Posts by Brother Jeramy

62

Well, I asked a question and his answer blew me away

by Lost his mind in

first time, been lurking for years, but i asked my husband who has been studying for 20 plus years if he has ever questioned those that were "teaching" him.

blew my mind.

i ask him all the questions that you have asked yourself, but he will not ask them.

Brother Jeramy

OUTLAW, you conveniently left out the last paragraph of my original comment where I stated that perhaps her husband isn't the only source of their problems.

62

Well, I asked a question and his answer blew me away

by Lost his mind in

first time, been lurking for years, but i asked my husband who has been studying for 20 plus years if he has ever questioned those that were "teaching" him.

blew my mind.

i ask him all the questions that you have asked yourself, but he will not ask them.

Brother Jeramy

flipper, you wrote . . .

Translation : She may be the source of his problems - THAT is what you're insinuating.

No, that's actually not what I was insinuating at all. Re-read what I wrote. I encouraged her to look into her own attitude and behavior, rather than just her husband's, as contributing factors to the problems she and her husband are experiencing together. I never said, nor insinuated, that she was the "source of his problems."

Again, I'd encourage you to go back and re-read what I actually wrote. Because you're misconstruing my words and are attempting to make it appear that I'm saying something that, in fact, I am not at all saying.

62

Well, I asked a question and his answer blew me away

by Lost his mind in

first time, been lurking for years, but i asked my husband who has been studying for 20 plus years if he has ever questioned those that were "teaching" him.

blew my mind.

i ask him all the questions that you have asked yourself, but he will not ask them.

Brother Jeramy

flipper (as Mrs. Flipper) wrote . . .

Brother J. seemed to be talking to you the way a lot of JW men talk to women. And where the majority of posters here will offer support, the apologists are usually trying to convince everyone, including themselves, to stick to the old cult beliefs.

That's a convenient broadstroke to make, and quite in line with the typically seething anti-JW rhetoric that often gets thrown around here. It's also evident of the peculiarly perverse negativity in which that same rhetoric is baptized, to say nothing of the double-standard it employs. A great number of the anti-JWs on here exhibit the same mentality they themselves accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of possessing. The irony is painfully obvious.

And as I've already made abundantly clear several times, I'm certainly not a Watchtower Society apologist by any stretch of the imagination. Exactly the opposite, in fact. People may not like the fact that I remain active with Jehovah's Witnesses (as distinct from the Watchtower Society), nor understand or approve of why and under what circumstances I remain. But a Watchtower apologist I am not.

I do, though, love my fellow brothers and sisters.

As for my words to Lost his mind, they were honest and forthright (which I thought everyone likes on here, considering they hate the so-called "lies" of Jehovah's Witnesses), and spoken to an adult who, by making a choice to post such details on an open forum, invited open discussion. You may not have liked what I wrote, but such is the nature of this forum's environment. Frankly I could've written my words in the form of the most flowery poetry, and you still would not have approved. Such as it is. But overall, my words, forthright as they were, were nonetheless delivered with due respect.

Finally, it seems to be a pattern on here that people can freely hurl all manner of sharp criticisms and unrestrained ridicule against Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society (whether deserved or undeserved), and yet those same people vehemently object when even the slightest criticism is presented back at them from those of us who remain "in" and active, and who love our fellow Jehovah's Witness brothers and sisters. If this clear evidence of your double standard is lost on you -- a double standard, by the way, that many here accuse Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society of employing -- then you've got bigger problems than your disproportionate hatred for JWs and the WTS.

62

Well, I asked a question and his answer blew me away

by Lost his mind in

first time, been lurking for years, but i asked my husband who has been studying for 20 plus years if he has ever questioned those that were "teaching" him.

blew my mind.

i ask him all the questions that you have asked yourself, but he will not ask them.

Brother Jeramy

OUTLAW . . .

I agree with you. It is a lie for the Watchtower Society to claim that "Jesus Christ is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind." 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 makes it clear: Jesus is our mediator.

62

Well, I asked a question and his answer blew me away

by Lost his mind in

first time, been lurking for years, but i asked my husband who has been studying for 20 plus years if he has ever questioned those that were "teaching" him.

blew my mind.

i ask him all the questions that you have asked yourself, but he will not ask them.

Brother Jeramy

flipper, you wrote . . .

It's her own damned personal life and who the hell do you think YOU are to tell her to leave or NOT to leave just because you feel she should not challenge her husbands beliefs or her JW relatives beliefs ? It's really none of your damned business or place to be telling this newer board member what to do or HOW she should feel.

I agree, it's her life. It's also obvious that she volunteered her information on this open discussion board. I suppose she did this, oh I don't know, for discussion purposes perhaps? (Just a wild guess.)

You also wrote . . .

Telling a new board member who has experienced difficulties from her studying JW husband and fanatic JW relatives that if she leaves she is, " very controlling " - is VERY controlling of you to tell her this.

A vicious little circle, isn't it? This can only mean that -- wait for it, wait for it -- you're also being very controlling because you're telling me I'm being controlling for inferring that another person is being controlling for acting exactly like an organization she says is . . . controlling.

So I guess your formula is: non-JW can criticize JW and it is perfectly acceptable, but JW criticizes non-JW and it is controlling.

I see.

62

Well, I asked a question and his answer blew me away

by Lost his mind in

first time, been lurking for years, but i asked my husband who has been studying for 20 plus years if he has ever questioned those that were "teaching" him.

blew my mind.

i ask him all the questions that you have asked yourself, but he will not ask them.

Brother Jeramy

Lost his mind . . .

As an active Witness for over thirty years, and one who continues to be happily active, I have never once discouraged anyone from asking questions, nor have I criticized anyone for having doubts, no matter if they are doubts about Scripture, teachings, the Watchtower Society, etc. Questions are good. Doubts are healthy. When one asks questions stemming from doubt, it's evidence that they are loving God "with their whole mind" rather than with a suspended intellect. (see Mark 12:30)

Now, as far as your husband is concerned, I obviously don't know the entire story, and for that matter it's none of my business. From the very little you've written about the situation and the manner in which you write about your husband, my impression is that there has already been some friction existing in the marriage for some time (though this is not to infer you have a bad marriage by any means) and that perhaps the differences you and your husband have about Jehovah's Witnesses are a symptom of that friction rather than the cause. Again, all I can go by is the little you've written.

But in all honesty I did notice something curious in some of the things you've stated.

By your account, Jehovah's Witnesses are a controlling entity, a cult, a manipulative organization that threatens expelling any brother or sister who doesn't "toe the line" of Watchtower doctrine or doesn't bow mindlessly to the Governing Body's will.

Yet I noticed the following in what you wrote:

I have told him that if he gets baptized I will leave. I have a hard enough time dealing with him now, I have no idea what it would be like in full blown cult mode. They will not come to the house anymore because I ask to me questions and told them they were liars the last time they were here. I asked them who their mediator was and they said Jesus and I said they were either lying or not reading their own literature. The elder called me a hateful woman and said he would not be back. I said that would be glorious. Unfortunately, my nephew was with the elder, and the hubby backs up the hateful woman comment.

I have managed to keep him away from meetings for 2 years but he still reads their crap daily.

Threatening to leave your husband if he gets baptized sounds very controlling. Is this not the same kind of controlling behavior that you accuse the Watchtower Society of engaging in? Cutting ties if a member engages in activities that don't sit well with Watchtower preference?

Even though you directly asked two Witnesses about their belief, and even though they directly answered you that Jesus is our mediator (which is, in fact, true; Jesus is our mediator; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6), you nonetheless called them liars. Is that not what people accuse the Watchtower Society of doing, calling people liars?

You were called hateful by an elder who also happens to be your nephew (which, again, suggests family-related friction over and above any doctrinal or theological disagreements), and then expressed that your "hubby" agreed with your nephew. By doing this you're negatively categorizing your husband and your nephew based on the fact that they oppose your position and manner. Is this not what people accuse the Watchtower Society of doing, negatively categorizing people who oppose its position?

Finally you mention that you've "managed to keep your husband away" from meetings for two years, but that he continues to read Watchtower literature. This sounds, again, very controlling. Matched with your threat of divorce, it comes off as extremely manipulative. Isn't manipulation exactly what people accuse the Watchtower Society of engaging in?

Control. Negative categorizing. Manipulation. Threats of cutting ties.

Whether done by an organization or by an individual, it's all the same.

Again, none of us knows the entire story of you and your husband's issues (and clearly we don't have your husband's side of the story), and it's none of our business. But based only on the little you've chosen to reveal thus far, perhaps you may wish to consider the possibility that your husband (with his pro-JW stance) isn't the only source of the problems you're experiencing.

22

How do JW's know that the bible is inspired?

by cappytan in

asked a friend of mine this question the other day.

here was his answer: "well, because paul said, 'all scripture is inspired of god...'".

but seriously, that argument is like saying, "the bible is inspired because it says so!

Brother Jeramy

Half banana, you wrote . . .

Bro Jeramy, just to clarify ---when Paul wrote "All scripture is inspired..." he was not referring to the Bible for it did not exist then.

For starters, note that I had very specifically stated "we also know that first century Christian writers of the Greek Scriptures, such as Peter and Paul, considered the Hebrew Scriptures to be inspired." I did not say "the Bible."

We know for certain that the Hebrew Scriptures as a defined collection -- the Jewish bible, if you will -- had already existed for a number of centuries by the time the likes of Paul and others began to write in the first century. We know this collection as the Septuagint, the Hebrew Scriptures rendered into Koine Greek. And it has long been known that nearly all Hebrew Scripture quotations found in the Greek Scriptures are from this Septuagint.

We can confidently surmise that Paul, at 2 Timothy 3:16, was referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly considering in verse 14 he refers to the "holy writings" (or "sacred writings" as other Bible translations/versions put it). It's logical to conclude that the one collection of writings he would certainly refer to as "holy" or "sacred" would be the Hebrew Scriptures.

Now, there is an interesting footnote to add to all this. It is very possible that, at 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul could have been referring to not only the Hebrew Scriptures but also to the Gospel of Luke, and maybe even Matthew and perhaps Mark as well. With this in mind, take a look at 1 Timothy 5:18:

For the scripture says, "You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain," also, "The worker is worthy of his wages."

The first part of that passage, about not muzzling a bull, is a direct quote from Deuteronomy 25:4. The second part of the passage, which is of key interest here, is a direct quote from Luke 10:7: "The worker is worthy of his wages."

This is very highly suggestive that Paul was acquainted with the Gospel of Luke, which further suggests that by the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy, Luke (and very possibly Matthew, and perhaps even Mark) may have already been in circulation in the early Christian congregations. This lends credence to the conclusion of many scholars that Luke was written somewhere around 60CE (before Paul wrote his two letters to Timothy), perhaps earlier.

And so considering Paul refers to both sources of his quotes (i.e., Deuteronomy from the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Gospel of Luke) as "scripture," we can logically conclude that he held them on the same level in terms of sacred authority, if not divine inspiration.

In this way, when Paul writes "all Scripture is inspired of God" at 2 Timothy 3:16, we can conclude that he was clearly referring to the Hebrew Scriptures, and might very well have been referring to, at the very least, the Gospel of Luke, which is one of the four foundational books of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

22

How do JW's know that the bible is inspired?

by cappytan in

asked a friend of mine this question the other day.

here was his answer: "well, because paul said, 'all scripture is inspired of god...'".

but seriously, that argument is like saying, "the bible is inspired because it says so!

Brother Jeramy

There was a superb book published in 1997 (paperback edition) titled The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, written by the late Bruce Metzger, a biblical scholar and expert in New Testament Greek from Princeton University who was highly renowned in academia and in Christendom. In Part 3 of his book, Metzger covers the issues of canonicity (i.e., the authoritative quality that would make a writing acceptable to be included in the Bible) and inspiration (i.e, the unique quality of a writing that infers its author was moved to write under the influence of the holy spirit). His examination is quite fascinating. Here are some quotes from pages 251-257 . . .

Criteria for Determining Canonicity
A basic prerequisite for canonicity was conformity to what was called the "rule of faith," that is, the congruity of a given document with the basic Christian tradition recognized as normative by the Church. Just as under the Old Testament the message of a prophet was to be tested not merely by the success of the predictions but by the agreement of the substance of the prophecy with the fundamentals of Israel's religion, so also under the New Covenant it is clear that writings which came with any claim to be authoritative were judged by the nature of their content. ...
Another test that was applied to a given book to determine whether it deserved to belong in the New Testament was apostolicity. ... [T]he apostolic origin, real or putative, of a book provided a presumption of authority. ... In the case of Mark and Luke, the tradition of their association with the apostles Peter and Paul respectively was held to validate their writings. ...
Another obvious test of authority for a book was its continuous acceptance and usage by the Church at large. ... [For example, as] the Latin Churches reject Hebrews, so the Greek Churches reject the Apocalypse, but Jerome himself accepts both on the grounds that they are quoted by ancient writers as canonical.
These three criteria (orthodoxy, apostolicity, and consensus among the churches) for ascertaining which books should be regarded as authoritative for the Church came to be generally adopted during the course of the second century and were never modified thereafter. At the same time, however, we find much variation in the manner in which the criteria were applied. There were different opinions as to which criterion should be allowed chief weight. ...
Inspiration and the Canon
[W]hile the Fathers certainly agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments were inspired, they did not seem to have regarded inspiration as the ground of the Bible's uniqueness. That is, the inspiration they ascribe to the Scriptures was only one facet of the inspiring activity of the Holy Spirit in many aspects of the Church's life. ...
[Moreover, the] Fathers do not hesitate to refer to non-Scriptural documents as "inspired," a circumstance showing that they did not consider inspiration to be a unique characteristic of canonical writings. ...
In short, the Scriptures, according to the early Fathers, are indeed inspired, but that is not the reason they are authoritative. They are authoritative, and hence canonical, because they are the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends.

It's worth noting Metzger's words in the Introduction of the book . . .

The recognition of the canonical status of the several books of the New Testament was the result of a long and gradual process, in the course of which certain writings, regarded as authoritative, were separated from a much larger body of Christian literature. Although this was one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the early Church, history is virtually silent as to how, when, and by whom it was brought about. Nothing is more amazing in the annals of the Christian Church than the absence of detailed accounts of so significant a process. ...

With that historical context in mind, the originating question of this thread was: "How do JW's know that the bible is inspired?"

The short answer, cliche as it is, is that we accept by faith that the Bible is inspired (where we understand "inspired" to mean that the writings were penned by authors under the influence of the holy spirit. As to the implications of that influence where it concerns the nature of inspiration, that's a far deeper discussion for another time).

We can accept that the Hebrew Scriptures are inspired by the holy spirit since we know first century Jews, including Jesus, accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as inspired and from God (though with qualification: many Jews, Jesus among them, accepted the Torah and the Prophets as inspired and authoritative, whereas many other Jews accepted only the Torah as inspired). We also know that first century Christian writers of the Greek Scriptures, such as Peter and Paul, considered the Hebrew Scriptures to be inspired (see 2 Peter 2:1 and 2 Timothy 3:16). As such, the Hebrew Scriptures were considered authoritative because they were considered inspired. Thereby we can conclude that acceptance of the inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures constituted an integral component of "the teaching of the apostles" (see Acts 2:42), and therefore we as Christians who are inheritors of the teaching of the apostles accept the Hebrew Scriptures as inspired and authoritative.

As for the Christian Greek Scriptures, inasmuch as they are records of the apostles' teachings witnessing to Jesus Christ and the Good News of the Kingdom in fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture prophecies (particularly the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts), we can accept them as inspired and thereby authoritative. (compare Matthew 1:1; Matthew 28:20; Luke 1:3, 4; John 20:31)

The most honest answer, though, is that our "knowing" is a function of our "accepting" which is a function of our faith. (So long as our "knowing" by faith doesn't morph into an idolization of the Bible.)

160

"The organisation is imperfect, but it doesn't affect my relationship with Jehovah"

by Alive! in

i've noted active, devoted jw's state the above.. and, it's not a problem for me to remain trusting of god, i just don't trust religions or men.. recently, a member of this forum stated that he remains an active jw, in the family of god's people, wanting to encourage and do good - whilst recognising that the pastoral leaders (the gb) have shipwrecked the faith of many, being unsound scripturally etc, etc.. stop and think about this - the bible says to not follow after those who lie and hurt the faith of "little ones".. the pharisees were accused of traversing over lands and expending much energy to make a single convert - only for that convert to end up worse of than he started off with.. it's one thing to not believe this is the 'truth' and feeling the awful pressure of managing ones life, trying not to lose ones family.. it's quite another thing to declare oneself to be a christian believer of god's jw household, and somehow believe the god of love would use corrupt liars to parade as jesus' brothers in the urgency of last days.

really?

and, to then visibly promote faith in corrupt men, and try to bring converts into a place where the rulership is wrong.. some of us are dying from hurt here.......give me a break..

Brother Jeramy

VillageIdiot, you asked . . .

If you had a Catholic baptism does that mean that you don't have to be rebaptized? Which is worse, Catholic baptism or JW organization baptism?

It's a good question and worth spending time pondering.

One question that immediately comes to mind is, was someone's baptism performed as a sacramental rite at a religious ceremony in honor and worship of the Trinity? This is a particularly important consideration. The Trinity is Christendom's "golden calf" which it calls God. See Exodus 32:1-5, and note in verse 5 that the disobedient Israelites referred to the golden calf that they had created as "Jehovah," which was an obscenity and a heinous reproach. As such, one could conclude that a baptism performed in honor and worship of the Trinity would be an act of idolatry and therefore invalid. In such a case, rebaptism would be prudent.

At the same time, it could also be said that baptism per the Watchtower Society's two questions as asked since 1985 constitutes a perversion that edges on idolatry, but doesn't entirely reach the fulness of idolatry (in that such a baptism isn't performed in honor and worship of a false god, though it is performed under the auspices of a false prophet). In such a case one could conclude that rebaptism would not be necessary, though prayer over the matter petitioning Jehovah's continuing loving kindness and blessing with his holy spirit would be prudent. (compare Acts 8:14-16)

Again, it's a subject worthy of spending time pondering (perhaps in its own dedicated post).

Ultimately, the prevailing principle at Jeremiah 17:10 comes to mind: "I, Jehovah, am searching the heart, examining the innermost thoughts, to give to each one according to his ways, according to the fruitage of his works."

160

"The organisation is imperfect, but it doesn't affect my relationship with Jehovah"

by Alive! in

i've noted active, devoted jw's state the above.. and, it's not a problem for me to remain trusting of god, i just don't trust religions or men.. recently, a member of this forum stated that he remains an active jw, in the family of god's people, wanting to encourage and do good - whilst recognising that the pastoral leaders (the gb) have shipwrecked the faith of many, being unsound scripturally etc, etc.. stop and think about this - the bible says to not follow after those who lie and hurt the faith of "little ones".. the pharisees were accused of traversing over lands and expending much energy to make a single convert - only for that convert to end up worse of than he started off with.. it's one thing to not believe this is the 'truth' and feeling the awful pressure of managing ones life, trying not to lose ones family.. it's quite another thing to declare oneself to be a christian believer of god's jw household, and somehow believe the god of love would use corrupt liars to parade as jesus' brothers in the urgency of last days.

really?

and, to then visibly promote faith in corrupt men, and try to bring converts into a place where the rulership is wrong.. some of us are dying from hurt here.......give me a break..

Brother Jeramy

There's a tremendous amount of vitriol in the comments, both generally and in some cases toward me directly, that I find quite curious and immensely telling. I'm not certain what motivates some to such negativity and animus.

No one on here knows me. No one on here knows my story, nor my journey of the past thirty years. Also, I have not insisted that anyone here see things my way, nor have I criticized, berated, or insulted anyone who doesn't accept the things I've expressed.

And yet a number on here have cast harsh criticisms and insults at me for where I stand and for the position I have chosen to maintain in my life and faith.

Why is this, I must wonder?

Have I somehow done something to these folks who have thrown insults and harsh criticisms at me?

No.

So again, I wonder at the motivations to such unprovoked negativity. What is it to them that I make a choice that has nothing to do with them? What do such people want, ultimately, that they feel so motivated to negativity and insults?

What I find telling is how some have referred to me, both explicitly and by insinuation, as "deluded" due to my remaining active -- and happily active, I might add -- among the brothers and sisters who are Jehovah's Witnesses. It is telling because this form of casting of aspersions is the same tactic the Governing Body employs, namely they call people deluded, either by inference or at times directly, who do not see things their way or who do things contrary to their will.

So, then, what's the difference if the Governing Body does this or if former Jehovah's Witnesses do it?

Same tactics, different side of the same coin.

Beyond this brief reflection, I'm content to pay no attention to any negativity or those who foment it. I'll keep my responses to those who can be reasonable, balanced, and respectful. And positive.