I find that I do not like the Christ-centeredness of much of Christianity. Even though I accepted the doctrine of the Trinity when I left the JWs, I prefer a version of the Trinity which is functionally the same as I believed when still a JW - where the purpose of Jesus Christ (even though he is considered divine) is to lead us to the Father. The Holy Spirit, also, may be considered a "Person" in the trinitarian sense, but how much of that is metaphorical? I think some ex-JWs, though they have come to terms with the Trinity of the creeds, simply ignore the fact that much of practicing Christianity is actually modalism (the belief that one Person is playing three different roles). So I still prefer a Father-centered religion.
Justin
JoinedPosts by Justin
-
26
Do you have any 'holdover' beliefs?
by AllAlongTheWatchtower inafter reading and responding recently to a post about eating pork and clean and unclean meats, and also a few about newfound freedoms and pleasures that some enjoy now that they are out of the jws, i got to wondering if there is anything like that on the flip side of the coin.
in other words, despite you leaving the wts, is there anything you still believe that they taught, even though you left or were forced out, and no longer believe the rest of the jw doctrine?.
i was never a jw, but i was raised in a rather similar group called the worldwide church of god, many of the controls, strictures, and abuses that i saw as a child there, i see posted about here-though they are different, they are also the same.
-
-
-
4
"The Old Man is Dead" who?
by hamsterbait inwho was the famous politician, or king(??
) who when he died the message was sent "the old man is dead"?.
the reason why i ask is that there is a theory that king george of england when on his death bed was 'hurried along' by the doctors and this message was sent.. i tie this in with the theory that russell was piosoned or smothered, because when he died the telegram was sent to rutherford in california with the message "the old man is dead.
-
-
Justin
I have also heard that this is how the news of Russell's death was conveyed, but it is also possible that Russell could have been referred to affectionately as "the old man" when he was still alive. In the past father figures have been referred to in this way. So, nothing either cryptic or dispespectful need be intended.
-
1
Paul's hope
by Justin inin a previous thread, someone referred to a jw who thought the wt teaches that paul expected to go to heaven immediately at death.
this is quite surprising, but perhaps someone read something from the new testament, took it at face value, and thought the society did also.. .
this brings to mind a text - philippians 1:21-24 - which i here quote from the american standard version (1901) as representative of what we would find in just about any translation:.
-
-
Justin
In a previous thread, someone referred to a JW who thought the WT teaches that Paul expected to go to heaven immediately at death. This is quite surprising, but perhaps someone read something from the New Testament, took it at face value, and thought the Society did also.
This brings to mind a text - Philippians 1:21-24 - which I here quote from the American Standard Version (1901) as representative of what we would find in just about any translation:
"For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if to live in the flesh, - if this shall bring fruit from my work, then what I shall choose I know not. But I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better: yet to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sake." (emphasis mine)
Paul's dilemma is that of being caught between two possibilities - (1) continuing to live on in the flesh in service to the Lord and the brethren, or (2) departing and being with Christ, which would involve his death. This presents no problem to the orthodox.
The New World Translation, however, attempts to introduce a very subtle change. I quote:
"For in my case to live is Christ, and to die, gain. Now if it be to live on in the flesh, this is a fruitage of my work - and yet which thing to select I do not make known. I am under pressure from these two things; but what I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, to be sure, is far better. However, for me to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account." (emphasis mine)
Instead of depart, we have the releasing. An attempt is being made to introduce the thought that there are, not two possibilities (living or dieing), but three, although the third possibility is merely a hypothetical one. The hypothetical possibility is that of living into the period of Christ's presence and thus experiencing the instantaneous change of an anointed one at the moment of death (the "releasing") rather than having to sleep in death awaiting the resurrection. (This supposedly is what now happens from 1918 onward.) This distinction is so subtle that the uninitiated, even when reading the NWT, would not grasp it.
I believe the original New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950) contained an appendix explaining the reasoning behind this translation of Philippians 1:23, but I do not have it available. Perhaps someone can fill us in. I do have the Scripture Studies in which Russell relied on the Emphatic Diaglott translation to state that the Greek verb analusai (lexical form: analuo) was translated "return" at Luke 12:36, referring to Jesus' return, and so should also be translated "return" at Philippians 1:23 (rather than either "depart" or "releasing") to refer to the same event. Russell admits (with the lexicographers) that the word can mean either "return" or "depart." My own thought is that the related noun (the cognate) - analusis - is definitely used at 2 Timothy 4:6 to refer to Paul's death: "the due time for my releasing is imminent." (NWT, emphasis mine) There is no reason why the verb should not refer to the same event at Philippians 1:23 (i.e., to Paul's death now, during this age, prior to the parousia).
I think, then, that there are only two possibilities presented at Philippians 1:23 - either Paul would continue living or he would die and be with Christ. But considering that Paul did not think of Christ's return or parousia as being necessarily far off in the indefinite future, that he could include himself in "we the living who are surviving" at the time of the parousia (1Thes. 4:16, NWT), is it possible that he did have in mind a third possibility - not the possibility of being included in "the remnant" since 1918, but the possibility of at least being raptured? I personally do not think so, because then the alternative would not be that of remaining with the brothers and sisters, for they would all be raptured together. What do you think?
-
26
thing restraining
by peacefulpete in2 thess 2 contains a cryptic reference to a "man of lawlessness" and something or someone that is "restraining".
first to be noted is that the section appears to some to have been styled after typical jewish and early christian apocalyptic scenario wherein an epic and protracted struggle of the messiah (christ) and his archnemesis (antichrist), including the idea that the antichrist figure would have a brief period of success in leading men away then to be crushed in a final decisive battle.
it is suggested from the wording (and dissimilar style) found in 2 thess 2 that the author was drawing from some such pre-existing apocalyse now lost to us.
-
-
Justin
Pete,
I can't really help you here, but the old Protestant understanding of the "man of lawlessness" or "man of sin" (in other words, Antichrist) which C.T. Russell also subscribed to was that this was a symbol of the Papacy. It was understood that the restraining power was in fact the Roman power because it was not until the emperors abandoned Rome and set up shop in the East (in Constantinople) that the bishop of Rome was free to become a worldly power in his own right. But it seems that Rome would not have been the intended meaning of the original author (whether Paul or someone 50 years later) as the emperors were certainly capable of demanding worship like the mysterious figure in the prophecy, thus corresponding to the role of Antiochus in the 2nd century BCE.
-
23
Another JW alternative
by Justin infor those interested in an alternative to the jws, check out http://www.bibledecoded.com/index.html .
the lws claim to be the successors to the jws!
they have their own chronology, disfellowshipping rules, etc.
-
-
Justin
For those interested in an alternative to the JWs, check out http://www.bibledecoded.com/index.html . The LWs claim to be the successors to the JWs! They have their own chronology, disfellowshipping rules, etc. It will take awhile to digest - I haven't figured out yet whether it's serious or tongue in cheek. Let us know what you think.
-
9
creation days
by pintoman ini have wanted to ask this question for some time and i think i found the place.
i understand that jw's (i use that term respectfully) believe that the days of creation are a long period of time.
(i am not sure what the belief is either 1000 or 7000 years i think) my question is this how do you come up with that.
-
-
Justin
Most of us are former JWs and are not interested in presenting arguments in defense of their beliefs. Basically, the JW belief in 7,000 year creation days is based on what they consider to be the length of the seventh day. They believe that God is still resting from his creative work, and that based on the argument in Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, we have the opportunity of entering God's rest with him. As we are now supposedly 6,000 years removed from the original creation, and as there is a 1,000-year millennial kingdom still ahead of us, this makes a total of 7,000 years for the seventh day. If the seventh day is 7,000 years long, each of the preceeding days must also have been 7,000 years. This, by the way, is not a recent belief, but was held by Charles Taze Russell himself at the beginning of the movement. But please do not pursue this, as probably no one here would attempt to make any sense of it. You would need to contact active JWs or even the Watchtower Society itself if you care to pursue the matter further.
-
14
WT 1/1/05 Question From Readers
by TheListener inokay i read this qfr but missed an interesting point (i think) until the 4/15/05 wt do you remember section which references the 1/1/5 qfr.. wt 1/1/05 qfr: does stephen's exclamation at acts 7:59 indicate that prayers should be directed to jesus?.
par.
5 says this: "but, seeing the resurrected jesus in vision, stephen apparently felt free to appeal to him directly, saying "lord jesus, receive my spirit.
-
-
Justin
narkissos,
With regard to NT evidence for praying to Jesus, I think the expression 'calling upon the name of' Jesus or the Lord is a primary indicator.
1 Cor. 1:2 is addressed to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." This is language borrowed from the OT with reference to calling upon the name of YHWH. (Compare Gen. 12:8) Also in this category is Romans 10:13, quoting from Joel 2:32 - "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." At his baptism (according to Acts) Paul was instructed to "wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16) The "Lord" here would appear to be Jesus, as Paul was turning to Jesus and was already a worshipper of YHWH.
All this is not to say that the texts support fourth century trinitarianism, and we are not told how praying to Jesus was integrated into the worship of the Father. Do you have an alternative explanation?
-
Scholarly articles
by Justin infor those who would like to read scholarly articles on the bible and theology, check out the website for the wesleyan theological journal at http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/index.htm .. these are the kinds of articles you will need to read more than once, and have your dictionary handy!
they are full of footnotes, and the scholars seem to be writing primarily for their colleagues.
the articles are not for everyone, but may be helpful some.
-
Justin
For those who would like to read scholarly articles on the Bible and theology, check out the website for the Wesleyan Theological Journal at http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/index.htm .
These are the kinds of articles you will need to read more than once, and have your dictionary handy! They are full of footnotes, and the scholars seem to be writing primarily for their colleagues. The articles are not for everyone, but may be helpful some.
-
27
little flock
by peacefulpete injust a comment for the new ones here.
the wt has attatched great doctrinal significance to the words "little flock" in luke 12:32. what however does the context tell us the author was intending?
luke 12 opens with a crowd of curious people gathering and trampling each other and jesus turns to his 12, his friends and disciples, and addresses them with private counsel.
-
-
Justin
Did Russell consider the Great Multitude to be part of spiritual Israel? Based on the article "The Great Multitude" in the March 1916 Watch Tower (Reprint No. 5846), I would say Yes. That article includes both classes in "the Church" - and the Church or congregation is spiritual Israel.
See http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r5864b.htm .
Russell believed in both the natural Israel and the spiritual Israel. But for Russell, the Israel of the restoration prophecies (such as Isaiah 35) is to be the natural Israel. In that sense, it has not been replaced by spiritual Israel. Each has its own destiny. By contrast, the Society today holds the view that the restoration prophecies are fulfilled in a spiritual way upon spiritual Israel since 1919.
-
27
little flock
by peacefulpete injust a comment for the new ones here.
the wt has attatched great doctrinal significance to the words "little flock" in luke 12:32. what however does the context tell us the author was intending?
luke 12 opens with a crowd of curious people gathering and trampling each other and jesus turns to his 12, his friends and disciples, and addresses them with private counsel.
-
-
Justin
Regarding the distinction between the "little flock" and the "great multitude" among the original Bible Students: The one hope of their calling was to become members of the "little flock" - to reign as kings and priests with Christ - and only as a consequence of partial unfaithfulness would someone end up in the great multitude. The great multitude was expected to be a secondary heavenly class similar to angels, but one did not enter the race for life with the expectation of belonging to this secondary class. It would only be in the resurrection that one would know for sure what the final outcome was. In the meantime, all were anointed, all were spirit-begotten and partook of the Memorial emblems. So it was not like today (when the "great multitude" is considered earthly) that each one was expected to identify as belonging to one group or the other.
As for the original context in Luke in which this expression "little flock" occurs, it certainly is a prime example of taking scriptural terms and phrases out of context and repeating them over and over again. But nevertheless, it is beneficial to ask whether or not it is a term which is applicable only to the original evangelical milieu (belonging to the context of Jesus' earthly ministry and peculiar to the gospel stories) or if it could, by extension, be applied to the church after the change of dispensations. The reason I ask this is that none of the New Testament writings were directed to Christians living in later times, and yet they are commonly applied to such. For example, Paul told the Corinthians that they were the "body of Christ," and yet all Christians understand that they belong to this "body" (JW "other sheep" excepted). Of course, once the number of Christians increased, "little flock" would not seem to be an appropriate description, but I wonder if any other Christian groups have applied the expression to themselves.