Posts by Pahpa

6

WHO KNOWS WHAT A_____________ IS?

by Terry in

puritans.

do you know if there are differences between calvinists and puritans?.

elect.

Pahpa

The Calvinists (followers of Calvin) believed in predestination. The "elect" were those who were predestined (elected) to be with Christ in contrast to all the others who were damned. Calvin had a great influence upon John Knox who spread the Calvinistic theology to Scotland, the center of Presbyterian faith.

The Puritans, on the other hand, were those who desired to reform ("to purify") the Anglican church. The pilgrims who came to this country were divided into "separatists" who broke from the church and "puritans" who wanted to reform the church.

29

More On Pharisees

by FireNBandits in

"pharisee" is one of those nt words that english translators of the bible, beginning with wycliffe, decided to transliterate rather than translate, just as they did "baptism" and "apostle" and other words.

given the meaning of pharisee i can only conclude that the reasoning behind this decision was to hide the meaning of the word.

to avoid stepping on the toes of the pharisees of their own time.

Pahpa

FireNBandits

Perhaps, I did miss your point. But....

Did you not suggest in your posting that the reason that early translators of the Bible hid the meaning of the word "Pharisee" was by not transliterating the word for fear of offending the "Pharisees" of their own time? In the time of the KJV the Separatists were those that were breaking away from the Anglican church. Why would translators working for the King who was the head of the church hesitate to cast aspersions upon those who were in opposition if that was the case? Perhaps, they were just good translators that wanted to avoid any confusion between the origin of a word and the specific application of the word.

"the fellow"

9

Will WT "Euphrates" dry up more in 2007? (New IRS rules)

by Open mind in

first off, there's a new poster who hasn't gotten much of a welcome.

mr. born again.

he's done three posts.

Pahpa

I think that the average JW will continue to contribute. It may actually be an incentive for them to contribute more if there is going to be a record of the amount in a receipt book.

29

More On Pharisees

by FireNBandits in

"pharisee" is one of those nt words that english translators of the bible, beginning with wycliffe, decided to transliterate rather than translate, just as they did "baptism" and "apostle" and other words.

given the meaning of pharisee i can only conclude that the reasoning behind this decision was to hide the meaning of the word.

to avoid stepping on the toes of the pharisees of their own time.

Pahpa

FireNBandits

I don't understand your point.

There were a number of "separatist" groups among the Jews of Jesus' time that were not "Pharisees." The Essenes and others could be classified by that general term. But the Pharisees were a particular Jewish sect distinquished by that specific name. (See Josephus) So why would a Bible translator do anything but maintain the name by which this group was known? Many Jews may have had zeal for their various belief systems. But not all were Zealots.

31

Book: The Inside Story of Jehovah's Witnesses, Stevenson, 1968

by betterdaze in

the inside story of jehovah's witnesses .

stevenson, william charles, 1936- .

publisher: hart pub.

Pahpa

slimboy

I'm not sure about statistics. But having lived through that period in the early 80s, I know the impact upon many of us. It wasn't the 75 date specifically. Rather it was the accumulation of years of abuse and unchristian conduct we observed in the organization, particularly, by the elders. We also began to question some of the teachings. "This generation" was already a point of discussion among many of us. When we finally heard about the problems at Bethel it was the "final straw." Some of us personally knew the individuals that were involved. Our faith in the FDS was shattered.

The remarkable thing that I do recall is that many of our old friends in our old congregation came to the same conclusion at the same time. We withheld our feelings from one another because we didn't want "to stumble" them. However, after leaving, these friends became our own personal support group. In this group were some of the most zealous and knowlegable JWs.

25

Shunning Policy

by sweet pea in

a little bird told me that some members of the governing body are unhappy with the shunning policy and want it changed (presumably due to the bad press from sites like these).

apparently they were overruled.

is this yet another policy that will start to be diluted and eventually dropped altogether or what and can anyone back up the rumour?

Pahpa

JWFACTS

This is a similar conclusion that James Penton reached in his book, Apocalypse Delayed:

"The future for Jehovah's Witnesses as they now exist - despite continued growth - does not seem bright. In the long run they will have to change and moderate to survive, and that will probably mean that they will settle down to becoming just another denomination among denominations."

26

Why I am not a Muslim

by stillajwexelder in

just finished reading "why i am not a muslim" - fabulous read.

i recommend it

Pahpa

Terry

I think you will find that sectarian persecution between Christian groups did not generally occur until after the church had the backing of the political powers after the fourth century. True, there were arguments and disagreements over church doctrine. But until the church obtained the authority and power of the state, it was the object of persecution.

"Christianity, a persecuted minority faith at Constantine's conversion in AD 312 had become the religion of the Empire by the end of the century." (Handbook to the History of Christianity)

17

The Faithful and Discreet Slave is an IDOL

by cultswatter in

when i was a dub i remember including the fds in my prayers because i did what all the other dubs were doing.

little did i know that i was worshipping and idol.

the fact is the fds does not exist other than in the mind of the brainwashed victim.

Pahpa

The fact that JWs ascribe certain attributes to the FDS that really belong to Christ is a good indication of idolatry. For example, they believe that one has to be a member of the organization to survive Armageddon. In other words, salvation is through membership. In contrast, the Bible speaks of salvation through Christ. To JWs the organization is "the truth." Whereas the Bible speaks of Christ as "the way and the truth and the life." Each JWs now has to take an oath to the organization before baptism. But Christians were baptised "in the name of the Father, the Son and holy spirit." The FDS claim to be God's only spokesman today belies the fact that Christ alone is "the Word." In this way, the Watchtower has diminished the importance of Christ and taken upon itself the roles that are exclusive to him: Saviour, Mediator, Word, etc.

12

1945

by glenster in

1968 "during world war i, god's people expected it to lead directly into ar-.

mageddon, but jehovah prevented such a climax at that time.

we didn't succumb.

Pahpa

The Watchtower never discusses the anticipation of JWs to every suggestion the organization makes....except to blame its followers when the predictions fail. We all experienced this with the 1975 fiasco. Visiting representatives of the Watchtower (Circuit and District Overseers) made the view of the FDS very clear that we could expect Armageddon that year even though the literature did not go that far. Like crafty lawyers, the Watchtower could say after the fact.... "Well, we never actually said....."

I remember talking with a number of older JWs about their expectations during the years of 1940 - 1945. At the time it was generally held that the "great tribulation" started with WW I and was "cut short" for the sake of the "elect." WWII was viewed as the continuation of that "tribulation" and would culminate in Armageddon. Like with all the other failures, the Watchtower diminished its own responsibility and blamed others for its mistakes.

4

Jw teaching on poison ?

by A Paduan in

continuing on from the "not what christians do " thread.... does anyone know the jw teaching on drinking 'a drop of poison' from some other religion ?.

yet it is said....... if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them.

Pahpa

A Paduan

Do you have the reference in mind where it says that Christians would handle snakes and not be harmed or drink poison and not be affected? (Mark 16:9-20) Note what the footnote in the NIV version says:

"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses to not have Mark 16:9-20."