Posts by Disillusioned JW

19

Teachings "Unique to JW's" They Hide From You Before Baptism

by Sea Breeze in

jehovah can't be your father in this life.

'they [jw members] address him prospectively as "our father.

jesus is not your mediator:.

Disillusioned JW

When I got baptized (as an underage teenager) I knew that the WT claimed I was not going to heaven and that I would thus not be ruling with Christ and that according to the WT I was not to partake of the unleavened bread and of the wine. I don't know if during my early years as a baptized JW I thought Christ was my mediator or not, though I knew the NT says he was of those who go to heaven. [At some point as an adult I did think he was my mediator and I later was shocked when I read in the WT periodical/magazine that he is not the mediator of those who don't have the hope of going to heaven.] As a teenager I knew a number of doctrines (no Trinity, Jesus is not God in the usual sense, no hellfire torment, no inherently immortal human soul, future paradise earth, God has a personal name - namely Jehovah [later I realized the Hebrew OT says his name is YHWH/Yahweh] and he wants it to be proclaimed extensively, there will be a great tribulation and a battle of Armageddon, etc) and as a result I talked to people about the doctrines when I went door to door and I gave talks in the congregation about various doctrines. I had a good knowledge and understanding of what the "Truth" book taught - it was my main Bible study book before I got baptized as a JW. I would thus be shocked if JWs today know hardly any of the JW doctrines. However when I was pre-teenager and when I was a teenage JW (and even many years later) I did not comprehend the Babylon the Great book and the "Then is Finished the Mystery of God" book and some of the other in depth ("dense") WT books, and I had no interest at all in reading them (and I never acquired much of an interest in those books). I read them while in the congregational book study meetings because I thought I had to, but I rarely managed to force myself to study them in preparation for the meetings. In the late 1990s I found it a huge drag (very boring) to have to study the United in Worship book and some other doctrinal books in use at the time. The whole time as a JW (before and after baptism) I disliked attending the KH meetings (except when a few certain topics were discussed), but I attended them because I thought the Bible required me to do so.

15

Do We Get A Clean Slate When We Die? (Watchtower View Examined)

by Sea Breeze in

the watchtower teaches that the opportunity to be born again and enjoy complete justification with god ended in 1935, having been limited to only 144k since pentecost.

so, it is very surprising that the watchtower embraces the death that is described in romans chapter 6, since this is the very death that is required to be born again…… which is denied to watchtower members!

romans chapter 6, verse 7 is about saying goodbye to the old personality, the “old man” in the king james version.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, that is a great post you made. It does show that according to the Bible's NT the literal bodily death of a sinning human does not atone for sins (or pay for sins or acquit one of sins). Furthermore at least some portions of the Bible's OT written after Jews began believing in a resurrection from the dead also teach that. For example, even Daniel 12:1 - 2 (which teaches the doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous) indicates, according to the Bible, death by a sinner does not pay for the sins of the sinner. I say that because verse 2 (NWT, 1950 and 1984) says the unrighteous that are resurrected are subject to "... reproaches [and] to indefinitely lasting abhorrence." In harmony with my idea regarding Daniel 12: 1- 2, the study note (commentary) in the NASB edition of the "Life Application Study Bible" - "Updated Edition" (2000) says regarding Dan. 12:2 that "This is a clear reference to the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, although the eternal fates of each will be quit different. ..." The NWT rendering of “acquitted” in Romans 6:7 seems incorrect to me. Thanks for drawing attention to that matter.

You make a good point about what defines whether a person is really a Christian or not. Since the vast majority of the JWs don't believe they have a new covenant relationship with Jesus Christ and since the JW/WT religion teaches that only a literal 144,000 of Christians (with dead ones included in that number) are in the new covenant relationship, then it can be logically argued that JWs are not really Christians. All the time I was a believing JW I thought I was a Christian, but maybe I was wrong to think I was a Christian back then. But, for three years after I completely stopped thinking of myself as a JW, I thought of myself as an independent minded Christian. During those 3 years I conducted my own Lord's Evening Meal (Memorial) service privately by myself. In that service I partook of Jewish passover bread and unfermented homemade red grape juice. [Note: the Bible doesn't specifically say Jesus used wine, it says he used the "fruit of the vine" instead (for example see Mark 14:24 in the NASB), and because I don't want to consume alcohol I have very rarely ever drank an alcoholic beverage.] I partook because I had come believe that according to the Bible all devout Christians are to obey Jesus in partaking of the bread and "fruit of the vine". I made my homemade grape juice by squeezing the juice out of fresh grapes.

However, even as an independent Christian I accepted much of the liberal higher criticism of the Bible and I saw many problems with the Bible (including numerous contradictions); and shortly after an atheist ex-Christian informed me that the geological fossil record conflicts with Genesis chapter one's creation account (even as interpreted by day age old Earth creationism) and with the biblical idea of a world wide flood, I ceased being a Christian and became a nontheist and metaphysical naturalist. A year after that I became an outright atheist (being convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that not even a deistic god exists, due to learning what scientist Steven Hawking said proves no god existed to start the big bang - or at least that none was needed to start the big bang).

Bobcat, you are right in saying the NWT Bibles from before the 2013 Revision include brackets (except that the "2006 Printing" edition also excludes all single brackets, but includes some doubled brackets) in some verses. That is also the case regarding the handling of the word "his" in Romans 6:7, except the original NWT (the one in the individual "Christian Greek Scriptures" volume from 1950) and also in the volume revised in 1951) of Romans 6:7 has no brackets around the word "his".

19

Ministry school

by road to nowhere in

what is the purpose?

the skits are not real.

i have been assigned a reading again.

Disillusioned JW

What was the last year and month of the Theocratic Ministry School? [Note: I stopped attending meetings (other than a small number of exceptions) of the JWs more than 15 years ago.] Has the "Our Kingdom Ministry" also been discontinued (and/or replaced with something else), and if so, when?

I've read that the congregational book studies are now called congregational Bible studies and that they are now held at the KHs instead of in people's home. Besides the name change and the location change of those studies, has the format of the studies changed, and if so, in what ways?

22

First 3 Presidents never knew JC began his reign as King in 1914 ?

by smiddy3 in

the first 3 presidents of the i.b.s.a ./ jehovah`s witnesses / wtb&ts.. w.h.conley ,c.t.russell ,j.f.rutherford .. how many jehovah`s witnesses know that ?

how many ex jehovah`s witnesses knew that ?

the wt society teaches that jesus returned to begin his "invisible presence" in 1914 directing his attention toward the earth as ruling king.

Disillusioned JW

Page 336 is the first page of the last chapter of the "Religion" book; the chapter is called "END OF RELIGION". WWII had begun in Europe by 1940 and page 337 of the book says "The earthly leaders and the blinded people march to Armageddon." Page 348 says ' "The battle of that great day of God Almighty" will forever put AN END TO RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS PERSECUTORS.' Page 359 says 'The "day of Jehovah" began in 1914, when Christ Jesus was enthroned; but, with reference to the anointed, more particularly from 1918, when the Lord Jesus came to the temple. Since, "the day of the Lord Jesus Christ" begins to overlap the day of Jehovah.' Hey, does that last sentence foreshadow the principle of the WT's much later teaching of overlapping generations?

22

First 3 Presidents never knew JC began his reign as King in 1914 ?

by smiddy3 in

the first 3 presidents of the i.b.s.a ./ jehovah`s witnesses / wtb&ts.. w.h.conley ,c.t.russell ,j.f.rutherford .. how many jehovah`s witnesses know that ?

how many ex jehovah`s witnesses knew that ?

the wt society teaches that jesus returned to begin his "invisible presence" in 1914 directing his attention toward the earth as ruling king.

Disillusioned JW

17

The Genesis account again proved WRONG

by opusdei1972 in

according to the watchtower's insight encyclopedia : .

the catastrophic destruction of men and animals by an overwhelming flood in the days of noah, 2370 b.c.e.

this greatest cataclysm in all human history was sent by jehovah because wicked men had filled the earth with violence.

Disillusioned JW

I found Christian books (including Old Bibles in their study helps) published before carbon dating and other radiometric dating were invented, in which the books gave a date of earlier than 2370 B.C.E. (B.C.) for some aspect of Egyptian civilization. As result, even before radiometric dating scholars knew some aspect of Egyptian civilization (such a particular kingdom or dynasty, I think) existed before 2370 B.C.E.

25

Jehovah Witness cult is Anti-christ.... proof seen in the use of BCE/CE instead of AD/BC

by goingthruthemotions in

so being around this cult, i always found it interesting that the rest of christianity use ad/bc and the non christians use bce/ce.

i never put two and two together.

but, it dawned on me that once again there is hidden proof that the witness cult is and anti-christ cult.

Disillusioned JW

WT literature was still using B.C./A.D. at least until the year 1958, instead of B.C.E./C.E. For example see the following.

Page 199 of Rutherford's book called "Enemies" (copyright 1937) says "year 1848 (A.D.)". For another example, see Rutherford's book called "Religion", copyright 1940. Page 336 of that book says "In the year 1914 (A.D.) Christ Jesus, the King, was enthroned." The WT book called "Theocratic Aid to Kingdom Publishers" (copyright 1945) says A.D. twice on page 326 and four times on page 327. The WT book called ' "Equipped for Every Good Work" ' (copyright 1946) says B.C. and A.D. multiple times. The WT book called "What Has Religion Done for Mankind? (copyright 1951) on page 299 says "607 B.C." and "A.D. 1914". The WT book called "Qualified to be Ministers (the edition copyright 1955) says B.C. twice on page 126 and it says A.D. on page 290. The WT book called "From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained" (copyright 1958) on page 102 says "In 620 B.C. ..." and page 130 says "in the autumn of A.D. 29 ...." The NWT revision of 1961 (Second Printing) on the title page says "--Revised A. D. 1961--'. Page 1459 says B.C.E. and page 1460 says "B.C.E. and A.D." It surprising that while that Bible edition says B.C.E., it says A.D. instead of C.E. The page in the back of the 1961 NWT which lists the availability of the 5 Hebrew Scriptures volumes and the Christian Greek Scriptures volumes also say A.D. in reference to the release date of each of those volumes; and volume 5 of the Hebrew volumes was released in 1960.

Note in the above examples, uses of B.C. and A.D. might be on other pages besides the ones I mentioned above, I merely scanned the books quickly to see a usage of B.C./A.D. versus B.C.E./C.E.

In contrast the pocket size edition of the the WT book called ' "Things in Which it is Impossible for God to Lie" ' (copyright 1965) says on the bottom of page 3 the following: 'DATING: In dating, the abbreviation B.C.E. stands for "Before Our Common Era," and C.E. stands for "Of Our Common Era." ...." B.C.E. and A.D. appear also on other pages of that book. Likewise the First Edition (pocket size edition) of the WT's "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" book (copyright 1966) has the same message about dating as the book from 1965.

Thus it seems that the WT literature didn't begin saying B.C.E./C.E. until around the years 1961 - 1965. I never found any reason stated in the WT for why they switched to the other terminology. But I have a guess as to why.

When the B.C./A.D. system was created it was based upon the belief that Jesus was born on Dec. 25th of the year 1 B.C. and thus that the first year of his human life ended in A.D. 1 (A.D. meaning "in the year of the Lord" in Latin), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini. But modern scholars believe that Jesus was born before the year 1 B.C. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_birth_of_Jesus which says that most theologians and most scholars "accept a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC" for Jesus), and the WT also says that Jesus was born before the year 1 B.C. The WT's book called "Aid to Bible Understanding" - "1971 Edition" says on page 920 in the article called "Jesus Christ" that "Jesus evidently was born in the month of Ethanim (September-October) of the year 2 B.C.E. ...." Page 56 of Vol. 2 of the Insight book says that also.

Thus, it is a misnomer to use the terms B.C. and A.D. if you believe Jesus was born prior to the year 1 B.C. Saying Jesus Christ was born in the year 2 B.C. is literally saying "Jesus Christ was born in the year 2 Before Christ" - a contradiction. I think that is the likely reason why the WT switched to the newer terminology. It fits with their claim of abandoning false doctrines/teachings and false practices (especially those of what the WT labels as Christendom).

5

Does using BCE/CE draw attention away from Jesus? AFA similarity with WTS

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

i have never known the watchtower bible & tract society to use ad or bc, they have always maintained the bce and ce dating system.. i never thought about questioning it either, as it was no big deal.

however, i found one of the afa's latest news quite interesting... (american family association) is there a connection between the article below and the wts use of the bce/ce system?

is this evidence that indicates the wts is drawing attention away from jesus?.

Disillusioned JW

WT literature was still using B.C./A.D. at least until the year 1958, instead of B.C.E./C.E. For example see the following.

Page 199 of Rutherford's book called "Enemies" (copyright 1937) says "year 1848 (A.D.)". For another example, see Rutherford's book called "Religion", copyright 1940. Page 336 of that book says "In the year 1914 (A.D.) Christ Jesus, the King, was enthroned." The WT book called "Theocratic Aid to Kingdom Publishers" (copyright 1945) says A.D. twice on page 326 and four times on page 327. The WT book called ' "Equipped for Every Good Work" ' (copyright 1946) says B.C. and A.D. multiple times. The WT book called "What Has Religion Done for Mankind? (copyright 1951) on page 299 says "607 B.C." and "A.D. 1914". The WT book called "Qualified to be Ministers (the edition copyright 1955) says B.C. twice on page 126 and it says A.D. on page 290. The WT book called "From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained" (copyright 1958) on page 102 says "In 620 B.C. ..." and page 130 says "in the autumn of A.D. 29 ...." The NWT revision of 1961 (Second Printing) on the title page says "--Revised A. D. 1961--'. Page 1459 says B.C.E. and page1460 say "B.C.E. and A.D." It surprising that while that Bible edition says B.C.E., it says A.D. instead of C.E. The page in the back of the 1961 NWT which lists the availability of the 5 Hebrew Scriptures volumes and the Christian Greek Scriptures volumes also say A.D. in reference to the release date of each of those volumes; and volume 5 of the Hebrew volumes was released in 1960.

Note in the above examples, uses of B.C. and A.D. might be on other pages besides the ones I mentioned above, I merely scanned the books quickly to see a usage of B.C./A.D. versus B.C.E./C.E.

In contrast the pocket size edition of the the WT book called ' "Things in Which it is Impossible for God to Lie" ' (copyright 1965) says on the bottom of page 3 the following: 'DATING: In dating, the abbreviation B.C.E. stands for "Before Our Common Era," and C.E. stands for "Of Our Common Era." ...." B.C.E. and A.D. appear also on other pages of that book. Likewise the First Edition (pocket size edition) of the WT's "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" book (copyright 1966) has the same message about dating as the book from 1965.

Thus it seems that the WT literature didn't begin saying B.C.E./C.E. until around the years 1961 - 1965. I never found any reason stated in the WT for why they switched to the other terminology. But I have a guess as to why.

When the B.C./A.D. system was created it was based upon the belief that Jesus was born on Dec. 25th of the year 1 B.C. and thus that the first year of his human life ended in A.D. 1 (A.D. meaning "in the year of the Lord" in Latin), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini. But modern scholars believe that Jesus was born before the year 1 B.C. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_birth_of_Jesus which says that most theologians and most scholars "accept a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC" for Jesus), and the WT also says that Jesus was born before the year 1 B.C. The WT's book called "Aid to Bible Understanding" - "1971 Edition" says on page 920 in the article called "Jesus Christ" that "Jesus evidently was born in the month of Ethanim (September-October) of the year 2 B.C.E. ...." Page 56 of Vol. 2 of the Insight book says that also.

Thus, it is a misnomer to use the terms B.C. and A.D. if you believe Jesus was born prior to the year 1 B.C. Saying Jesus Christ was born in the year 2 B.C. is literally saying "Jesus Christ was born in the year 2 Before Christ" - a contradiction. I think that is the likely reason why the WT switched to the newer terminology. It fits with their claim of abandoning false doctrines/teachings and false practices (especially those of what the WT labels as Christendom).

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

Disillusioned JW

I searched online for a reference of Reverend Liesalot for a couple of minutes before I realized that "Liesalot" is not an actual name but simply was a descriptive joke for "lies a lot". Very funny. However, while I think that the WT probably learns of many quotes of scientists by reading 'creation scientist' (and intelligent design) literature, I think that the WT follows up on the matter by going to the source of each of the quotes for confirmation.

For example, since the JWs/WT refused to send to me a bibliography for science sources in the Creator book, I asked a friend of mine (who never was a JW) to write to the JWs/WT for me, asking for the bibliography. Ultimately they sent to him the sources for 5 of the quotes (the ones I told my friend that I especially wanted). They did so not by sending citations, but by sending photocopies of the entire page (plus the title page and the copyright page) of each of the five quotes (from the scientific publications, not from creationist literature) - with the quoted words highlighted with a marker. My friend then forwarded those to me.

30

Quoting out of context - ever justified?

by cognisonance in

jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.

sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.

carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .

Disillusioned JW

In my prior post where I said "As a read ..." I should have said "As I read ...".