Posts by freeman

26

Jw's go to the door of a biblical scholar to preach the Bible.

by paradisebeauty in

this is interesting, jw's go to the door of a biblical scholar, a professor in theology i believe, and he invites them in and records the whole conversation.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xpo43bgdbm.

freeman

For me, the key to the entire sentence which refutes Arianism are the very first three words.

Ἐν

ἀρχῇ

ἦν

Or in English: In Beginning Was

The first three words say in effect that if you push back time as far as you can, to the very origin of time itself, the subject of the sentence which is “the Word” was already [past tense] existing. That means in effect that whatever this Word is, transcends time itself and has no starting point. The question then becomes who or what is the word.

Mr Buzzard questions the preexistence of the son of God. He thinks the Word being spoken about is not a pre-human Jesus called the Word. I'll leave that for others to answer. However, as far as I know, Mr. Buzzard does not disagree with the eternity of the Word, but rather only the personhood of the Word. At least that is the way I see it.

Freeman

26

Jw's go to the door of a biblical scholar to preach the Bible.

by paradisebeauty in

this is interesting, jw's go to the door of a biblical scholar, a professor in theology i believe, and he invites them in and records the whole conversation.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xpo43bgdbm.

freeman

Hi VI,

Perhaps I'm not explaining it clearly so I will try again.

In the Greek construct of the sentence, not the English construct, the Word already existed BEFORE the beginning.

I'm not sure if the Greek fonts will post correctly but let me try In Greek:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος

Or transliterated making it easier to read in English it reads:

En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos.

In the first part which is often called the (a) clause ending at the the word “logos” means he (the logos) is already existing with no beginning, no starting point. That eliminates the Word from being part of the creation, and therefor the Arian position bites the dust in the very first clause of John 1:1, yes it's that simple.

Now I am NOT talking about a particular or private belief that I may hold, I am trying to explain that in Koine or common Greek, the form of Greek John 1:1 is written in, it says the Word already existed ( ēn ho Lógos was i.e. past tense) even before time began (En archē).

No there is no ambiguity, there is no having a different point of view on this, the Greek is the Greek, this is science, yes it's that precise, Koine Greek follows strict rules and according to the Greek, the Word always existed, even before time started.

And speaking of science, as an aside, isn't it interesting that in the very same sentence (first part of John 1:1) it says that time itself had a definite starting point. Who knew that the Bible espouses one of the key elements of the Big Bang Theory. Very cool!

Not sure if I made it any clearer but I gave it my best shot.

Freeman

26

Jw's go to the door of a biblical scholar to preach the Bible.

by paradisebeauty in

this is interesting, jw's go to the door of a biblical scholar, a professor in theology i believe, and he invites them in and records the whole conversation.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xpo43bgdbm.

freeman

The JW couple reminds me of myself many years ago, zealous and clueless and thinking they really knew something. Then, directly walking into a theological mine field.

The embarrassingly shallow scholarship of the Dark Tower is on full display. I know this man's work, and I can tell you he could have beat them up a lot more then he did, but as I said he is a pretty nice guy. Of course he did have a bit of fun with them, didn't he. So glad he shared the recording :-)

Freeman

26

Jw's go to the door of a biblical scholar to preach the Bible.

by paradisebeauty in

this is interesting, jw's go to the door of a biblical scholar, a professor in theology i believe, and he invites them in and records the whole conversation.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xpo43bgdbm.

freeman

I love this video.

Sir Anthony Buzzard is indeed the real thing, that is to say a genuine scholar. By all measures he appears to be the the real thing in his life, a caring person trying to do good, walking the walk as they say.

That said, he is also a man that is gravely ill, he was infected with a dreadful disease some time ago and it plagues him to this very day. The disease he suffers from is Adventist syndrome.

Yes he is steeped in the very same traditions and thought patterns of Charles Taz Russel. If I remember correctly he is a product of Adventist offshoot Herbert W. Armstrong. As an aside, Armstrong is so similar to the jws on a number of issues that many JWs mistakenly think he was a JW at one time, he wasn't but has his roots in the same Adventist / Christadelphian (sp) movement as Russel.

I myself was a zealous anti Trinitarian at one time, I would hunt down born-again type people and pride myself in being able to twist them into pretzels.

However, I am not now in that camp, and for the simple reason that in trying to disprove the trinity from a Biblical Greek-centric basis I remarkably discovered the enemy was correct. The Bible does in fact teach all if not most the elements supporting for lack of a better phrase, the trinity.

Greek is a precise language, unlike English there is no ambiguity. It took me 4 and ½ years to learn the rudiments of Koine Greek which NT scripture and the OT (Lxx) is written in and I was forced to completely do an about face and admit I was completely wrong. When you read it in the Greek, and you are willing to let the language speak for itself without injecting your own leanings and prejudices such as Anthony Buzzard does, you come away with a number of interesting things that bolster the trinitarian position.

Here are just 2 of the gems you uncover when you look at it with fresh eyes as I did for the first time:

There are at least two persons that existed before time even began. John 1:1

In the beginning the Word was. In the Greek en arche en ho logos it is saying that before time began, already existing was the Word. Never mind the God, “a god” nonsense of the witnesses, the Word who they openly acknowledge is the pre-human Jesus, has no beginning, lives in eternity, before time even began. So much for Michael the archangel a creation with a beginning.

Another gem is found in Titus 2:13 where Jesus is called our great God and Savior. Again the Greek is very clear Jesus is call our Great God “megalou theou” and it also says he is our Savior.

Once again in 2 Peter 1:1 it is even stronger support of the so-called trinitarian position. It says: God of us and Saviour of us Jesus Christ ( theou hemon kai soteros hemon iesou christou ) Again the Greek language is very precise, the construct of the two nouns, the first which has a form of the definite article with the copulative kai between them and then the lack of the definite article before the second noun in question and all sharing the same case ( genitive / masculine ) and being singular all point to the to the same referent, namely that Jesus is the God of us and the Savior of us.

Again I'm not saying you have to believe in God or Jesus, that is up to you.

I know for many the bible is nothing more then fairy-tales, and that's fine, but regardless of your beliefs or lack of in the bible, this is linguistic science we are dealing with, and this is precisely what the Greek says, of this I am absolutely sure.

Much to my amazement, my former foes had at least this correct according to what is written in scripture, and yes even the dreaded Catholic theologians got this right too, wow can't believe I just said that.

All that said, Anthony Buzzard is so invested in a Unitarian viewpoint at all costs that this sincere, bright and genuinely good man is incapable of letting his vastly superior training (compared to me for example) in Koine Greek override his cognitive dissonance and infection of Adventist syndrome.

But it can be done. I was able to shed myself of this affliction but I am so very very sad for him that despite he superior acumen in Greek, he is unable to let his training override his investment in a strongly held belief as I did.

Freeman

157

What Was The Silliest "Offense" That You Were Counseled For?

by minimus in

jw
friends

when i was a teenager, i was told by an elder that because i smiled a lot and was known for my good sense of humor, that i should come across as "more serious".

so before i was appointed a ms, while in my late teens, i transformed myself into a much more "serious" brother.. were you ever told that you needed to work on something that you knew was stoopid?.

freeman

I think I have posted my story before, but here it goes again as it seems to fit what you are asking for.

The Silliest offense that I committed and was counseled for was working too hard to provide for my family. Yes I missed some meetings and my field circus slacked off because I was busy taking care of my family, that was my high crime.

It was on the 4th of July weekend almost 30 years ago but I remember it like it was yesterday, because it literally became my Independence Day, the day I got off the WatchTower,Treadmill.

Long story short: out of the blue I was chosen by NASA to test and validate the security systems that protect what would become NASA's most valuable and high profile asset, the Hubble Space Telescope. At the time of my selection, my occupation was as a lowly TV / VCR repairman. I was in debt, and struggling to make a living.

Literally overnight I went from barely making a living to earning $50.00US per hr. plus all expenses paid. I should also note this is before I earned even my first college degree. In fact I had to be granted wavers because I did not even minimally qualify for this position academically.

I can't over emphasize how life-changing this was for me and my family or how much faith NASA put into my assessment of their systems. NASA could not launch the Hubble until the security shortfalls I uncovered were fully resolved, and my testimony before the Inspector General became part of the Congressional Record. It really was a big deal! Incredible is it not?

But I digress, I am forever greatly indebted to my (catholic) parents who so strongly instilled in me by their wonderful example that family comes first and foremost and that anyone or anything that prevents you from taking care of your family is not good, is not to be followed, and is certainly not from God.

I am also indebted to a lesser extent to those two elders that pulled me aside in the back room of the Kingdom Hall at 1647 Heckscher Ave. Bay Shore NY 11950 on Sunday July 5th 1987 and said in no uncertain terms “Kenneth, you have to make a choice between NASA and Jehovah's Kingdom”.

Well Kenneth made his choice that very day, and continued to work for NASA for some years on many projects. In reality, It wasn't a choice between NASA or Jehovah, that's a false dichotomy, but it was a choice to continue to do the will of an evil cult and neglect my families needs or do the correct thing and care for my family.

To my atheists and agnostic friends, and they are many, while I respect your views having my own serious bouts of doubt along the way, it is because of what happened to me, first hand, directly, and not something I read in a book written by nomadic sheep herders and tent makers, but was something that to this day I am at a loss for words to explain. All I can say is that tt shook me to my very core, and I believe I experienced the very thing that the character Dr. Arroway (played by Jodie Foster) experienced in the movie Contact. But this was not a movie, this was real.

Yes even now at 60 years of age, being a trained scientist and engineer, convinced beyond all doubt of the fact of biological evolution, the great age of the universe and the earth, and the plethora of seemingly contradictory things that should logically put me in the atheist or at least agnostic camp. I however can never truly join your ranks, for I have had the red sea parted before me, I experienced something that just does not happen, and it can't be explained logically, but it was real. It was life-changing to say the least.

I absolutely believe that I was rescued by nothing less then the hand of God from this cult.

Freeman

8

Will Vincent Toole speak the truth to the Royal commission?

by Splash in

vincent toole has a history of stating blatant untruths in order to protect the wt.. he is recorded as once saying that shunning was "a myth".. i wonder how linguistically pedantic will he get, and how much double-speak will he employ in order to defend the current wt policies.

my guess is he will try to twist the senior counsel in knots with wordy responses, in the hope they will simply run out of time.. if this fails then i'm expecting some howlers of deception..

freeman

Vincent Toole is a Tool of the watchtower. He is a lawyer (solicitor) working for the Watch Tower, in fact your donations helped pay for his law degree, thank you very much. He was an elder / overseer and very loyal to the governing body and then they decided to make him a lawyer (solicitor) and use him to defend the Watchtower. He is featured in the In the Feb 1 2004 Watchtower article “ How You Can Satisfy Your Spiritual Needs” as supposedly some worldly lawyer “Vincent” who was unsatisfied with life, just going through the motions until one day a knock on the door, and magically his life now has meaning because he found the truth he was searching for, God sent the witnesses to his door.

Not So Fast. Learn more about Vinny Toole and the Watchtoer Here

The Watchtower article is lying, he wasn't a worldly lawyer and Jehovah's Witnesses did not one day knock on his door, the truth is he was well established in the cult long before he ever became a lawyer (solicitor). He allowed the Watchtower to lie about him in an article, about the circumstances of how he became a JW, he lied as the Towers spokesmen when he told a reporter that “Jehovah's Witness don't shun, it's just a myth”.

SO Will Vincent Toole speak the truth to the Royal commission?

NO!
freeman

91

ABC's report on child abuse

by Joyzabel in

nice job!

freeman

She was just 9 years old, and they did nothing to protect her.

He was a known child molester and they did nothing, did not report him to the police, and did not warn anyone in the congregation. He molested his step daughter, then Candice, then his granddaughter.

A child was molested in my wife's congregation, it happened in an Elders house on Long Island NY. New York is supposed to be a mandatory reporting state. It was never reported, I asked an elder why, he said it was confidential and couldn't talk about it. The molester remains in my wife's congregation in good standing. It's disgusting! I have the show recorded on our dvr. I'm trying to get my wife to watch it.

What a brave woman she has become. What a wonderful thing she has done for so many others!

Freeman

36

AUGUST 1, 2007 - "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." - Barack Obama

by SixofNine in

august 1, 2007 - "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and president musharraf won't act, we will.

" - barack obamaremember how much flack he got for saying that?.

freeman

36

AUGUST 1, 2007 - "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." - Barack Obama

by SixofNine in

august 1, 2007 - "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and president musharraf won't act, we will.

" - barack obamaremember how much flack he got for saying that?.

freeman

11

house to house vs. in private homes

by DesirousOfChange in

does not matt 10 suggest that the household would not be those already in the faith?

"not deserving" or "does not take you in or listen".

matt 10:12-14 -- 12 when you are entering into the house, greet the household; 13 and if the house is deserving, let the peace you wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from you return upon you.

freeman

Just to add my two cents:

You will note the demarcation within the sentence in verse 20 i.e.

Publicly AND from House to House. The word AND in this sentence is the line of demarcation.

Within this structure, “publicly” is being contrasted, separated, or distinguished from House to House.

The JW’s define their door-to-door work as their PUBLIC ministry. Within the context of Acts: 20:20, House to House is not PUBLIC, hence it is private and quite different then the door-to-door preaching.

From the Bible in Basic English translation:

“And how I kept back nothing which might be of profit to you, teaching you publicly and privately,”

Freeman