Posts by JCanon

65

Feb 15th Watchtower Study Edition - NEW LIGHT - Article in PDF

by AlphaOmega in

the generation seeing the sign .

' previously, this journal has explained that in the first century, "this generation" mentioned at matthew 24:34 meant "the contemporaneous generation of unbelieving jews.

not the whole magazine, but this is the new light article.. .

JCanon

ROFL!!! Fuunnnny!

Thanks!

JCanon

25

Why Solomon gets into bible/resurrection??? =Biggest Apostate ever???

by Witness 007 in

solomon the greatest apostate of all time,worshiped false god's with his wives and basically sinned against the holy spirit, the un-forgivable sin...so why did his books make it into the bible?...why was he called "the wisest man alive' when he stuffed up so badly?

why do witnesses say he still gets a ressurection even though there is no evidence to support this?

JCanon

What you left out of your last post was ALL the surrounding texts in SOS chapter 4 and 7 that CANNOT be applied to the false persian God. You only picked one verse out of the entire text that COULD be applied the way you say. And for me, having read all the surrounding verses, it is clear the writer is speaking figuratively about a women and about sexual relations with a women. Can't have sex with a God made of stone can you? (of course, stranger things have happened)

My interpretation of SOS is that it deals with the cultic aspects of several aspects and versions of the Mother Goddess, not just Artemis of Ephsus. For instance, in some places it says she has just two large breasts. One verse says her naval is like a bowl. I found a Canaanite goddess that indeed had a naval like a bowl. So these are the various cultic expressions of the Mother Goddess in all her forms. That also includes walls with battlements, which is the WTS representation of the Mother Goddess as the "Tower Goddess."

So it is not just one specific goddess, but many of them and all through the centuries. It's just that the goddess with goats in her hair and with "breasts like date clusters" is very obvious.

You want it to be poetic and sexual but women usually only have two breasts, not multiple breasts. Furthermore, in what allegorical compliment can you imagine a woman's hair being described as like goats hopping down from a mountain? Yet this is clearly understood when you look at the later versions of Artemis of Ephesus. So yes, it is talking about a beautiful woman, but the Mother Goddess, who represents Satan has always had the concept of being especially beautiful. Like Venus.

So indeed, some of the descriptions may be general and might fit some earlier goddesses around during Solomon's time but the references to the latter goddess forms from the 6th century proves the book wasn't written by Solomon who was from the late 10th and early 9th century BCE.

9 “If she should be a wall, we shall build upon her a battlement of silver; but if she should be a door, we shall block her up with a cedar plank.”
10 “I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers.

The goddess represented herself also in architecture. If a wall, her walls would have battlements which were considered her breasts. Also towers were considered her breasts. Towers and walls with battlements?

Watchtower imagery includes a tower with battlements and a wall with battlements. The symbolic connection with the "Tower Goddess" is not a mistake.

Song of Solomon is a pagan cultic book that passes for Jewish poetry written by Solomon.

JCanon

5

Acts 15. What is meant by Fornication

by Steve J in

at atcs 15 we find the familir decision of the jerusalem elders;.

keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.. i have always thought that fornication, or sexual imorality was a strage thing for the elders to come up with here, when they were obviously talking about issues surrounding worshiping "false gods.

could it be that the greek word porneiahas been misinterpreted here and actually refers to religious fornication in the same sense as found at rev:14,8 17:2,4 18:3 and 19:2, where the great harlot commits fornication?

JCanon

If one would not buy a car without a test drive, why then would anyone commit to a spouse without giving it a trial run beforehand, where there is no recourse if it turns out to be a lemon or is unsuitable for your needs? That makes absolutely no sense.

Interesting, but I see a flaw in your reasoning. This might work out well for men, but not for women? Why? Because a woman is only a virgin once. Secondly, let's say you're on your test drive with a virgin and turns out she's not the one for you. She's no longer a virgin now plus she's now pregnant with your twins...

So the way it is supposed to work is that you date that person for a while first, find out if you're compatible emotionally, socially, financially, whatever. And then hope for the best in the sack when YOU TWO VIRGINS experience sex unique to yourselves since neither of you have ever had sex before so wouldn't know what you were missing or getting extra anyway. Of course, you two could include as part of the chaperoned dating a visit to the local "art house" where you can check out a flick on sex instruction just to see what other couples haven't thought of yet.

JCanon

25

Why Solomon gets into bible/resurrection??? =Biggest Apostate ever???

by Witness 007 in

solomon the greatest apostate of all time,worshiped false god's with his wives and basically sinned against the holy spirit, the un-forgivable sin...so why did his books make it into the bible?...why was he called "the wisest man alive' when he stuffed up so badly?

why do witnesses say he still gets a ressurection even though there is no evidence to support this?

JCanon

For the record, the above statement is incorrect and revisionist. While the authorship has been questioned, the book itself (Ecclesiastes) identifies Solomon as author. The authorship of Song of Songs has also been debated, but is generally agreed to have been written by Solomon, some Bibles even calling it Song of Solomon.
BA- Setting the record straight.

Hi, Brother Apostate:

From the "Insight Volume" on "Apocrypha" page 121:

Additional ancient testimony. One of the chief external evidences against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the fact that none of the Christian Bible writers quoted from these books. While this of itself is not conclusive, inasmuch as their writings are also lacking in quotations from a few books recognized as canonical, such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon, yet the fact that not one of the writings of the Apocrypha is quoted even once is certainly significant.

Esther is dismissed historically because the original version of the book, which is the LXX version has her married to Artaxerxes instead of Ahasuerus, who the WTS and others consider to be Xerxes. So even if some think the Hebrew version of Esther works out historically, the LXX version can't be considered inspired, obviously. So Esther is out.

Song of Solomon: Song of Solomon describes a 5th-century version of Artemis, long after Solomon was dead. It doesn't matter if someone else called "Solomon" claimed to write any of these books:

SOS 7: 7 "This stature of yours does resemble a palm tree, and your breasts, date clusters."
SOS 4:1 "Your hair is like a drove of goats that have hopped down from the mountainous region of Gil´e·ad."

Now what woman do you know who has breasts like DATE CLUSTERS and whose hair has goats in it that look like they are jumping down from a mountain? ??? What could it even mean symbolically? Fact is, this is just describing Artemis of Ephesus when one form of the goddess did look like she had goats in her hair:

Above is the version of Artemis being specifically described in Song of Solomon. A woman with breasts like date clusters and goats in her hair that look like they are jumping down from a mountain. But this is a later version of the goodess. There is no significance whatsoever to goats in any woman's hair, it's just how it looks when the original version of the goddess which simply depicted goats around her head was adapted. Notice how below the goats are just in a nimbus behind her head.

alt

The adaptation of the image of the goddess is loosely based upon her image as a date palm laden with dates:

alt

So not only is this just a poetic pagan book honoring the Mother Goddess, Artemis, the descriptions in SOS of the various forms of the goddess throughout time include forms of the goddess that did not even develop until much later, long after Solomon. So DEFINITELY NOT.

Maybe it's a play on the name of Solomon since he was known to finally worship various forms of the Mother Goddess that a poetic ode to the Mother Goddess appropriately comes from Solomon. Only Solomon himself didn't actually write it, obviously, he never seeing the later forms of Artemis.

ECCLESIASTES: Ecclesiastes has its detractors, some noticing that God's name is not mentioned and that it is a very negative book. But basically, with the clear dismissal of Esther and SOS as non-inpired and their not being cross-quoted from by the NT Bible writers, Ecclesiates gets excluded as well. If the NT Bible writers purposefully cross-quoted from all the books they considered to be sacred, and excluded all books they did not, then it does establish it's own internal canon. If we make that presumption then Ecclesiates is excluded along with Esther and SOS. It doesn't matter if there is good advice in the book, there are lots of apocryphal writings and books from the "Wisdom Period" that were not considered "inspired".

JCanon

17

Sharing the 'real' truth by commenting at meetings

by skeeder in

having recently gotten my commenting 'privleges' back i try to sow seeds of truth with them.. here are two tidbits i have shared:.

1----- the bible highlights-------when the older men judged legal cases, they did it at the city gates where the proceedings could be observed.. 2-----wt study yesterday-----the world was judged wicked and noah was judged righteous---he was a 'preacher of righteousness' before he started on the ark.

there is no indication that god ever intended for anyone else other than noah and his family to get on the ark.

JCanon

There is no doubt in my mind that this all goes over the head of almost everyone in attendance but-------------------------What if it causes ONE person to think?

Hi Skeeder. I loved this! But BE CAREFUL. Now, more than ever the WTS is watching out for the free thinkers. They already mandated that brothers don't get together to discuss issues without their permission. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this wasn't a general plan to clamp down on and weed out those who clearly are just going along but who consider the WTS as not fully representing the Bible or are not the spirit-directed FDS-god they make themselves out to be. So they will spot anybody who comments in a way to cause free thinking. You will stick out like a sore thumb.

I will share this from my own experience with something even less benign. But it taught me a lesson about the true nature of the WTS and the consequences of simply checking up behind them. Many many years ago there was a Watchtower study article that was talking about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt. I think the way the WTS mentioned it, they ended up saying he rode in on a she-ass. It was just a technical error. Being ME, reading between every line, I noticed the error. So I wrote the WTS about it. They sent me a letter back, acknowledging the error and instructed me to 'CORRECT YOUR OWN PERSONAL COPY." Oops! I got that message! I got the idea they were not that happy about it but also were not in the least bit interested in correcting it. I shared it with my book study conductor who likewise had a negative attitude about it. Obviously they didn't like it that I had seen this error maybe, and they hadn't, and were not happy I was sharing my letter with others to correct their personal copies. So by doing something correct, trying to correct an error someone else made, I paid the penalty. So even though I was perfectly correct, after you do something like that, it's like you're marked.

IT'S HARD TO KEEP A STRAIGHT FACE: I know the temptation, however. I'm disfellowshipped right now. I dissociated years ago, but then moved to an area where people didn't know me. So, of course, the witnesses come by. I usually accept some literature and smile. But of course, if you talk too much, they will ask, "Have you ever studied with JWs?" or something. I didn't want to lie. Plus they can tell an APOSTATE from a mile away. Still I wanted to have some fun. So when a young adult brother came by, probably a ministerial servant or a pioneer, I took the risk and pretended I was curious about something and what did he think? Knowing full well, of course, that in the process of his inquiry he'd end up seeing the "discrepancy." But it was basic. It wasn't much, just the question as to how it could be that Jesus was impaled at the "third hour" and yet his trial was at the "sixth hour". How did that work? [I'm even now ROLF!!!! when I think about it.] You know, I did my best acting, wondering if Jehovah's witnesses had an "answer" to this question that was bothering me? I'll spare you the details. The point is, though, it was pins and needles because I realized it was too hard to express too much Bible knowledge and be effective in a doctrinal challenge to the WTS and not be spotted immediately as an APOSTATE. So as fun as it was, it was difficult. And as I noted, once you do make some people think and you cause a disruption, you'll be MARKED for sure.

But seeing as you probably can't resist, there is one other thing you can bring up and pretend it's JUST A QUESTION: Just ask an elder or bring it up at the meeting as to "Where did the Jews come from who were deported in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar?" (Jer. 52:30) JWs need to have the land completely desolated by month 7 of 607 BCE for the 70 years to be fulfilled. But there was a 23rd year deportation, so, where did these people come from? It's not even important that YOU know. The fun is they will have to research it and as they do, they will realize there were still people in the land up through the 23rd year. That means the 70 years and 607 BCE can't be right. It will get them to think. And if you don't know the answer then maybe they won't think you're such an "apostate." Be prepared to ACCEPT any answer they bloww you off with without arguing your point. You would have done the damage once you ask the question.

Have FUN! But free thinkers and people asking questions that don't have answers are going to be marked and weeded out. The WTS knows people like you/us are in the congregations now. They are closing the ranks between the "true witnesses" and potential apostates.

:> Thanks for sharing.

JCanon

31

What did Jesus mean by "this generation"

by Fisherman in

what did jesus mean by "thisgeneration" ?.

34 truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.

in all 4 gospels, every time that jesus said "this generation" he was refering to his contemporaries, the people that lived in his time.

JCanon

What does "this generation" really mean?

People are asking the same questions, over and over. Even though the answers are provided, they still look in vain. They look but in vain they look for they cannot see it. It has been hidden from them.

The GENERATION refers to up to 80 years after the first sign. The first sign is "nation vs nation, kingdom vs kingdom" meaning a world war. That world war was WWI. So 1914 marks the beginning of that 80-year generation. The last sign is the second coming. Christ's arrival again back in the flesh. After all, it would be much of a second coming as a man until Christ appeared in the flesh again as a man, now would it? Even so, 1994 is the cutoff for that event.

Per precise an corrected Biblical chronology, the year of the second must occur sometime between November 30, 1992 and April 6, 1993. It has to happen then or the Bible isn't true. Of course, 1992-1993 is within the 1914-1994 generation. So essentially, all is well.

"Let he that has ears, listen.."

JCanon

31

What did Jesus mean by "this generation"

by Fisherman in

what did jesus mean by "thisgeneration" ?.

34 truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.

in all 4 gospels, every time that jesus said "this generation" he was refering to his contemporaries, the people that lived in his time.

JCanon

The end did not come in the first century though.

No, and few people understand what "end of the system of things" the Jews specifically had in mind, either. The "END" they had in mind was simply the "END of the gentile times" and "END of the appointed times of the nations." Thus the "END" actually occurred on November 30, 1947 when the Partition Agreement from the UN went into effect. Of note, by then, the "good news" preached by a special modern sect would have to have become an international organization by then. And it was. Even though just beginning in the mid 1800's, with the first SIS being published in 1886, the International Bible Students who adopted the name "Jehovah's witnesses" were an international sect by November 30, 1947. So Bible prophecy was fulfilled. The "good news" had been preached world wide "before the end" came. JCanon

25

Why Solomon gets into bible/resurrection??? =Biggest Apostate ever???

by Witness 007 in

solomon the greatest apostate of all time,worshiped false god's with his wives and basically sinned against the holy spirit, the un-forgivable sin...so why did his books make it into the bible?...why was he called "the wisest man alive' when he stuffed up so badly?

why do witnesses say he still gets a ressurection even though there is no evidence to support this?

JCanon

Hey, JC, while you are at it, study the symbolism in Revelation and then study the symbolism of Kabbalah. The entire bible ain't inspired.

Fascinating, I'm sure. Any particular comparison you have in mind?

I've been amazed at concepts found at Qumran regarding eschatological issues that are profoundly parallel to some of the esoteric stuff in the Bible. So I wouldn't be surprised! But you figure the Kabbalah being Jewish, some of those esoteric things may have always been there; they are hidden between the lines in the Bible but are more out front in the pagan occultic distortions.

It doesn't mean the Bible isn't inspired though. Just because a pagan cultic book mentions Adam and Eve doesn't mean they are myths.

JCanon

25

Why Solomon gets into bible/resurrection??? =Biggest Apostate ever???

by Witness 007 in

solomon the greatest apostate of all time,worshiped false god's with his wives and basically sinned against the holy spirit, the un-forgivable sin...so why did his books make it into the bible?...why was he called "the wisest man alive' when he stuffed up so badly?

why do witnesses say he still gets a ressurection even though there is no evidence to support this?

JCanon

During his faithful years, Solomon was given wisdom from above, and wrote Song of Songs, then Proverbs, then Ecclesiastes.

Solomon did not write Ecclesiastes and especially not Song of Solomon which has references to a pagan goddess Artemis image that didn't show up until the 6th Century BCE. Just for the record.

Three Bible books now in the canon that shouldn't be and that are not quoted from by the NT Bible Writers are: SOS, Ecclesiates and the Book of Esther. None of these books are inspired.

JCanon

31

What did Jesus mean by "this generation"

by Fisherman in

what did jesus mean by "thisgeneration" ?.

34 truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.

in all 4 gospels, every time that jesus said "this generation" he was refering to his contemporaries, the people that lived in his time.

JCanon

I agree that in the absence of the context of what was supposed to occur during "this generation" that it might have been presumed to be those of Jesus' generation. But two issues exist here:

1) "This generation" was to experience all the signs given, including the prophesied desolating of "Judea" a one-time event that was clearly prophesied to occur during the "end times." So, certainly no indication there that would occur during the immediate common generation of Jesus' time, say within the next 40-80 years.

2) The second thing is, whether if Jesus was making a crytic reference in relation to his earlier statement in Matthew where he says:

MATTHEW 16:28 " 28 Truly I say to YOU that there are some of those standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

The early Christians fell into two classes; those who would end up dying and needing a resurrection before the Lord's day and those who would actually "survive" down to the Lord's day over a 1900-year period. So TECHNICALLY some of those of Jesus' generation could say that they would not pass away until these things came. It's almost the same statement, since part of the signs included in "this generation" was the second coming.

John and Paul were two we know of who did not die throughout the ages before Christ arrived. At 1 Thess 4:15 we can clearly see Paul placing himself in the "surviving" group, those who would be not die until Christ came, but clearly enough in the past that all those not in this "living-surviving" group would be expected to have died out completely.

Note how Paul is answering a doctrinal issue with regard to the two distinct groups, which is if those who "survive" down to the Lord's day would receive their prize before those needing to be resurrected:

15 For this is what we tell YOU by Jehovah’s word, thatwe the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord.

This merely confirms that the first resurrection will occur first back into the flesh so that everyone anointed in Christ at the time of the second coming will all be in the flesh together for a period of time before they ALL, together get their heavenly bodies. Those no group will precede the other to their reward.

Just as a background note, per the Bible 1/10th of those of the Bride Class must be natural Jews and must comprise 12,000 from each tribe. The entire number 1,440,000. (See Isa 6:13)

13 And there will still be in it a tenth, and it must again become something for burning down, like a big tree and like a massive tree in which, when there is a cutting down [of them], there is a stump; a holy seed will be the stump of it.”

This means that 144K are natural Jews, 12,000 from each tribe and the other 90% are grafted in gentiles to the symbolic king-priest olive tree.

But there's a huge logistical problem here, obviously. How can you guarantee and fulfill that 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes will make up the root in later times over 1900 years later? Especially after the destruction of Jerusalem in 73 BCE would keeping up the genealogies be difficult. One solution would be to allow some who could prove their lineage during the time of Jesus be selected to live down through the ages for 1900 years like Paul and John and then at some point, depending upon how many were selected, marry into the modern population so that in say several generations each person could have up to a million descendants to choose from for the 12,000 required from each tribe. That would fulfill the technical letter of the prophesy and promise.

But having noted that, that means it really doesn't matter if Jesus meant some who were alive during his day would not die before the second coming, not to occur until 2520 years after thef all of Jerusalem.

So you can HAVE IT EITEHR WAY. "This generation" could be an 80-year generation reference (Ps. 90:10) during which all these signs would occur beginning with the very first sign, which was a world war (i.e. kingdom vs kingdom, nations vs nation); OR it could be another reference that some of Jesus' generation would not die at all until he arrived, even though he was not scheduled to arrive for over 1900 years.

So either way it works with a modern date for the second coming. Biblically speaking.

JCanon