Posts by JosephMalik

50

Appropriateness of Women's Headcovering

by TheListener in

1 corinthians 11:3-16 doesn't make any sense to me.

several other places paul says there are no male, female, slaves, jews, greeks, etc but we are all one with christ.

so why do some of us, who are all one, have to cover our heads or not even speak publicly at the meetings?

JosephMalik

at least this seems to be the more economic reading by Ockham's razor Narkissos,

Sure it is but does that make it right? This has been a problem for a long time. As I said before these are assumptions and readers can come to their own conclusions or are we to think we are still under Law.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Narkissos,: First notice that your "What!" is not actually an interjection of indignation, but a simple è = "or". Meaning, if you don't feel like complying with the above instructions remember you are neither the source nor the unique receptors of the Gospel and you should not proceed differently than other churches. A uniformity principle in the early Catholic style.

Malik: Some translations try to soften this a little bit but What? is appropriate here. It is a particle of distinction that effectively prepares such Corinthians for what is coming next, a strong rebuke. Matthew Henry comments on vs36:

In these verses the apostle closes his argument,

1. With a just rebuke of the Corinthians for their extravagant pride and self-conceit: they so managed with their spiritual gifts as no church did like them; they behaved in a manner by themselves, and would not easily endure control nor regulation. Now, says the apostle, to beat down this arrogant humour,

"Came the gospel out from you? Or came it to you only? #1Co 14:36. Did Christianity come out of Corinth? was its original among you? Or, if not, is it now limited and confined to you? are you the only church favoured with divine revelations, that you will depart from the decent usages of all other churches, and, to make ostentation of your spiritual gifts, bring confusion into Christian assemblies? How intolerably assuming is this behaviour! Pray bethink yourselves."

When it was needful or proper the apostle could rebuke with all authority; and surely his rebukes, if ever, were proper here. Note, Those must be reproved and humbled whose spiritual pride and self-conceit throw Christian churches and assemblies into confusion, though such men will hardly bear even the rebukes of an apostle. [End Matthew Henry]

I know this is hard to take for many as they would like to think the early Church was better than this, more perfect and closer to the truth but not so. And since so many denominations get this wrong it is an embarrassment for them and a challenge to their authority. Joseph

50

Appropriateness of Women's Headcovering

by TheListener in

1 corinthians 11:3-16 doesn't make any sense to me.

several other places paul says there are no male, female, slaves, jews, greeks, etc but we are all one with christ.

so why do some of us, who are all one, have to cover our heads or not even speak publicly at the meetings?

JosephMalik

1 Corinthians 15:35 is just another example of how another speaker is explicitly introduced, and needs not be guessed into the text. QED. Btw this by no means requires a real person: fictitious interlocutors are a common rhetorical way of introducing and refuting objections, especially in diatribe (Romans, Galatians or James offer many examples). Narkissos, Oh, yes, someone sure, whoever that may be. Maybe even a fictitious character and not one of the Corinthians? You offer assumptions and they have no place here. 1Cor is not Romans, Galatians or James is it? Look at this one. I did not bother with it because it was already offered by Mike: Corinthians letter being quoted: 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Paul’s response to it: 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. Corinthians goes on and on like this and it is up to each one of us to parse it correctly. Such prophets such spiritual men resisted Paul and he not only corrected their thinking but told them that his comments are the commandments of the Lord. Can anyone now see that Paul is teaching that women should not keep silence in the churches and that they are not under what the law saith? They do not have to ask their husbands advice on such matters and such speaking up is not a shame for them? Such Corinthians doctrine was the problem, keeping the law and enforcing doctrines contained in such law. Are we to understand that we are still under such Law? Paul kicked this law out yet so many want to put it back in as if such law was gospel for us today. He had no delusions about such men. He knew some would not listen. So he kissed them off this way: 38 "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant". He knew our Lord would deal with them when it came time for the resurrection. Joseph

50

Appropriateness of Women's Headcovering

by TheListener in

1 corinthians 11:3-16 doesn't make any sense to me.

several other places paul says there are no male, female, slaves, jews, greeks, etc but we are all one with christ.

so why do some of us, who are all one, have to cover our heads or not even speak publicly at the meetings?

JosephMalik

The main reason why I wouldn't buy into this explanation is that any writer who quotes an opinion he disagrees with will be anxious to make sure that the quotation cannot be misinterpreted as his own thought. In a writing which includes no quotation marks or punctuation Narkissos, Paul was responding to a personal letter from the Corinthians and they knew what they said. He did not have to punctuate it as you suggest since they could not misinterpret their own words or their own doctrine when he threw it back. And we see this throughout 1Cor not just here. Anyone carefully reading the texts that knows Paul’s position on the Law should be able to parse such texts properly. You really have no reason, no argument as you suggest. Look how fast Paul is working. For example: who do you think the someone Paul calls, “fool” is in these verses?. 15:35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. That someone was someone in this Corinthian congregation who’s comments on such resurrection appeared in this letter. Can you find them? Paul is tearing them up and is not concerned with the niceties you are looking for. Look at the way Paul had to reaffirm Christian theology and his apostleship to them not only in chapter 15 but throughout his letter. It is a work of art. Paul does use a technique to punctuate his letters but is it subtle. He builds his arguments around a structure like a sandwich. And 1Cor is not unlike a thread here on this forum with entry and exit routines around his arguments. His work has been a problem for many prompting even Peter to say: 2Pet 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Not so easy is it? And the stakes are high. Paul is not just any writer. He was a man with a mission and if first century Christians had a problem with his epistles how much trouble do you think we will have? Joseph

50

Appropriateness of Women's Headcovering

by TheListener in

1 corinthians 11:3-16 doesn't make any sense to me.

several other places paul says there are no male, female, slaves, jews, greeks, etc but we are all one with christ.

so why do some of us, who are all one, have to cover our heads or not even speak publicly at the meetings?

JosephMalik

1 Corinthians 11:3-16 doesn't make any sense to me.

The listener,

Actually more like 3-10 is where the problem is. Why? Because Paul is not teaching this as a truth but as a false doctrine he is now exposing. Where did he get it? From the letter the Corinthians wrote to him mentioned in 7:1. He has been answering it point by point throughout 1Cor. and taking their doctrines apart bit by bit. Things really heat up in chapter 15 with Paul battling astrology and everything else but no one notices. The personal pronoun "I" does not always mean Paul when he writes. Here it is simply part of the quoted information in their letter and really means the Corinthian writer of this letter. Paul is busting their butts and standing up for the equality of women in the faith yet nearly everyone takes his comments the other way around. Translators are responsible for much of this. It is because of such Corinthians that Paul began appointing Elders to fight them. The problem was rampant, found everywhere in every congregation in his territory so he laid hands on others to assist with Elder appointments. The main problem was in Jerusalem itself with James at the head and even the apostles John and Peter fell victim to this outrage. Paul corrected them as well in Gal. They were so angry with Paul they wanted to kill him. Is anyone really paying attention to what the scriptures are teaching? The WT does not want you to know. You will not get the truth from them. Oh just noticed A Christian has already covered this in detail. Should have read all the posts to the thread first.
Joseph

6

A Question For Scholar And The Celebrated WT Scholars

by Honesty in

according to the bible, the slaves of god are sealed when they receive the holy spirit:.

in him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvationin him when you believedwere sealed with the promised holy spirit.

eph 1:13 (hcsb).

JosephMalik

Honesty,

I am not picking on you, or at least I hope I'm not. Just commenting on your comments hoping to take them to another level, not so much for your sake but for others. I pretty much guessed where you are so I appreciate your work for the faith. Just using it as a springboard. But I can see why you may be concerned. As the theme song for Monk goes, "Its a jungle out there." I will just have to find a better way to word things and am sorry if I caused you any problems.

Joseph

43

mediator?

by Momofmany in

last night my mom and i were talking.

she asked me to give her one reason other than the un and 607 why i can't go back to the kh.

i told her, jesus is my mediator.

JosephMalik

Nevertheless, in a preliminary way, the great crowd have already "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Revelation 7:14) Christ does not act as Mediator of the new covenant toward them, yet they benefit from this covenant through the work of God’s Kingdom. To all, This Watchtower doctrine is reason enough to run, not walk away from the Watchtower organization and cease being Watchtower witnesses. It clearly demonstrates that the Watchtower does not know who this great crowd is, where they came from or what this Kingdom is all about. Now you can see that they have never declared it’s good news as they claim. Visible now is the proof that they do not know how this Kingdom will be administered of why. Why witness for someone that does not know who will be in such a Kingdom, where it will located or how they will get there? And if anyone thinks that our Lord will take such Watchtower lies lightly or that you can somehow shift the blame for your words on this subject to them, well then guess again. Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. After all who is the disciple? The Watchtower or you? Joseph

6

A Question For Scholar And The Celebrated WT Scholars

by Honesty in

according to the bible, the slaves of god are sealed when they receive the holy spirit:.

in him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvationin him when you believedwere sealed with the promised holy spirit.

eph 1:13 (hcsb).

JosephMalik

Honesty said: According to the Bible, the slaves of God are sealed when they receive the Holy Spirit:

In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation—in Him when you believed—were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

Honesty,

First determine: “Who are the slaves of God?” What is the word of truth? What is this gospel of salvation? Paul was writing to the Ephesians and by projection we may apply this text to others but was the message being offered to them the same one being preached today?

The answer is no! It may look like that on the surface but the message being preached in our day is much different than the message offered to and accepted by these Ephesians.

Honesty said: Revelation 7:3 is often used by the WTBTS to support their position that Ephesians 1:13 refers only to an 'initial sealing' and that Revelation 7:3 refers to the 'final sealing':

“Don’t harm the earth or the sea or the trees until we seal the slaves of our God on their foreheads.”

Watchtower doctrine is the problem and cannot be trusted as you are pointing out. Forget about history and the fact that it would take thousands of years to locate and seal such believers. Pay no attention to the fact that what is being described in Ephesians and the Revelation is an administration essential to the running or any Kingdom the size of which has already been predetermined and such winds that bring harm will be controlled until the last one is selected. Forget about the fact that this administration will exist here on earth just as the others are and that our Lord will return here to administer it just as the apostles expected in their day.

Are we to think that those believing in such Watchtower lies are hearing “the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation?” Do they qualify for such salvation as administrators as such Ephesians did? No! Do the many books and magazines they have printed and can no longer hold up as “truth” demonstrate that they have been sealed with the promised “Holy Spirit?” No!

Sorry Honesty, but you will have to study the scriptures for yourself as the word of truth is not coming from Watchtower witnesses and never did. Their distorted version the Gospel is destructive and many have died and will die needlessly as a result. Joseph

15

Where Is Paradise?

by Honesty in

the wtbts says it is on earth.

however, an examination of the 3 scriptures that mention paradise raises questions as to the validity of the wt's claims.

for instance, at luke 23:43 jesus tells the criminal beside him that he (the criminal) will be with him (jesus) in paradise.

JosephMalik

For instance, at Luke 23:43 Jesus tells the criminal beside Him that he (the criminal) will be with Him (Jesus) in paradise. The WTBTS asserts that Jesus can never return to earth so where is the paradise Jesus was referring to? Honesty, The WTBTS is wrong! The scriptures clearly teach that our Lord will return here to earth once again in the flesh just as He was taken up: Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Honesty said: Paul, at 2 Corinthians 12:3-4 says that unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to speak were heard in paradise. So who could speak these words and where would they be spoken if man could not speak them? 2 Corinthians 12:3-4 Yes, I know such a man-whether in the body or apart from the body, I do not know, God knows- that he was caught away into paradise and heard unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to speak. Paul did not say that man could not speak them. He said that it is not lawful for a man to speak them at least not yet. Paul did not have authorization to reveal in detail what he saw in this Paradise. However Paul did give us other insight into such a paradise such as the immortality of its inhabitants and how some will be changed when they enter. This Paradise is the promised Kingdom here on earth where Christ will be at that time. It is the third heaven in which this thief will also exist. The first heaven was the Law covenant under which man served God. The second heaven is the Kingdom Covenant under which we now serve God. This third Heaven will be the Kingdom itself the heaven here on earth to which our Lord will return and into which resurrection will take place and qualified mankind will serve God to become Sons of God once again. Honesty said: Jesus said, at Revelation 2:7 that to him that conquers Jesus would grant him to eat of the tree of life in the paradise of God. In Revelation, the only reference to ones who conquer are those who have the assurance of heaven. So is the tree of life on earth or in heaven? Revelation 2:7 To him that conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ Why do so many interpret the word “Heaven” as a place somewhere in the universe far, far away? Sometimes it is used that way and sometimes not. We should pay attention to the message being given and not jump to such conclusions? Did you notice that heaven does not appear in Rev. 2.7 that you used here? You simply added this meaning yourself is this not so? Where then is the scripture that teaches us that God will make non-human beings out of human ones to fill out this day of rest? Theology is full of this sort of thing and the WTBTS prints it in abundance. Perhaps it is time to study the scriptures for ourselves apart from such erroneous literature. Joseph

23

Great Crowd vs. Other Sheep

by prophecor in

would someone briefly help me understand the divide that exist between the great crowd and the remnant, 144,000 who go to heaven?

what scriptural backing does the society use to justify their position that they are the only ones who are able to enjoy a covenant relationship with jesus christ, where those of the " great crowd " are only granted a relationship through extension through the 144,000?.

i've been around the truth for a large portion of my life, never really knowing this was an issue.

JosephMalik

It took me about 3 read throughs to fully get it, but it does a great job in blowing out of the water the concept that the "great crowd" is on earth.

ConfusedJW,

And you buy into that? Boy things are worse than I thought. The great crowd will be on earth as will everyone else. This is called resurrection. No one will go to a galaxy or place far, far away to exist in a non-human form like God for the rest of eternity. Has anyone ever taken a seriouse look at what this word Heaven really means or how Jews used it? Is this God's plan for us or is this what the serpent told Eve will happen when he said "and ye shall be as gods"?

Joseph

15

Wt tax exempt status challenged in Canada

by JosephMalik in

jw
friends

.

joseph reed is challenging the wt in bc canada.. http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/reedvswt.html.

joseph.

JosephMalik

All I have is a registry file number: L051650 so far. Joseph Reed is an Old Timer who was disfellowshipped for writing the WT about their errors in doctrine back in the 1970's. It seems that wnenever he gets this far some legal loophole of filing problem gets in the way. However if this ever gets to court and hopefully it will by the end of the month the legal position offered is solid. Recently Canada rejected sahariah tribunals. They are like the WT's kangaroo courts and an article called "Ontario rejects shariah tribunals" appeared on this in The Vancouver Sun, Monday September 12, 2005. Theocracy no longer rules in Canada as it did in times past and such defenses will not help them this time.

Joseph