Posts by Justin

11

Book having to do with JWs

by under74 in

okay, so i finally finished this book let it blurt: the life & times of lester bangs, america's greatest rock critic....i been reading it on plane rides so it's kind of taken me awhile.

i know i've mentioned it on a couple of threads and said it was good...and it is, but the author jim derogatis i think gets jw doctrine all mixed up.

just for background sake, lester bangs was raised a jw and it's brought up a lot in the book because it (of course, made an impact on bangs short life) .

I'm afraid there is a tendency on the part of many to put the JWs in the same boat with other fundamentalists. It's like someone who isn't a dog-lover not bothering to distinguish among the different species - all dogs are dogs. So if other fundamentalists believe in a burning hell, it's assumed the JWs do too. Some fundamentalists use Paul's words at 1 Thessalonians 4:13 to avoid mourning for the dead, but I think JWs would say this merely refers to overwhelming and prolonged expressions of grief - not that we should not grieve at all. And as for hospitals, I know the Seventh Day Adventists have hospitals - and believe it or not, some people confuse the SDA's with the JW's. It is possible that a biographer, knowing that his subject was from a fundamentalist background, might make some assumptions as to what was believed and practiced rather than carefully studying the religion itself.

10

Opinions on Matthew 15:21-28

by wordlywife in

this is a passage that has always bothered me, and was wondering if it bothered anyone else.

to me it sounds as though jesus thinks of some people as dogs and not deserving of anything.

maybe i have an incorrect view on this.

Justin

I was not trying to "harmonize" John with the synoptics so much as attempting to show that even John did not completely ignore the situation of the historical Jesus, having him hold extensive dialogue with a Samaritan rather than just any Gentile. Even John has Jesus say to the Samaritan woman, "salvation is of the Jews." (4:22) John's vantage point is even further along into the new era, when Jesus is recognized as a universal savior. The statement attributed to the post-resurrection Jesus at Acts 1:8, that the apostles were to be witnesses "in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth," would seem to put the Samaritans in a class unto themselves.

10

Opinions on Matthew 15:21-28

by wordlywife in

this is a passage that has always bothered me, and was wondering if it bothered anyone else.

to me it sounds as though jesus thinks of some people as dogs and not deserving of anything.

maybe i have an incorrect view on this.

Justin

worldlywife, are you satisfied with these answers? As leolaia pointed out, the Greek word for "dog" in this case is a diminutive, meaning that the Gentiles were compared to house pets - little dogs, or puppies - which softens what may appear to be harsh. Jesus' mission as the Jewish Messiah was to his own people, but the Gospels anticipate the calling of the Gentiles in his incidental dealings with Gentiles. Even the Gospel of John does not clash with this because the Samaritans were in a class of their own - accepting the Torah (first five books of the Hebrew Bible) but not the remainder, and they may have even had some Jewish descent but had lost their identity.

Your question is one which should interest Christians generally, and is not peculiar to Jehovah's Witnesses. You may want to check out some of the Christian websites available and ask others what they think.

1

Thought for the Day

by Justin in

jw
friends

"some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing.

" - augustine of hippo, the city of god, book xiv, chapter 24.

Justin

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing." - Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, Book XIV, Chapter 24.

25

Parousia- Is it just me? Has anyone else noticed this?

by upside/down in

the entire premise of the debate of christ's "presence" as discussed in matt24:3 to me makes no sense.

here's why: we have to assume by the question asked by the apostles, that they understood the whole "presence" concept, which they didn't.

they were merely asking him when "the end" would come, i'm not even sure if they know what "the end" really meant.

Justin

I think the question, using the text as it stands, is whether or not the translation of parousia as "presence" is legitimate. If we focus on another word - semeion or "sign" ('What will be the semeion of your parousia' (Matt. 24:3) - we can see that it is really irrelevant whether parousia is here translated either "presence" or "coming." Why? Because semeion does not occur again until verse 30, which reads: "And then shall appear the sign [semeion] of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (KJV) There is no presence of the Son of man during all the preceeding events - the great wars, famines, earthquakes, persecutions, and preaching work. In other words, all the events which are supposed to prove an invisible presence according to JW belief do not in fact do so, and the only sign given is the actual coming of Jesus in glory. Because this parousia is said to occur "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" - referring to the "great tribulation" upon Jerusalem (verse 29) - one could infer that that event would be a sign of an impending parousia, but it is not called the sign. If one were to read Matthew 24 in the NWT, even with parousia being translated as "presence," one would not be lead to believe in an invisible presence if one were not already familiar with JW teaching.

32

The Assumption Widely Ridiculed .. But Rarely Discussed

by metatron in

jw
friends

if you are a christian, a jew, or a muslim, you belong to a revealed religion.

you believe that an angel, a prophet.

or other divine being came to earth and truthfully explained what your place in the universe should be.

Justin

When the first flying saucer I ever saw landed, a little green alien came out and asked, "May I take a moment of your time? I'm in the neighborhood today to share some good news with you . . ."

26

"Replacement doctrines" - things which JWs lie about to the interested ones

by Pole in

depending on the denomination of their interlocutor the witnesses often claim that their religion is free of a whole bunch of non-sensical doctrines which are so common in other religions.

oftentimes, however, it proves that they have something that i'll call "replacement doctines" - beliefs which which are difficult to figure out for the 'interested ones', but which in the long run prove to be just as bad as the stuff they disclaimed or worse.

example: in a catholic country like poland, jws often boast about the fact that they don't have the confession routine, where a person has his/her sins forgiven by a priest who acts as a representative of god.

Justin

The major replacement doctrine is the Organization itself. People begin their study with JWs thinking the Bible will be the authority. But then they are gradually won over to the idea that the Organization, which "explains" the Bible, is the real authority. So the Organization has, in fact, become a substitute for the Catholic Church. Years ago, before the Catholic Church liberalized, it was no secret that it was considered to be the true Church, and possessed a teaching authority. But the JWs in effect begin as protestants and become little catholics.

41

JOHN - The Lazy Apostle ?

by Lampokey in

from the gospel according to john , 21:25 new world translation :.

"there are , in fact , many other things which jesus also did , which , if ever they were written in full detail , i suppose , the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.".

well , john , here you are , charged with the responsibility to relate the life and times of jesus , and you do not tell us what these "many other things" are.. why not ?

Justin

Two points: Regarding the correlation of Jesus' death with the passover, John apparently has Jesus die at the time the passover lambs were sacrificed at the temple rather than on the passover day itself. For this to happen, the Last Supper could not be the actual passover meal - though some have speculated that Jesus and his disciples may have had an "early" passover. This leaves us in the dark historically, but it does indicate that both John and the synoptics (other gospels) viewed Jesus as the true passover.

Secondly, the statement at the end of the gospel that all Jesus' deeds were not recorded, while it is hyperbole and it is, as it were, a post script, may be an allowance for the fact that this gospel is different from the others. So the writer may, in effect, be saying, "You may already know things about Jesus which you haven't read here. That's OK. This is the version we are offering now."

12

Which Bullshistory would you choose?

by Norm in

as we know the watchtower is chock full of incredible bullshit, here is some:*** w03 2/15 pp.

5-6 jehovah?a god worth knowing *** .

why did it happen?.

Justin

The JWs came along at a later stage of the mother's grief. So perhaps their explanation "worked" for her, whereas the priest's didn't because he was dealing with the immediate shock of loss. I don't think she was prepared to hear, "Your baby is dead. Just get on with your life."

2

Russell's Armageddon - Part 2

by Justin in

now let's take a look at ways in which russell's views changed over the years.

initially, he did not use the term "armagddon" very much.

traditionally, armageddon was a battle that would be fought locally in the middle east and would be only one feature of the end.

Justin

Now let's take a look at ways in which Russell's views changed over the years. Initially, he did not use the term "Armagddon" very much. Traditionally, Armageddon was a battle that would be fought locally in the Middle East and would be only one feature of the End. But Russell used the expression "time of trouble," taken from the book of Daniel (12:3), and initially he thought this would be co-extensive with the harvest period of 40 years from 1874 to 1914. This view was developed in collaboration with N.H. Barbour, and it is apparently the one he held when writing The Divine Plan of the Ages (1886). This "time of trouble" was also identified with the "Day of the Lord." As years passed, and nothing of great significance occurred, Russell thought that the trouble would occur towards the end of the harvest, and then immediately after the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.

In 1911 Teddy Roosevelt gave a political speech in which he stated, "We stand at Armageddon and battle for the Lord." This so inspired Russell that he adopted "Armageddon" as one of his key terms, even changing the title of Volume IV of the Scripture Studies from The Day of Vengeance to The Battle of Armageddon. But this superimposed the idea of a battle upon what was previously viewed as a time period when God's retributive justice would be revealed. It left open the question of who the protagonists in the battle would be, for previously Russell had claimed that the conflict between capital and labor was merely the means for bringing the end. Was God now on one side or the other? Sometimes Russell hinted that God was on the side of the people, although he had spoken out against the rioters in Chicago earlier in the nineteenth century. At other times, Russell was emphatic that the new kingdom would not represent either one of the parties.

Another factor which changed was that Russell began to introduce the idea of the supernatural. Previously he had looked for purely natural means by which the old order would perish. The supernatural would not be manifested until after Armageddon. But in The Day of Vengeance (renamed The Battle of Armageddon) Russell stated that the attack by Gog of Magog (in the book of Ezekiel) would be a literal invasion of the land of Palestine after the Jews had returned, and that the invaders would be supernaturally defeated by Christ. Yes, there would still be worldwide revolution and anarchy, but the time of trouble would be brought to a close by this supernatural event.

The disappointment of 1914 brought further revisions. Russell began to focus on the ministry of the prophet Elijah. He had always taught that Elijah was a type (prophetic foreshadowing) of the Church (the anointed class), and that Elijah's departure in the fiery chariot was a picture of how the Church would be taken to glory, to leave the earthly affairs of the kingdom in the hands of another class (an Elisha class). But now Russell focused on Elijah's experience at Mount Horeb, when he heard the "still small voice." (1 Kings 19:12, KJV) At first Elijah experienced other manifestations (a wind, an earthquake, a fire), and Russell took these to be the birthpangs of the new order. The wind pictured war (particularly World War I), the earthquake pictured revolution, and the fire anarchy. This indicated to Russell that the final trouble would come in waves in the post-war world. Russell himself died in 1916, while the War was still raging in Europe.

Finally, how are Russell's views different from those of Jehovah's Witnesses today? The JWs, under Judge Rutherford, have dismantled Russell's Armageddon and replaced it with another. According to the Judge, Armageddon is "God's war, not man's." This means that it will be brought about through supernatural means entirely, under the direct supervision of Jehovah God and Christ Jesus. Thus, it could come at any time, irrespective of economic or social conditions in the old world. Rutherford apparently adopted this view, not only to avoid the type of subjective interpretations previously held by Russell, but also to avoid involving Bible Students/JWs in the "Red Scare" of the early twentieth century. There had already been a revolution in Russia. But the new interpretation had its problems, as well. For now, anyone destroyed at Armageddon would be executed directly by God. This raised the question as to whether they would go immediately into the "second death" (which Rutherford answered affirmatively) and, if so, who would be worthy to survive Armageddon? Thus arose the beliefs that there must now be a secondary class of believers with an earthly hope, and that only JWs will survive Armageddon. For Russell, Armageddon had merely been the transition from the old order to the new, after which all the families of the earth would be blessed because the "little flock" would have been selected. Finish.