Posts by Earnest

27

Is This New?

by Lost in the fog in

it is a very long time since i was an elder and the elders textbooks have changed multiple times since then.

going back to when i was an elder, to the best of my knowledge the only way a spouse could divorce from his/her partner was porneia, if that person had sexual relations with a man, woman, child, or beast.

but it had to be proven and that's the dubious 2 witness rule.. in fact, if it was not proven and the innocent party divorced and married someone else, then they could be hauled up in front of a judicial committee and be charged with committing adultery and disfellowshipped!

Earnest

A friend of mine who divorced for reasons other than porneia and subsequently started dating was disfellowshipped "not on grounds of sexual misconduct, but because of your wilful violation of [Bible] principles ... The principles of God's law do not allow for partial disregard of his requirements, as long as we do not go all the way in disobedience. The fruit of the forbidden tree in Eden was not only not to be eaten, but the act of touching it, in order to decide whether to put it into the mouth, was in itself punishable by death. (Gen. 3:3.) Eve's transgression was complete the moment she put her hand to the tree."

That was "brazen conduct" nearly 40 years ago.

1

King v. J. J. Ross Transcript

by vienne in

many have looked for the complete transcript.

as far as i know, it does not exist, except perhaps in the wt archives.

extracts are here: https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-ross-libel-trial-transcript.html.

Earnest

Thanks, Annie. I have been trying to find the transcript for years so while this is not complete it is much more than the limited quotes I have seen, often taken out of context. I do hope your uncle manages to get the missing issues of Spotlight on Russelism.

68

Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford

by LoveUniHateExams in

i was thinking a bit about this the other day.

ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.

some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....

Earnest

I earlier wrote that "the full transcript of the key hearing where Russell was cross-examined by George Staunton is not a matter of record", and that remains true. However vienne/Annie has provided a link to a partial transcript of the trial which may be of interest.

24

Two Bible teachings JW's DON'T know about....

by BoogerMan in

....but the november 2022 study watchtower will definitely instruct them.. 1) god's name is jehovah!.

2) jehovah is using an earthly organization to do his will - not jesus!.

in study article 45, 'jehovah' is mentioned at least 60 times.

Earnest

I can go into some detail about the "evidence" for Polycarp's Letter to the Phillipians.

Nine late Greek manuscripts are extant, all of them belong to the same family and all lack chapters 10-14. These are :

codex Vaticanus 859 (11th-13th century)
codex Ottobonianus 348 (14th-16th century)
codex Laurent. vii. 21 (15th-16th century)
codex Parisiensis Graec. 937 (16th century)
codex Casanatensis G. v. 14 (15th century)
codex Barberinus 7
codex Neapolitanus II. A. 17 (15th century)
codex Salmasianus
codex Andrius

For chapters 10-14 we are reliant on a Latin translation of which we have nine manuscripts:

Codex Reginensis 81 (11th century)
codex Trecensis 412 (12th century)
codex Paris. Bibl. Nat. 1639 (12th century)
codex Bruxellensis 5510 (12th century)
codex Oxon. Balliolensis 229 (12th century)
codex Palatinus 150 (15th century)
codex Laurent. xxiii. Cod. 20 (15th century)
codex Vindobonensis 1068 (14th century)
codex Oxon. Magdalenensis 76 (15th century)

That's it. Eighteen extant manuscripts and nothing earlier than the 11th century.

24

Two Bible teachings JW's DON'T know about....

by BoogerMan in

....but the november 2022 study watchtower will definitely instruct them.. 1) god's name is jehovah!.

2) jehovah is using an earthly organization to do his will - not jesus!.

in study article 45, 'jehovah' is mentioned at least 60 times.

Earnest

Sea Breeze : On the other hand, If such evidence appears too early, then heretics are astonished at the early evidence and wonder if hundreds of pages of historical documents were carefully and dishonestly redacted.

Maybe you misunderstood what I said about Polycarp's Letter to the Phillipians. There is no early evidence. In fact, chapters 10-14 don't appear in any Greek manuscripts. Likewise, there is no early evidence of Ignatius's letters with the only Greek manuscript being dated to the eleventh century.

24

Two Bible teachings JW's DON'T know about....

by BoogerMan in

....but the november 2022 study watchtower will definitely instruct them.. 1) god's name is jehovah!.

2) jehovah is using an earthly organization to do his will - not jesus!.

in study article 45, 'jehovah' is mentioned at least 60 times.

Earnest

Ignatius's Letters to the Ephesians, the Romans, the Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp

Although Ignatius lived in the early second century, whether he wrote the letters attributed to him has been in doubt for many years.

There are three revisions of the letters attributed to Ignatius: the long recension, the middle recension and the short recension. The long recension was created in the fourth century and consists of thirteen letters, six of which are spurious. The short recension is a Syriac abridgment of the letters to the Ephesians, the Romans and Polycarp, but only a few fragments are preserved. The middle recension consists of seven letters generally recognised as authentic, but the only extant copy of the middle recension (codex Mediceo-Laurentianus) is dated to the eleventh century, 900 years after Ignatius wrote his letters, and was subject to interpolation and omission.

It is hardly surprising with so much evidence of changing the text that some verses would reflect the theology of the fourth century and beyond.

24

Two Bible teachings JW's DON'T know about....

by BoogerMan in

....but the november 2022 study watchtower will definitely instruct them.. 1) god's name is jehovah!.

2) jehovah is using an earthly organization to do his will - not jesus!.

in study article 45, 'jehovah' is mentioned at least 60 times.

Earnest

The extensive list of quotations from early Church fathers which apparently support the belief that Jesus is God is impressive even though it is just a cut and paste from this article. For such a high christology to emerge so early in the writings of the Church fathers does require us to ask how reliable these citations are and whether there is evidence of later interpolation after the creeds of the fourth and fifth centuries.

Polycarp's Letter to the Phillipians, 12:2

J. B. Lightfoot writes in the Apostolic Fathers (2.1.546-551; 2.3.316-318) that chapters 10-14 are in no Greek manuscripts but are dependent on a Latin translation which is very loose at times, and paraphrastic. There are also some scattered Syriac quotations, none earlier than the fifth century.

As far as the quotation ("our Lord and God Jesus Christ") is concerned, many manuscripts omit the words "and God" in the phrase.

27

Did the Watchtower Society ban Vaccinations and Organ Transplants?

by Vanderhoven7 in

an avid wts supporter writes:.

re: vaccinations: vaccinations have never been banned.

if they were, then no representative of the wts would have been allowed to travel overseas when vaccines were compulsory around 1920 when vaccines was regularly in the news, there was both positive and negative information printed in the golden age (forerunner of the awake) but not from the staff writers, but from out side sources of article by medical doctors at the time and others that responded to those articles.. re: organ transplants: organ transplants were never forbidden by the society.

Earnest

Just a small note on organ transplants. In the same 1967 Watchtower article which described human organ transplants as cannibalistic, it also said :

At present scientific researchers are starting to use artificial or animal parts where formerly human parts were thought necessary, such as in the case of cornea transplants. ... Whether wider use of such operations will be made, we do not know. Nor can we decide whether a Christian should accept some animal part as a transplant; that is for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5)

So it would be true to say that "organ transplants have always been up to the individual". It is only the transplanting of human organs which it was thought that God did not permit.

27

Did the Watchtower Society ban Vaccinations and Organ Transplants?

by Vanderhoven7 in

an avid wts supporter writes:.

re: vaccinations: vaccinations have never been banned.

if they were, then no representative of the wts would have been allowed to travel overseas when vaccines were compulsory around 1920 when vaccines was regularly in the news, there was both positive and negative information printed in the golden age (forerunner of the awake) but not from the staff writers, but from out side sources of article by medical doctors at the time and others that responded to those articles.. re: organ transplants: organ transplants were never forbidden by the society.

Earnest

slimboyfat : There were certainly strong statements in the Watchtower against organ transplants, but I don’t know any concrete statement that it was a disfellowshipping offence.

There was no concrete statement that accepting an organ transplant was a disfellowshipping offence. But The Watchtower, 15 November 1967, p.702 did state :

Those who submit to [organ transplants] are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others.

That was sufficient for most Witnesses to believe that human organ transplants were contrary to God's will until 1980 when it was made clear it is a matter of conscience.

34

1985 and baptism...I wish I had read this before today

by enoughisenough in

i am posting a link as to being legally bound to jw rules at time of baptism.

i only did a quick skim, but what i gathered is interesting, and what it says about 1985 may be of use to some hoping to just fade and not be bothered.

in 1985, the questions were changed at baptism for legal purposes so they could have causation to defend themselves should you decide to sue for whatever reason.

Earnest

Disillusioned JW : When were the words "spirit directed" taken out of the oath of baptism

The September 2017 edition of Organized to Do Jehovah's Will (p.209) still has the second baptism question referring to God's spirit-directed organization. In the August 2019 edition (p.206) the second question refers to Jehovah's organization instead.