Justin

Joined

• started 50 topics
• posted 385 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Justin

• 
  5

  The Island

  by Justin in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  just saw the movie the island and it reminded me what it's like to get out of a cult.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  Just saw the movie The Island and it reminded me what it's like to get out of a cult.
• 
  49

  Ok we've left the Org - Now what?

  by Nellie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i am no longer a witness.

  i've told all my worldly friends and my immediate family - my kids have told their friends.

  i haven't been to a meeting in over a year (and have no desire to go to one) - but i'm not dad or dfd.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  Why bother with the Bible at all? Because I accept people where they are, and my suggestion of using a children's book of Bible stories was intended for someone who doesn't claim to have answers but who wants to pass on some sort of Judeo-Christian heritage to their children. Usually these people just send their kids to Sunday school and forget about it, but an ex-JW who no longer has a religious preference can't do that. If someone already knows they prefer secular humanism, then obviously they won't be concerned about their kids learning anything about the Bible.

  Furthermore, in my stating that some approaches to the Bible are humanistic, I didn't mean secular humanism. I meant the kind of approach that sees God in our fellow humans rather than thinking that vindicating God's sovereignty is of paramount importance - or, to put it another way, emphasizing the 'second greatest commandment' rather than the 'first.' And as for picking and choosing, I'd rather have a kid learn about the Good Samaritan rather than about Samuel hacking King Agag to pieces. But I suppose that for some ex-JW's, when it comes to the Bible, it's a matter of either taking it or leaving it.
• 
  49

  Ok we've left the Org - Now what?

  by Nellie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i am no longer a witness.

  i've told all my worldly friends and my immediate family - my kids have told their friends.

  i haven't been to a meeting in over a year (and have no desire to go to one) - but i'm not dad or dfd.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  If you still want your kids to have basic Bible knowledge, assuming they are still quite young, you could look around for a good children's book of Bible stories. Many of these books have no doctrinal orientation, and they do a good job of weeding out aspects of the Bible which we might find objectionable - just presenting the positive side. Some such books are even rather humanistic in their presentation. But the main thing is, it solves your problem of letting the years go by while you find your answers, by which time it may be too late to teach them anything. And, it leaves the future open for both you and them. You have no idea whether they will eventually become devout Christians or vaguely remember some nice stories which Mom told them, and you can distance your own spirituality or lack of it from what you are doing for them. Needless to say, this would also avoid prematurely joining any organized religion.
• 
  4

  Philadelphia Worldwide Church of God -- shudder!!!!

  by Fatfreek in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wife and i spent two days over the 4th with my cousin.

  i'd always knew he was with the worldwide church of god, he told us of the split back in the 90's.

  his wife stayed with the original, which introduced a bunch of changes, and he went off with the fundamentalists who now name themselves the philadelphia bla bla.. it's scary when he talks as it sounds so witney-like.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  What has become known as "Armstrongism" has survived in the splinter groups. I'm afraid the same type of thing will happen if the WT goes mainstream - JWism will survive in splinter groups.
• 
  18

  144,000 on The Simpsons

  by sixsixsixtynine in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in last nights episode of the simpsons, homer goes to see the movie "left below", and subsequently becomes obsessed with the rapture.

  when they show an equation he's working on to determine when it will come, one of the numbers is 144,000!.

  do any other religions besides the witnesses and adventists use that number?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  There is, not a religion, but a school of prophetic interpretation which is very popular with Evangelicals, and is known as Dispensationalism. These folks hold to the belief that, once the true believers in Jesus have been raptured, 144,000 literal Israelites will be converted and spread the gospel throughout the world during the reign of Antichrist. Then, after a period of seven years (known as the "great tribulation") Jesus will return and fight the battle of Armageddon. While I have not read the Left Behind series, I believe it represents this school of prophecy, and therefore the TV program was probably poking fun at their 144,000 rather than the JW 144,000.
• 
  6

  Latest on Creative Days?

  by Justin in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in the book from paradise lost to paradise regained (1958) the society published a commentary on genesis, chapter 1 in which the creation was explained in terms of a scientific theory which was supposedly compatible with the bible.

  for example, "when the earth was formed, it was a hot ball of gas, and no doubt looked much like the sun does today.

  " (page 9) and, the earth was enveloped in a "blanket of darkness .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  In the book From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained (1958) the Society published a commentary on Genesis, chapter 1 in which the creation was explained in terms of a scientific theory which was supposedly compatible with the Bible. For example, "when the earth was formed, it was a hot ball of gas, and no doubt looked much like the sun does today." (page 9) And, the earth was enveloped in a "blanket of darkness . . . due to a great thick dust cloud". (page 10) This, of course, cannot be found in Genesis. The Paradise book does not explain the origin of the theory being used, but it was apparently the Vailian Canopy Theory which both Russell and Rutherford used in their writings, and is credited to Isaac N. Vail (1840 - 1912) whose ideas were not widely accepted even during his lifetime. Vail claimed that the earth once had rings similar to the planet Saturn, and as these rings or canopies fell the creative work progressed. In the Paradise book all that is left of the rings is the "dust cloud" which obscures the light in the beginning, and the "water canopy" which falls to produce the Flood of Noah's day. (page 42) (Of course, a molten earth is more mainline scientifically, but not falling canopies.)

  But my question is, Is there a more recent publication which covers the creative days in a similar way, and how does it compare with the Paradise book? I thought it best to find out how much of this is current before delving into it at any length.
• 
  14

  1919? 1935? From where?

  by gringojj in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i am trying to figure this one out.

  okay i can understand that 1914 comes from some crazy equation so it can be argued that it was fixed in the bible.

  those arent figured using any calculation or interpretatons of the bible are they?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  
  The 1919 and 1935 dates are not a result chronology - they are simply historical experiences which the organization has passed through similar to important dates in the history of an individual or a family, but they have been made to carry too much baggage. The year 1919 was the revitalization of the witness work after the Society's officers had been imprisoned and released in 1918 - but was it a second Pentecost, the birth of the holy nation, the renewing of the new covenant and other grandiose claims that have been made for that date? Again, 1935 was the year that they identified the "great crowd" as an earthly class to their satisfaction, but did they also have to subsequently claim that it marked the end of the general heavenly calling? (Of course, they can say that once one class began to be gathered, the selection of the earlier class had to be finished - but must they be so dogmatic about it?) So these dates, because they are viewed in retrospect, would not be of the same significance as some others except for the weight they are made to carry.

  The 1914 and 1918 dates, on the other hand, are dates which supposedly could be calculated in advance. The three and a half years between the fall of 1914 and spring of 1918 are supposed to parallel the three and a half years between the baptism of Jesus and his death and resurrection. On this basis the claim is made that, just as Jesus came to the Jerusalem temple in 33 C.E. (3-1/2 years after his baptism in 29 C.E.), so he came to cleanse the spiritual temple in 1918 (3-1/2 years after his presence in 1914). It is also claimed that he resurrected the dead anointed ones then, even as his own resurrection occurred in the parallel. Russell had earlier used this type of parallel for the dates 1874 and 1878, and the Society switched the parallel to the later dates of 1914 and 1918. But this sort of chronological approach doesn't fit the 1919 and 1935 dates.
• 
  97

  Was Jesus Created?

  by 9thWonder in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  was jesus created?

  this question came out of a discussion i was having with a preacher of a no-denominational church.

  he was trying to convince me of the truth of the trinity doctrine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  9th Wonder . . . if you asked active JWs your question, they would give you two scriptures - Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14. If you go back to the pastor with those scriptures, you'll probably get the same answer Leolaia gave you but the pastor will probably make it easier for you to understand. So now you have two verses, but they don't necessarily mean what JWs think they mean. You'll have to decide for yourself what you believe, and if it's too stressful confronting the pastor, don't.
• 
  97

  Was Jesus Created?

  by 9thWonder in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  was jesus created?

  this question came out of a discussion i was having with a preacher of a no-denominational church.

  he was trying to convince me of the truth of the trinity doctrine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  leolaia . . . but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot perform an exegesis of Colossians 1:15 as if you were an apologist for orthodoxy (or trinitarianism) and at the same time claim to be treating it as a critical scholar would. Colossians 1:15 is an embarassment for trinitarians, and this is why they must go to great lengths to prove that prototokos ("firstborn") is there used metaphorically. The meaning is not a natural one in that context. One might compare this attempt to that of Roman Catholic apologists who, since the time of Jerome, have been saying that adelphoi ("brothers") actually means cousins when applied to Jesus' relatives because the word may have that meaning at times in the LXX. Certainly, in Colossians, "firstborn of all creation" is parallel with "firstborn of the dead." Jesus was the first to be born from among the dead (in an eschatological sense), and he was first to be born in creation.

  The argument that "firstborn" is here used something like an honorary title sounds like it may have first arisen in the fourth century in an anti-Arian context. That fourth century conflict, though, while it should not be read back into the NT documents, may shed some light on our problem. What was of paramount importance in the Arian controversy is that the orthodox - over against the Arian position - claimed that the pre-existent Logos (who become incarnate as Jesus) had been begotten of the Father rather than created out of nothing. This is an all-important distinction which is implicit in the JW vs. Trinity conflict now current, but it is not now made explicit as it was in the fourth century. A begotten Logos is one who is generated out of the essence of God, and so shares the divinity of the Father. It is "Light from Light." A created Logos would be one who has a purely creaturely status like the created world. In Colossians Paul does not make this distinction, but uses terminology which is mixed - "firstborn" for the Logos and "creation" for the world. Both have their origin in God, but Paul does not press that there may be a difference in the manner of their origin. Later trinitarian theology, in an attempt to avoid all subordination, would claim that the relationship between the Father and the Son is an eternal one - hence an eternal generation or begetting.

  A third text which may be used by Arians, if it is accepted that "Wisdom" in the Proverbs is a designation for the pre-incarnate Christ (and both parties in the fourth century accepted this), is Proverbs 8:22ff: "The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works." (LXX) This text uses both ektise ("made" or "created") and genna ("begets" - verse 23). When commenting on this text, Justin Martyr chose to emphasize the latter rather than the former. We could consider this parallel to the situation in Colossians, where the original author has chosen not to emphasize the difference in terms, but the emerging Church found it necessary to make such a distinction.
• 
  14

  Another resource

  by Justin in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  strictly genteel - theocratic resources/skk theocratic library, a pro-jw site, now contains publications from the rutherford era, including: the finished mystery (1917), millions now living will never die (1920), the harp of god (1921), deliverance (1926), and creation (1927).

  the russell writings are found on this site as well.

  link: http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  Good questions! I'm afraid I can't answer questions regarding the site - it's merely a resource which we're glad to have. Previously we could use the Bible Student sites to access Russell's publications, and now we'll have Rutherford's as well. I would hope folks use this for their own research, and not attempt to involve the person responsible for it in controversy as we are dealing with someone who is not sympathetic with our own views. They have their own reasons for what they do. Also, I doubt that the Society would make any public statement to the effect that they do not want the older literature even read.

  I did think the drawing of the naked man was rather unusual, but at the time it was probably viewed as being in the tradition of classical art and people suppressed any prurient interest they might have.

  I think a way to understand this religion is to begin with Russell and his immediate context, then see how Rutherford changed much of it, and finally the finishing touches were put in place by Fred Franz. What its ultimate outcome will be is anyone's guess. So, as the person responsbile for the site adds more of Rutherford's books, we'll get a clearer picture.