Posts by Justin

7

Calvinist theology and JW beleifs

by bboyneko in

jw
friends

i heard calvinist theology and jw beleifs are very similair, including aggresive door to door preaching, limited number go to heaven, exclusion of non-members and isolation, etc.

anyone fill me in more?

im sick and feel too blechy to research it myself.

Justin

Yes, there are certain similarities. Calvinists believe in what they call the sovereignty of God, which to them means that God is in complete control of all that occurs, including the salvation of any given person. If someone is saved, this means that they were predestined to salvation. Strictly speaking, one can do nothing to initiate the saving event, but must be called of God, whereas even modern Evangelicals think that one has the option of whether or not to believe in Jesus. (It is also true that JWs who claim to be of the anointed class have made an individual decision to serve God, but their being anointed is God's choice and so they are similar in that respect to the Calvinist elect.) So the Calvinist doctrine of the "elect" is similar to the JW 144,000 with the heavenly hope, although Calvinists do not have an earthly hope for others to fall back on. Nor do they claim to know the number of the elect, as they do not take the 144,000 literally - only God knows.

The Calvinist God is apparently more concerned with his own glory than he is in displaying love toward his creatures. While Calvinists do not claim that this involves glorifying a literal name for God - such as Jehovah - it is quite similar to the JW view that God's main purpose is the sanctification and vindication of his own name.

As for any other similarities you have mentioned, I am unaware of them. I hope I have stated the case fairly, and if any Calvinists read these posts they may correct me if I have been mistaken.

Justin

3

Change your sales tactics, Jehovah

by messenger in

jw
friends

change your sales tactics, jehovah .

http://www.news24.co.za/city_press/city_press_leaders/0,1885,186-189_1151992,00.html.

jehovah sent a bigger brigade than usual of witnesses to yeoville yesterday morning, determined to badger sinners into converting to their faith before the second coming.

Justin

xyzzy,

I've noticed, though, that there is a shopping mall near my home where they are allowed to sit at a table with a display of literature and wait for people to come to them. I never see anyone talking to them!

Justin

73

Any other churches call themselves the 'truth'??

by Beck_Melbourne in

jw
friends

old habits die hard...and quite often in my comments i will refer to the borg as the 'truth'.

does anyone know of any other churches that refer to their own particular church or religion as the 'truth'??

also, does anyone know how it originated...all my life i have used the term...comments like 'how long have u been in the truth?

Justin

Pastor Russell took the expression "present truth" from 2 Peter 2:12 in the King James Version. To him, this meant the truth that was then due to be understood by God's people - beliefs such as that the time of the end began in 1799, Christ had arrived invisibly in 1874, the Gentile Times would end in 1914 (meaning that the actual end of the present world order would occur at that time). The period from 1874 to 1914 he termed the "harvest" - the time when people were being called out of Babylon. So to this way of thinking, "present truth" is whatever new light is due to be revealed.

So it seems that the word "present" was dropped, and JWs simply talked about being "in the truth."

It is also possible that the expression "the truth" may have been inherited from the Adventist Movement which preceeded Russell. If other groups (such as the Seventh Day Adventists) use this expression, that would be the case, but I don't know that they do.

Justin

28

Our Sins

by radar in

jw
friends

why the ransom?.

when you think of all those suffering today and throughout the generations, and all this happened just because two inexperienced people went up against a powerful spirit creature and lost.!.

now, if someone is in jail, lets say for something like stealing, someone can perhaps pay for their release on bail.

Justin

I think this question of the Ransom needs to be looked at from a historical perspective, and several different Ransom "theories" (if you will allow the expression) appreciated in order to comprehend the situation.

The early followers of Jesus of Nazareth, who believed him to be the Messiah, were faced with the problem of how to account for his untimely death. The Messiah was expected to be the Deliverer and King of Israel, not to die a martyr's death. It was at this point that the prophecy of Isaiah (53) was brought to bear, that in his death Messiah bore the sins of others. This means that it was a substitutionary death.

The problem remained to account for how this could be so. It was Paul who appears to be the first one to tie Jesus' death in with Adam's transgression (Romans 5). Just as the whole race was condemned from the disobedience of one man (Adam), so the entire race had at least the potential of being saved through the obedience (in death) of the one man (Jesus Christ).

Theological speculation has further led to theories of how the entire race could be affected by the one man's sin - was it that we were all genetically within Adam (and Eve) so that the sentence upon them automatically passed upon us (Augustine's theory), or was it that through the Fall the weaknesses derived from that sin passed upon their descendants so that we all commit our own sins (Eastern Orthodox and JW theory)?

How could Christ substitute in death? The WT position, going all the way back to Pastor Russell (at least they have been consistent in this!) is that just as Adam had a potential race "in his loins," so Jesus also had a perfect race within him that was never actualized. Instead, because of his sacrifice, he adopts Adam's children. But the orthodox Christian view (if a substitionary theory is accepted) is that Christ, being himself the Creator as the Second Person of the Trinity, is able to offer to the Father a sacrifice of infinite worth that can cover whatever sin and transgression has been committed.

However, it should be stressed that thetr are theories of how Christ's sacrifice works that could not even be considered substitionary in the strictest sense. One could hold to a theory based on Paul's teaching about baptism, that believers are baptized into Christ's death so that, as members of his Body, they are raised to newness of life - that going through the process of death and resurrection with Christ, the creation is restored. (Romans 6) If one accepts this view, it is not even necessary to believe in a historical Adam and Eve; one could view the Biblical story as merely a paradigm of how all humans go astray (later to be redeemed by Christ).

So the Ransom concept grew out of the historical situation of the early Christian community, and its meaning has been narrowed down within specific traditions (including Russell and the WT).

Justin

Scholar Discovers Meaning of "Soul"

by Justin in

jw
friends

the little boy was asked to write a sentence on the blackboard using the word "soul.

" other children wrote statements such as, "i sold my toy," or "they sold their car.

" but this little boy had heard the expression of pity, "the poor old soul.

Justin

The little boy was asked to write a sentence on the blackboard using the word "soul." Other children wrote statements such as, "I sold my toy," or "They sold their car." But this little boy had heard the expression of pity, "The poor old soul." And so, confusing "soul" with "sold," he wrote, "The poor old sold." Upon which, seeing the unacceptable sentence, the teacher said, "That doesn't make any sense." And so, the little boy looked like the stupidest child in class.

So, he ran home and told his parents. And, his mother told him, "That's all right, Johnny. The teacher just never heard of the poor old soul. You see, you say 'sold' when you have sold something, but 'soul' in this case means the poor person you have seen."

"Oh, I get it," said Johnny. "I thought I would look smart because no one else had ever heard of the poor old soul, but because they didn't know what I was talking about, I looked stupid."

Let us imagine that a scholar, a thousand years from now, unearths a manuscript that tells about the experience of the little boy, but with no context. The words simply appear, "The poor old sold."

Realizing that "poor" is an adjective that modifies a noun, the scholar says: "Well, it may have been a poor man, a poor woman, a poor boy or a poor girl. But, since I don't know what the noun was, I'm going to render it 'poor person' and let it go at that." And so the scholar writes: "The poor old [person] sold."

Unavoidably, the question would arise: "Sold what?" What was it that the poor old sold? It could be anything. So, the wise scholar writes: "The poor old [person] sold [something]."

And finally, in what sense was the old poor? Financially, or in some other way? It may have been a lonely person who was emotionally deprived. And how were they old? Were they getting up in years, or were they quite mature? The former seems more likely than the latter.

So the scholar finally writes, "The (financially or otherwise) poor, advancing in age [person] sold [something]."

And so, the little boy came to tax the scholar's mind in the best of ways. After the scholar sold his find to the Ancient Artifacts Association, an associate said to him: "See here, Perkins! You're an old man now. You were short on cash until you sold your translation of the manuscript; you were poor. And now you have sold your text. The little boy must have been thinking of you when he wrote, 'The poor old sold.'"

And Perkins replied, "Yes, I am the poor old who sold!"

Justin

11

Why do they call themselves Christians?

by KistByQpid in

jw
friends

i am not trying to be sarcastic.

however, it just doesn't make sense to me.

if a christian is one who "follows christ" how does that apply to the jw's?

Justin

The question of whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians is an interesting one. When I was still in the Borg, I recall some JWs even talking about outsiders as "the Christians," as if we weren't Christians when the official teaching of the WT was that we were!

There are several definitions of what a Christian is. The idea that the only true Christian is one who accepts salvation through Christ as being "by grace alone, through faith" comes to us from the Reformation. This theology seems to be based on the writings of Paul, but historically the teachings which emerged in the first several centuries were not simply Pauline, and the early Church did not precisely define the relationship between grace, faith and works. It was more preoccupied with issues surrounding the Person of Christ. So historically, at least, the Reformation criteria cannot be used in determining what is Christian and what is not.

The next level has to do with Christology, and here we seem to be on firmer ground. It is generally recognized that JWs are the spiritual descendants of Arius, the "heretic" of the fourth century who insisted that Jesus, in his prehuman existence as the Logos or Word, was a created being. The Church reacted against this by stating that the Logos was not created (out of nothing) but was begotten out of God the Father, and so was just as divine as the Father. This led to the doctine of the Trinity. It was "orthodoxy" as opposed to Arius' heresy. But would it be correct to say that Arius was not a Christian, or simply that he was a heretical Christian?

Now in the nineteenth century, along came Charles T. Russell, an adherent of Arius' views. Russell claimed that Arius actually represented an older form of Christianity, older than "orthodoxy." Russell had no intention of being anything other than a Christian, but he claimed that faith in Jesus as the Ransomer, not as God, was sufficient. So what we have with Russell is a form of Arian Christianity rather than orthdox Christianity.

When Rutherford took over, he emphasized more and more themes from the Old Testament, even going so far as to choose the OT name "Jehovah's Witnesses." He explained OT stories such as that of Ruth and Naomi, or Mordecai and Esther, as being prophetic dramas that are now being fulfilled. He had Ezekiel's chariot (or the wheels within wheels) depicted on the front cover of the Watchtower. I remember even being asked if Jehovah's Witnesses were an Old Testament religion! I personally believe that, after Rutherford's death, Fred Franz (as the hidden 'chief theologian') re-directed the Society's course somewhat back to at least an appearance of Christianity, so the JWs wouldn't be accused of starting their own religion.

So I think that a historian or a sociologist would have to say that the JWs are a Christian sect, and let it go at that. Whatever else they may be, they are certainly not orthodox Christians. But, it is understandable why they make the claim of being Christian.

Justin

30

Jesus died on a stake or a cross?

by 2SYN in

this is something i've been puzzling over recently.

just for argument's sake, let's say that jesus did exist - was he murdered on a stake or on a cross?

this is puzzling me, because the only real research i've ever read on the subject was in wtbts publications, and since this is obviously a highly questionable source of documentation, i'd love it if someone here could point me to a scientific resource for finding out the truth about this...thx.... the earlier in the forenoon you take the sun bath, the greater will be the beneficial effect, because you get more of the ultra-violet rays, which are healing.

Justin

I have found an internet article on the archeological find I reported. Go to http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html . This article contains some illustrations which contradict my original reply that the crucified victim was "squatting" - my reply was based on a news magazine article which I read when the find was originally made. Now the man in the illustration is portrayed upright, with his ancles nailed at the side and his arms tied around the crossbar. In Jesus' case, however, according to the Biblical narrative (John 20:25), even his hands were nailed.

I think what we have to remember, first of all, is that the archeological find is just one example out of thousands of ancient crucifixions - we don't know if it was truly representative or not. But even more importantly, the way the crucifixion is represented in religious art is highly symbolic. No one, not even the JWs with their Jesus hanging from an upright post, attempts to convey the horror of the crucifixion. We must grasp the difference between religous or symbolic "truth" and literal historical truth.

The early Christians realized, even before they started depicting it in art, that the death of Jesus had more significance to it than a mere historical report could convey. They would quote a verse from one of the Septuagint psalms, which was not in the original, but which read, "The Lord reigns from the tree." To them, Jesus had gained a great victory and began reigning even from the stauros. Similarly, with regard to the deaths of the martyrs, the Revelation states: "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (7:14) Historically, the martyrs were covered with their own blood, but on a deeper level they were washed in Jesus' blood because they had joined him as victorious overcomers.

It would be a good idea to view anew the death of Jesus as portrayed in art (including the icons of the Eastern Orthdox Church) and to realize that it conveys more than just the historical reality. The WT realizes the importance of symbols - that's why it took away the Cross as a symbol to which the JWs could relate. They have their own set of symbols which convey a different view of spiritual reality.

Justin

30

Jesus died on a stake or a cross?

by 2SYN in

this is something i've been puzzling over recently.

just for argument's sake, let's say that jesus did exist - was he murdered on a stake or on a cross?

this is puzzling me, because the only real research i've ever read on the subject was in wtbts publications, and since this is obviously a highly questionable source of documentation, i'd love it if someone here could point me to a scientific resource for finding out the truth about this...thx.... the earlier in the forenoon you take the sun bath, the greater will be the beneficial effect, because you get more of the ultra-violet rays, which are healing.

Justin

The original Greek word translated "cross" in most versions is "stauros." The WT makes much of the fact that apparently, in classical Greek, this word simply referred to an upright post or stake. However, by the time of the Roman Empire, the stauros frequently had a cross beam attached. There is no way to tell from the New Testament documents (or Christian Greek Scriptures) whether or not Jesus' stauros had this cross beam.

The earliest testimony is from the early Church Fathers. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho (chapter 91), written around 135 C.E., goes to great pains in describing the stauros as having a cross beam. It is true that this account was written a century after Jesus' death, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems that the traditional view is the correct one.

There was recently an archeological excavation of a stauros from the time of Jesus, and while it is much shorter than the ones in traditional depictions (requiring the victim to squat), it nevertheless has the cross beam.

As an aside, the NWT translates the verb form "stauro-o" as "impale" rather then crucify, whereas historically to impale someone always meant to shove a stake through their insides and let them dangle, whereas the Society's depictions of the death of Jesus picture him as fastened externally to an upright stake.

Justin

7

Why do JW cringe at certain words?

by TR in

for example: bulletin board.

(from cambridge international dictionary of english).

(british and australian) a notice board (am bulletin board) is a board on a wall on which notices can be fixed.

Justin

With regard to the term bulletin board (the old-fashioned kind which is hung on a wall - not the computerized version), I remember someone telling me that the reason the term is not used is because it can be traced back to the "papal bull" - an official notification published by the Pope!

Of course, this kind of reasoning, tracing something back to its supposed source without regard for current usage, can be applied to all sorts of things.

Justin

21

? about the Lords's Prayer and JWs

by rekless in

jw
friends

i was in the org.

for 35 years, and it never once occurred to me why we never taught our children the lord's pray.. our father who art in heaven hollow be thy name..... anybody have any reason for our ignoring the most perfect prayer offered up by god's son.. my fiance' ask me this tonight i can't explain it except that it would have turned into a repetitive expression like all our prayers were anyway... hell is truth seen too late.

h.g.adams

Justin

I agree that the official reason given for not saying the Lord's Prayer is the repetitiveness involved. This is especially the case in that Jesus gave the Prayer immediately after instructing the disciples not to use "vain repetitions." (Matt. 6:7-13)

I do not think this understanding is unique to JWs, but is probably a minority Christian position. I remember watching a TV minister stating that some of his own people would not say the Prayer for the above reason. But he stated that, while Matthew's version has Jesus saying, "In this manner, therefore, pray," emphasizing a manner or way of praying, Luke's has, "When you pray, say . . ." (Luke 11:2; Matt. 6:9) That is, while the Lord's Prayer is a model prayer, it is also a specific prayer we are instructed to pray.

It is to be understood that Jesus, like Jewish rabbis of his time, was giving his followers a prayer whereby they could be identified as his disciples. As far as repetition is concerned, the emphasis should be on the word "vain" - repetition is vain if the belief is held that God will hear based on the number of prayers said. But that repetition occurs even on the part of those who belief solely in spontaneous prayer is very evident by observing them use the same stock words and phrases over and over again.

Justin