the events at Bethel in the early 1980s, many members did not accept this theory either.

17

How long did take to feel comfortable in a church?

by lighthouse19something in

after years of being told clergymen are shysters, it took over a year before a relaxed and quit worrying 'bout "babylon the great"

Pahpa

anewme

I do agree with you. But you hit on a very important difference between many churches and Jehovah's Witnesses. Most churches have program to "feed the poor." Soup kitchens, food pantries and similar efforts make the difference with many of the poor in our communities. I have to admire this aspect of their faith because they are willing to put Jesus' words into a practical use. Jesus fed the poor and recommended that his disciples do the same.

7

Who will govern in the Kingdom?

by Perry in

jw's scoff at the biblical hope of christians, saying that they are egotistical to think they'll go to heaven and return with christ to rule over the earth.

the mantra is: "who will they rule over?

that doesn't make sense.

Pahpa

Perry

The Watchtower never let logic interrupt its own teachings. At least Russell had the "great crowd" in heaven as a secondary group. This would have helped with your calculations.

By the way, Russell got into trouble himself with the "New Covenant" teaching. For a while, he taught that the annointed did not come under the New Covenant. It caused quite a schism at the time. Close family members and old time assoicates broke their assoication. (See Jim Penton's book, Apocalypse Delayed, on pages 40-42)

Like you, I feel that the greatest error (among many) that the Watchtower has made is the fact that it has demoted Jesus and denied the majority of its members the privilege of sharing as the "body of Christ."

41

"This Generation"

by Jeffro in

i know the witnesses changed their 'generation' definition in 1995 to get away from being tied down to the literal generation of people who saw 1914.. but applying their definition of the word to matthew 24:34 makes the verse meaningless, regardless of whether the original text grammatically allows for their interpretation.

there is no point in saying "this generation will by no means pass away" if 'generation' merely refers to an attitude of people which may remain the same for any ongoing period of time.. there is simply no point in saying it unless it was intended to refer specifically to a literal generation of people who were alive at the time.

of course, there is no validity to their 1914 doctrine anyway, but nevertheless, they are inextricably stuck with it..

Pahpa

The problem with the Watchtower is that it comes up with its own ideas first and then tries to cram in as many scriptures that it feels supports its position. In spite of the fact that it says Russell and the early Bible Students began studying the Bible without the influence of religious doctrine, they had many preconceived ideas that came out of the Second Adventist movement. And the Watchtower has always been backtracking on its pronouncements ever since. What is clear about the "generation" that Jesus referred to in Matthew 24 is that it came within the 40 year period from 30 CE to 70 CE. Since Jesus blends the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem with the "end times" it is difficult for the reader to discern what applies only to the destruction of the city to that of the second coming. The Watchtower's calculations of the "gentile times" based on Daniel's account of Nebuchadnezzar's dream tree has no scriptural basis whatsoever. Nothing in Daniel 4 indicates that it has any fulfillment other than in Daniel's own time. Nor does Jesus make any special reference to this chapter... unlike his reference to the "abomination that causes desolation." It's another case of borrowing interpretation from other souces as Carl Olof Jonsson clearly indicates in his book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered.

36

"The Calendar of Jehovah God"

by cabasilas in

1935 saw the brief attempt by jehovah's witnesses to adopt a new calendar freed from any connection to other religions or with names derived from paganism.

the 1935 yearbook published without much explanation a chart showing "jehovah's year of ransom 1903.

" the yearbook said: "a series of articles in explanation will appear in the golden age.

Pahpa

Didn't I read someplace that this whole calendar idea was originated by Clayton Woodworth who was also the source of the medical quackery that was often published in the Golden Age magazine? As I recall, even Rutherford rejected the notion.

17

How long did take to feel comfortable in a church?

by lighthouse19something in

after years of being told clergymen are shysters, it took over a year before a relaxed and quit worrying 'bout "babylon the great"

Pahpa

I have no compunction about attending a church. But I don't think I ever could become a member. Many main-line churches are focused on social events, building projects and political agendas. These churches relegate the Bible to Sunday School classes or low attended mid-week Bible Studies. Many of the more fundamentalist churches have as narrow a view as Jehovah's Witnesses. They emphasize the Bible and its importance. But unless you accept their interpretation and doctrinal views, you are never considered a fellow Christian.

Thus, I don't feel comfortable in these settings. I enjoy, instead, the discussions and spiritual exchanges where "two or three" are met together in a less formal atmosphere. No clergy! No appeals! No rituals!