Posts by Justin

17

Does God really have a Name?

by Flaming Seraphim in

i find the name "jehovah" repugnant.

if i ever hear that name again i will surely throw up!

as if "jehovah" is god's real name anyway.

Justin

Flaming Seraphim,

I agree with you that we humans do not possess the personal name of God. In fact, in the highest sense, I do not believe God has a name. The name YHWH is really a name that is not a name.

When God told Moses His "name," speaking in the grammatical first person, the Hebrew words were [i]eyeh asher eyeh[i], translated variously as "I AM THAT I AM" (KJV), "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE" (NWT), or "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE" (NIV, margin) at Exodus 3:14. The name YHWH is that same Hebrew verb, but in the third person. So God can say, "I am," but we say "He is."

Such a God cannot be pinned down with a name. The translators of the Greek [i]Septuagint[i] in the second century BCE preferred the "I AM" form, probably because Greek thought is more concerned with essence. This form would carry the meaning that God is the Self-existent One. God just is. But, the other possibility, the "I will be" form, fits well with the context of the Exodus story - that God would reveal himself to his people on the wilderness journey, and he would be whatever he would be for them. This is the God who reveals himself in history. But either way, it is a God who cannot be pinned down or simply defined. So we could say that, yes, YHWH is God's name, but it is a name that is not a name.

The form "Jehovah" is especially repugnant to many of us because of all the repression we have suffered under that name. Let us be thankful that God is beyond all description and definition, and rest assured that he is not the mental idol which has been created in the image of some.

Justin

2

Terms of Surrender

by Justin in

jw
friends

having left jws over 20 years ago, and having just got on-line after dragging my heels into cyberspace, was i surprised to find the networking that is taking place among jws, xjws, and interested parties!

we're at war with the dark spiritual forces behind the wt.

it is a spiritual, nonviolent war.. so what is the objective?

Justin

Having left JWs over 20 years ago, and having just got on-line after dragging my heels into cyberspace, was I surprised to find the networking that is taking place among JWs, XJWs, and interested parties! We're at war with the dark spiritual forces behind the WT. It is a spiritual, nonviolent war.

So what is the objective? It's too early to put into a few words, but what I would like to see would be something comparable to what happened with Japan at the end of World War II - the emperor admitted to the Japanese people that he was not a god! Even the Pope recently apologized to the world for much of the damage inflicted by the Catholic Church upon innocent people. So what I would like to see is for the Governing Body to come down and humble itself, apologize, and surrender the rigid control it now has over the JWs. And since the practice of disfellowshipping has been so abused, it should be discontinued. This would greatly decrease the degree of control which the GB has.

I've discovered that there are so many JWs who communicate with sites such as this one, who somehow have managed to deprogram themselves while still in the organization! I don't know how they manage to do it. The GB has no idea how many of these people are in their ranks who appear to be submissive to the organization. Instead of the waters of Babylon being dried up, it may be the WT's own waters! Until the WT surrenders, we will continue our efforts. We shall "win the inevitable victory"!

A Mighty Fortress

by Justin in

jw
friends

a mighty fortress is our god,.

a sword and shield victorious;.

he breaks the cruel oppressor's rod.

Justin

A mighty fortress is our God,
A sword and shield victorious;
He breaks the cruel oppressor's rod
And wins salvation glorious. . .

Though hordes of devils fill the land
All threatening to devour us,
We tremble not, unmoved we stand;
They cannot overpower us. . .

God's word forever shall abide,
No thanks to foes, who fear it;
For God himself fights by our side
With weapons of the Spirit. . .

They cannot win the day.
The Kingdom's ours forever!

- Martin Luther

14

the prophet nathan

by jerome in

i hate to be starting another topic for this reason but i would really like an anwser to this question.. jws' use the example of the prophet nathan telling king david to to build his temple but then god told him that it wouldent be built in his time.. any rebutals to this reasoning?.

what were the circumstances behind this happening in the first place?.

why can this not be used to explain the "mistaken expections" of the watchtower in the past and thus their being branded false prophets?

Justin

Jerome,

You should always quote chapter and verse. In this case, the reference seems to be the parallel accounts at 2 Samuel 7:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 17:1-15. The idea of building the temple was David's, not Nathan's. Nathan merely acquiesed, and said: "Go, do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you." But that very night God told Nathan to tell David that Solomon would build the temple.

It's too bad God doesn't tell the Governing Body right away when they get it into their heads to make up stupid rules and regulations that affect the lives of six million people.

I'm just answering this for practice, you know. They say that you're a troll.

Justin

1

More Love Divine

by Justin in

jw
friends

come down, o love divine,.

seek thou this soul of mine,.

and visit it with thine own ardour glowing;.

Justin

Come down, O Love divine,
Seek thou this soul of mine,
And visit it with thine own ardour glowing;
O Comforter, draw near,
Within my heart appear,
And kindle it, thy holy flame bestowing.

- Bianco da Siena, d. 1434

4

I John 5:7 question

by apostate man in

i am sure many of you know that 1 john 5:7 does not exist in the nwt as it does kjv.

i need an answer if anyone has it.

read on.... a more serious problem with the king james bible in regard to adding words can be found at 1 john 5:7 where it says, "for there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost: and these three are one".

Justin

apostate man,

The words in question found at 1 John 5:7 in the KJV are not found, to my knowledge, in any modern Bible translation (there may be one exception - a translation which simply removes some of the archaic words from the KJV). So the NWT is not unique in this respect. In fact, since this is the case, the WT is really attacking a straw man when it points out that these words should not be in the Bible - the Bible translators themselves know that! It has no bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity, however, as the early Church Fathers never appealed to this text in their dispute with Arius (the so-called Jehovah's Witness of the fourth century), yet they came up with enough Scriptural evidence to at least satisfy the Church that the Trinity is true.

For a standard Bible translation, I use the New King James Version. This is a translation in the King James tradition, but with the benefit of modern scholarship and modern English language. If you must use the King James, I do not recommend the Scofield Reference Bible. You can use a regular King James Version, or even one with marginal references, without relying on Scofield's notes. Scofield's notes are based on a system of Bible interpretation known as dispensationalism, the product of John Nelson Barby who lived in the early nineteenth century. It is the theory that God deals with mankind through seven distinct dispensations or ages. It is a theory that is imposed upon the Bible rather than one that is derived from the Bible itself.

As to how the extra words got into 1 John 5:7 in the KJV - they may have been a "gloss" - a notation made by a copyist to an early manuscript who thought he was clarifying the meaning of the text. Another copyist came along, thought the words were part of the text itself, and made sure they got into the next edition! The KJV, being based on late manuscripts, contained the gloss. But the earlier manuscripts which are used by Bible translators today do not have it.

Justin

Love Divine

by Justin in

jw
friends

love divine, all loves excelling,.

joy of heaven, to earth come down,.

fix in us thy humble dwelling,.

Justin

Love divine, all loves excelling,
Joy of heaven, to earth come down,
Fix in us thy humble dwelling,
All thy faithful mercies crown . . .

Come, almighty to deliver,
Let us all thy grace receive;
Suddenly return, and never,
Never more thy temple leave. . .

Finish then thy new creation:
Pure and spotless let us be;
Let us see thy great salvation,
Perfectly restored in thee.
- Hymn by John Wesley

12

Partaking of the emblems

by pralis in

i've always been curious as to the reasons why only "the anointed" were permitted to partake of the emblems at the memorial.

we all know that the wtbts says the "other sheep" are the non-anointed christians who merely observe the memorial (by the way, by "other sheep" jesus was talking about the gentiles that would become part of the new covenant; he wasn't referring to some strange class of non-anointed christians).

they've often compared the situation to the foreigners in the congregation of israel who were not permitted to observe the passover (see exodus 12:38, 43 -- they draw this correlation because the memorial is the replacement for the passover observance).

Justin

pralis

I'm no longer a JW and a don't believe in the two-class system anymore. If I did believe in a two-class system, I would hold to the original belief of Charles T. Russell, that the earthly class will not be manifest until after Armageddon, and that the purpose of this Gospel Age is to select the little flock. In other words, the heavenly hope would be the only one now available, but there will be worldly people who will survive Armageddon and be offered the opportunity to live forever on earth at that time. What the WT has done with its understanding of the "great crowd" is to run ahead of God's timetable before a real change of dispensations has occurred. Like I said, I do not really believe in two classes, but if I did this is the view I would hold.

Now about the WT's refusal to allow the "other sheep" to partake, the following are the reasons given:

1. Partakers must be in the covenant for the kingdom. When he instituted the Memorial Supper, Jesus said to his apostles: "However, you are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel." (Luke 22:28-30) To the WT, this means that only people who are going to rule with Jesus in the Kingdom may patake of the emblems. (As far as eating and drinking in a spiritual, heavenly kingdom is concerned, we'll leave for the WT to explain.)

2. Partakers must be in the New Covenant. Jesus said that the wine "means my 'blood of the covenant,' which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28) Just as the old Law Covenant was made with natural Israel, so the New Covenant is made with spiritual Israel. Other sheep may receive the forgiveness of sins through Jesus' blood, but for them the blood does not seal a covenant between them and God. What are the terms of the New Covenant? This does not seem to be specifically stated anywhere in the Bible, so the WT uses the terms of the Old Covenant to typify the terms of the New. Jehovah told the Israelites that, if they would obey the Law, "you yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Ex. 19:6) These words are quoted by Peter and applied to anointed Christians. (1 Pet. 2:9) These ones will become the kingdom of priests (or reign as kings and priests), unlike natural Israel which missed its opportunity. (Rev. 5:10) Consequently, as parties of the New Covenant, only they are allowed to partake of the emblems. (How there can be a strict analogy between the Old Covenant and the New - the old being a Law covenant and the New a grace covenant - we'll leave for the WT to explain.)

Now these are the WT's arguments, not mine. This may be contrasted with the Laymens Home Missionary Movement, one of the splinter groups that left the WT after Rutherford became president. This group also has an earthly class, and their anointed ones died off years ago. The earthly members are allowed to partake of the Memorial on the basis that, even though certain aspects of the Memorial do not apply to them, at least they are benefiting from the ransom sacrifice. You may check their website at http://www.biblestandard.com - look under "Questions and Answers" and then look for a question which asks something like "Memorial - Who May Partake."

I personally think that the WT, despite its scriptural argumentation, wants to make a distinction between the two classes at the Memorial to keep track of statistics - to always be able to show statistically that the numbers of the remnant are decreasing in comparison to the increase of the "great crowd." There may be more to it than that, but enough said already!

Justin

7

GB or Anointed the FDS?

by Thirdson in

jw
friends

i was reading via kent's site some of the "to all boe" letters.

i noticed something in particular in the letter of february 27, 2001 about the formation of the christian congregation of jehovah's witnesses, a new legal entity.. that letter in part states:we thank you for your cooperation with these adjustments made by the governing body in fulfilling its assignment to care for all the master's belongings.

(matthew 24:45-47. i thought the "faithful slave" was entrusted with the master's belongings not the gb.

Justin

Thirdson,

I've had some more thoughts on this matter. Either this is a slip, as I stated, or it could be the beginning of a change. In one of my earlier posts I speculated that they may start including "other sheep" in the slave class because of the small number of anointed left and the current Governing Body getting up in years. As I have said, they can never allow the rank and file JWs to be identified with the slave. This means that they cannot merely extend their current explanation of the anointed congregation being the slave to include the entire congregation (all JWs), because it would destroy the impact of the magisterium.

So it would be logical for them to narrow their definition of the slave to being the Governing Body before adding other sheep. Thus, it would not be all the other sheep who would be included in the slave, but only ones admitted to the Governing Body, or perhaps some who are on the writing staff as well. They could then say that the slave was always a small class of God's servants who was dispensing spiritual food to the household of faith, but that they did not previously realize that these persons did not necessarily have to be anointed.

I do not like to indulge in prophetic speculation. You know where that gets us! So we'll just have to wait and see whether the statement quoted was just a slip, or if this is indeed the beginning of a change. Thank you for calling this to our attention.

Justin

7

GB or Anointed the FDS?

by Thirdson in

jw
friends

i was reading via kent's site some of the "to all boe" letters.

i noticed something in particular in the letter of february 27, 2001 about the formation of the christian congregation of jehovah's witnesses, a new legal entity.. that letter in part states:we thank you for your cooperation with these adjustments made by the governing body in fulfilling its assignment to care for all the master's belongings.

(matthew 24:45-47. i thought the "faithful slave" was entrusted with the master's belongings not the gb.

Justin

Thirdson,

I do not think it is new light - I think it is more of a slip as to what the actual situation is. The official teaching is that the anointed class, as a whole, is the slave. The individual anointed ones are the "domestics" of the Lord's house, while as a composite whole they constitute the "slave" who is appointed over the house. But in reality, the average anointed one has no say in the governing of the organization. This is actually carried out by the Governing Body. So for all practical purposes the Governing Body is the slave, and this is the reason for the "slip" in your quotation.

It's important to realize the psychological impact of having such a "slave." It's like the magisterium (or teaching authority) in the Roman Catholic Church. This authority is vested in the pope and the bishops, not the average Catholic.

When Russell was considered to be the "slave" (or "faithful and wise servant" - KJV), it was evident that the average Bible Student (or JW) was not the slave. When Rutherford eventually changed the understanding of who constitutes the slave, I believe he said that "the Society" is the slave. (If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.) But this was not satisfactory scripturally, because the Society is a legal corporation that cannot be found in the Bible. So the current understanding that all the anointed constitute the slave was adopted when it became apparent that the "other sheep" would far outnumber the anointed, and hence the average JW could not claim to be of the slave class. This tactic of keeping the slave distinct from the rank and file has the effect of preventing them from doing their own thinking. If they were all the slave, they would start coming up with their own explanations of scripture, and Big Brother certainly wouldn't like that!

So at this point, I don't think there has been a change of understanding. Someone on the writing staff just slipped up and identified who the slave really is!

Justin