According to JW belief, Jesus never literally returns to earth. Rather, he turns his attention to the earth in various ways, at various times. His parousia or presence in kingly power began in 1914. He came to the spiritual temple for judgment in 1918. His revelation (apocalypsis) to the world will be at Armageddon. It is his coming for the anointed ones at the time of their deaths which makes further observance of the Memorial unnecessary. As long as they are separated from him in the flesh, he has not yet come for them.
Justin
JoinedPosts by Justin
-
11
When did Jesus return?
by 2112 ini know this has been talked about before but i still find it ...interesting.. if jesus did return in 1914(invisibly) why do the jw still observe passover.
was it not to be observed until he arrived?
maybe that is the new light jesus did not come in 1914 he is coming now, and that would explain why this may be the last memorial.. just a thought
-
-
-
6
What do you know about the Jewish Religion?
by anewme ini am curious about the jewish religion today.
how is it doing today?
it is one religion i have had little contact with but have always been curious since so much of the bible deals with people of that faith.
-
-
Justin
You might not feel comfortable visiting a synagogue at this point, but I would suggest you visit a local Jewish Community Center and see what educational programs they might have to offer. These centers expect visitors from the general public, and there would be no awkwardness in not being Jewish.
Judaism originally centered around the temple in Jerusalem and the sacrifices which were performed - and these were integral parts of the holidays. This was succeeded by rabbinical Judaism - a reinterpretation developed by the early rabbis out of necessity - initially because the Jews were scattered throughout the ancient world and couldn't visit the temple regularly, and then because the temple was finally destroyed by the Romans. Rabbinical Judaism has correspondencies to the ancient temple services - for example, the daily prayer services are timed to correspond to the sacrifices at the temple because the prayers are considered to take the place of the sacrifices. You can purchase a prayer book (siddur) and learn the prayers.
There are three main Jewish movements today - Orthdodox, Conservative, and Reform. The Orthdodox stay as close as possible to the traditional Judaism developed by the rabbis, the Reform are a modern version of the Jewish faith, and the Conservative midway between the two.
-
-
-
Justin
I wonder if they'll count him as a partaker?
-
27
Scriptures You Will Not Hear At The 2-04-06 Church Sermon.
by scout575 in"for moses said unto the fathers, "a prophet ( jesus - verse 20 ) shall the lord your god raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me, him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
and it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
" ( acts 3:22, 23 ).
-
-
Justin
Yes, it was confusing. I thought Scout was an active JW who was trying to use these texts to prove annihilationism rather than eternal torment in hell fire! No wonder you wouldn't hear them in a church (a JW would think).
-
11
1 John 2:27
by TheListener inthe wt society states that this refers to christ's brothers, the 144,000 and that it refers to apostate teachers and not truthful teachers.
(sorry, i don't have my references handy - i can post later or tomorrow).. i know some use this scripture as one to show how the governing body shouldn't be teaching the fds.
here are the verses preceding 27: .
-
-
Justin
1 John 2:27 (KJV) - "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."The issue seems to be: Was this statement about a spiritual anointing, which makes unnecessary the function of learning from external teachers, intended to be taken in an absolute sense? Is there anything in the context which would limit its application? Any church which has an internal teaching ministry would certainly want to limit the application, and if the WTS and some commentaries agree on this point (which has not been demonstrated) it would not be surprising. But to say that it refers to false teachers is quite ambiguous. Certainly, the false teachers are not the spirit-anointed ones being addressed. The writer is not saying sarcastically, "Anything you folks say is right - you're anointed and you don't have to listed to me!" No, the writer considered the readers to be his Christian brothers and sisters. Rather, the false teachers would be the ones he considered to be "antichrists." The anointing was a protection against these antichrists.
"Little children," he writes, "it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." (1 John 2:18) "But" - in contrast to these - "ye have an unction [anointing] from the Holy One, and ye know all things." (verse 20) "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (verse 22) "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you . . ." (verses 26-27) The anointing stands over against the false teaching.
The author has in mind, not just anyone who denies Jesus, but rather those who deny him in a certain way and teach others so. He has in mind a heresy known as docetism - from the Greek word dokein which means "to seem" and refers to the idea that Jesus only seemed to be a man. Thus, the author later states: "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:2-3) In the second letter of John we also read: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (verse 7) These teachers, who visited congregations and spoke under inspiration - under the control of a spirit - were teaching that Jesus Christ had not come in the flesh inasmuch as he was not really a fleshly human creature during his earthly life, but merely appeared to be. Now we can better understand the introduction to First John about viewing and handling the "Word of life" (1 John 1:1-4) - the Word actually having become flesh as in the Gospel of John (1:14).
So the question remains, Does the statement at 1 John 2:27 about the spiritual anointing have a limited application rather than an absolute one? Does it mean that, because the readers are anointed, they don't have to be taught by the docetists? Or does it mean they don't have to be taught by anyone?
Those who believe that the entire Bible must be taken into consideration on any given subject will certainly compare First John with other passages which indicate that a teaching ministry (within the congregation) is necessary. But even if we do not take this approach, it is not necessary to go far a field to see that the immediate context indicates that the author believed in external teaching. As all three letters of John reflect the same style, and therefore indicate the hand of the same author - or at least the same school or community - they may be considered immediate to this context. Whether the author was actually the aged apostle John or not, he indicates in the third letter that he was sending visiting teachers to the congregations in his area. These teachers would have been the counterparts to the docetists. A certain leader name Diotrophes did not like to have the visiting teachers, and "John" rebukes him: "I write unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbade them that would, and casteth them out of the church." (3 John 9-10) Diotrophes was not simply casting out visitors from another congregation - he was ejecting traveling teachers whose teachings he himself did not appreciate. But the fact that John sent the teachers indicates that he did not expect Christians to solely rely upon their own anointing for inward enlightenment.
Yet, John did say: 'You have an anointing which teaches you all things.' It may not be a statement to be taken in an absolute sense, it may be limited in its application. But there must be a sphere in which this anointing can operate, and the Society has eliminated that sphere of operation by demanding that its adherents follow the party line in all matters rather than being allowed to hold their own opinions and have thier own thoughts in many areas which could be considered nonessentials. There is no hierarchy of "truths," with only the most fundamental and basic ones being considered nonnegotiable. Everything is under the watchful eye of Big Brother. The anointing from the Holy One will persist in spite of this.
-
16
What is orthodox Christianity?
by Justin inwe frequently contrast what jehovah's witnesses believe with orthodox christianity (or what they call "christendom").
but what does orthodox christianity look like if allowed to stand on its own, not defending itself from outside attack?
the archbishop of canterbury (rowan williams) recently gave his own description to a group of non-christians - his audience being at the islamic university in islamabad.
-
-
Justin
Nate . . . Hey, man! Don't highjack any more of my threads! My question, "What is orthodox Christianity" was a rhetorical one to encourage people to read the Archbishop's lecture. By now, no doubt, many have. It was a way for people to be exposed to orthodoxy apart from the fundy issue, apart from the old JW vs. Christendom polarity. (And yes, Narkissos, the lecture has its own context, but it is not the context we have been conditioned to.) But you, Nate, have managed to drag the old fundy issues into this thread anyway. I wanted folks to see a sample of what orthodox Christianity is - not how it got that way. Once the Bible was canonized, it became part of the orthodox churchman's repetoire. The Bible is now included in the orthodox tradition.
The primary example of orthodoxy as the tradition inherited from the first thousand years of Christianity would be the Eastern Orthodox Church if it had not long ago abandoned the dedactic element of Christianity. Most of the forum participants are not going to go to an Orthodox church and start crossing themselves and kissing icons - being incorporated into the practice of the tradition - and therefore it was necessary to point to a Western example of orthodoxy (small "o"). And yes, their interest would lie in an intellectual presentation of the tradition rather than its practice, because that is how they have been conditioned as ex-JWs. The Eastern Orthodox Church, as such, seems to have forgotten that people have no interest in being initiated into the mysteries if they have not first heard the gospel.
So whoever has read the lecture has fulfilled the purpose of this thread, and that could have been done with no posts at all. But as it is, we had to listen to your diatribe, and any answers given to you were a response to your concerns.
-
16
What is orthodox Christianity?
by Justin inwe frequently contrast what jehovah's witnesses believe with orthodox christianity (or what they call "christendom").
but what does orthodox christianity look like if allowed to stand on its own, not defending itself from outside attack?
the archbishop of canterbury (rowan williams) recently gave his own description to a group of non-christians - his audience being at the islamic university in islamabad.
-
-
Justin
We frequently contrast what Jehovah's Witnesses believe with orthodox Christianity (or what they call "Christendom"). But what does orthodox Christianity look like if allowed to stand on its own, not defending itself from outside attack? The Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) recently gave his own description to a group of non-Christians - his audience being at the Islamic University in Islamabad. This description is not in reply to a competing form of Christianity. As the representative of the Anglican branch of the Christian family, the Archbishop attempts to present Christianity at its best.
Link: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/40/75/acns4081.cfm
-
16
Early Christianity - a cult?
by serendipity in.
i was wondering if anyone has applied the criteria that identifies a cult to first century christianity, as described in the bible, and historical records from the first three centuries.
have any of you run across a discussion like that while reading books on cults, hopefully by an author that is either supportive of, or tolerant of christianity?.
-
-
Justin
Those of us who live in democracies are living in a post-revolutionary world. We live in a world that has come to value the freedom of the individual in a way that traditional societies did not. We are post-Enlightenment and are on the other side of the political revolutions which made democracy possible. Groups which are labeled cultic are misfits in this world. But, we cannot use our standards to judge previously existing groups which were living in a different kind of world. Older societies and cults did not have the benefit of our knowledge. A pre-revolutionary person or group is not in the same position as someone who fights against a revolution which has already taken place and wants to turn back the clock.
-
8
'a great crowd, which no man was able to number'
by cyberdyne systems 101 inunless of course your the 'faithful and descreet slave', talking of the fds, how come they use this parable (of the faithful slave) to say they are it when the next few verses shows you can be an evil slave too, showing it is about your attitude, rather than a specific person or people?
-
-
Justin
Yes, I think it's important to realize that in the parable there is only the one slave who may turn out to be good or evil - either one was a possibility. I know I realized this before I left the dubs, and came to the conclusion that the prophecy had been fulfilled by the slave's becoming evil!
-
21
Were there as many 1st century converts as the bible says?
by gumby inthe bible tells us that christians had multiplied rapidly shortly after christs death.
are the figures accurate?.
acts 2:41 says that after hearing teachings by peter "the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
-
-
Justin
I was not arguing in favor of the type of organization JWs have - I was saying that Acts has been used to support the idea that there was a golden age of Christianity in which all Christians believed and taught alike, but that this was not actually the case. But because Luke attempted to present the earliest Christianity as more unified than it was rather than presenting its diversity, he laid the foundation for what was later attempted in the fourth century and even later by the WTS. (Of course, he did recall the circumcision issue, but presents it in such a way that it was settled by the proper authority [the Jerusalem council], and left his readers to conclude that there was never any question as to what the ligitimate form of Christianity was.)