This sounds like a book written for children by one of the Society's directors (Van Amburgh?) shortly after Russell's death, and it was privately published and therefore was not actually a Watchtower publication. (This sort of thing was allowed back then.) But I can't remember the title.
Justin
JoinedPosts by Justin
-
12
New Fun Game! "Name that Watchtower Book"!
by Nathan Natas inhere's how it works: i post an unaltered exerpt from a watchtower publication, and you tell me the title of the book.. sounds like fun?.
you bet!.
here's your first stumper:suppose a farmer owned a sheep that had been bad, and was condemned to die.
-
-
-
28
...trying to track down the JW core doctrines
by jgnat inthis is what i've concluded.. there are 104 questions the jw baptismal candidate must answer.
by comparison, a baptist dunker asks no more than five.
orthodox christians follow the nicene creed.
-
-
Justin
jgnat . . . You'll notice I used two terms - "two salvations" which Bible Students still use today - and "two hopes" - the current JW designation. This is because, during Russell's lifetime, while the Bible Students themselves claimed the heavenly hope, they believed that mankind in general would, after Armageddon, be offered the earthly hope (some, having survived Armageddon without becoming Bible Students, and others being resurrected). But during Rutherford's presidency, the earthly prospects were held out specifically to what has become known as the "great crowd" - the majority of JWs who do not profess the heavenly hope. So it has become an earthly hope in the sense that there are people now alive who expect this to become their destiny. Rutherford also changed the meaning of Armageddon to be, not simply the dissolution of the old order, but the everlasting destruction of those outside the organization (even though previous generations are still expected to return in the resurrection). Because the two salvations idea is still held to in a modified form, there is both continuity and discontinuity with Russell.
-
28
...trying to track down the JW core doctrines
by jgnat inthis is what i've concluded.. there are 104 questions the jw baptismal candidate must answer.
by comparison, a baptist dunker asks no more than five.
orthodox christians follow the nicene creed.
-
-
Justin
The idea that obeying the FDS is the basic requirement for JWs is true as far as it goes, but it must be balanced with the thought that there are, historically, certain beliefs which have characterized JWs. One way to determine what those beliefs are is to ask what has not changed since the time of Russell. There have always been what have been called the three denials - denial of the Trinity, immortality of the soul, and hell-fire. To a JW it is just as important to deny certain beliefs as it is to affirm others. There has been a belief in Armageddon (though, as has been pointed out, the nature of Armageddon has changed). There has been a belief in the restoration of mankind to an Edenic earth. Then there are the two salvations (or hopes) - the heavenly and the earthly, and 144,000 has always been understood as the literal number of the heavenly class. The proclamation of God's kingdom has been very important (though the details of such "good news" have changed). These and other beliefs JWs share with Bible Students.
To distinguish JWs from Bible Students, we can ask what has not changed since the time of Rutherford. Answer: such matters as the importance of using the name JEHOVAH, the thought that God's people are primarily witnesses for Jehovah rather than for Christ, the belief that God deals with people through an organization and that organization must be run theocratically.
While it is true that any of these beliefs could theoretically be changed by the FDS, an historian would not be satisfied simply to say that belief in the FDS is the distinguishing mark of Jehovah's Witnesses.
-
20
John 20:19-21
by I-CH-TH-U-S injohn 20:19-21.
19jesus answered them, "destroy this temple, and i will raise it again in three days.
20the jews replied, "it has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?
-
-
Justin
This is a passage which is much better understood from the standpoint of the trinitarian orthodoxy which developed in the Church rather than from the JW perspective. While it is true that such understanding is a result of theological reflection, yet the Gospel of John seems to be much closer to what finally emerged as normative Christian doctrine than some parts of the NT.
So from the orthodox perspective, the Logos (Word) which assumed flesh (and which eventually became known as the Second Person of the Trinity), could not die in his own proper nature. It was the humanity which had been assumed in the incarnation which died, and the Logos remained alive. Consequently, the Logos could raise the dead body of Jesus to life.
This is not considered to contradict the idea that the Father raised Jesus. All three Persons of the Trinity are considered to be involved in any divine activity. For example, in creation, we would not choose between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - all Three were involved. But it is said that the act of creation is attributed to the Father - not that the other two Persons were not involved. (Similarly, salvation is attributed to the Son; sanctification or holiness is attributed to the Spirit.) I would suppose that resurrection would be attributed to the Father, though the Son or Logos would be the Father's agent as he was in creation. Interestingly, the Holy Spirit also is said to be involved in resurrection. (Rom. 1:3-4; 8:11)
Hopefully these concepts will give you a way to think of Jesus raising himself, and yet being raised by the Father.
-
19
Why do they let Children Get Baptized?
by Dune inso i've been wondering about it recently.
i was baptized when i was 11 years old and have been a witness for about 8 years now.
since i was 11 (yes, since 11) i've been reading the watchtower, doing the mics and all that stuff.
-
-
Justin
While it is unfortunate that people are asked to make a committment at such a young age and then held accountable to an organization and can be disfellowshipped, the phenomenon is similar to what has happened to other groups which oppose infant baptism. In theory, the believer is baptized as a fully accountable adult, but in practice the kids in such churches are baptized around the same age as you describe. Presumably, they have reached what is called "the age of accountability" - but it's not much of an improvement over baptizing a baby. Because there is a conflict between accepting a newborn as a full member of a community and having an adult decide for him/herself, this situation has arisen.
-
10
Need some help...
by Hellrider ini`m discussing with a jw on another board, we`re discussing 697/587, the 70 weeks, etc etc.
and then he writes: .
"why is it the 70 weeks works out perfectly for the apperance of messiah?".
-
-
Justin
I wouldn't even begin to get into it with a JW, but apparently the real give-away is found in chapters 10-12 about the kings of the north and south. These were originally the Seleucid dynasty (in Syria, north of Palestine) and the Ptolemaic dynasty (in Egypt, to the south). Both dynasties sprang from two of Alexander's generals. The succeeding generations of these dynasties are described in detail, until the account reaches the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanies who desecrated the Jerusalem temple in the second century BCE. His death is not described accurately - also his downfall was to be followed immediately by the establishment of the kingdom of God. To avoid facing up to this the Society applies the prophecy about the king of the north to Rome (mid-way through the series), and finally leaps forward to the present time in which the king of the south is supposed to be the Anglo-American world power. Until recently, the king of the north was designated as the Communist bloc. Also, some of Christendom's commentators have stated that Antiochus was merely a type of the Antichrist, who would completely fulfill the prophecy. But the point is, the part of the prophetic description which is accurate was already history when the book was written, and the part which turned out to be speculation was not. Therefore, it must have been written in the second century (BCE) when Antiochus reigned.
-
14
fear not those who kill the body
by John Doe inwitnesses believe that the soul and the body are the same thing, right?
well, i had one of the old songs running through my head today, and it hit me what it was saying: .
"fear not those who kill they body, but cannot destroy the soul.
-
-
Justin
Leolaia - In view of your word study, I could wonder why apolesai (1st aorist active infinitive of apollumi) is translated "destroy" at Matthew 10:28 in most, if not all, translations. (See KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, NIV and NJB.) Could it be that this is the only meaning which fits the literary context? After all, God's ability to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna is paralleled with human ability to kill the body. To kill the body is a form of destruction - for while the elements of the body are not thereby reduced to nothing, that which they constituted has been destroyed. The case for annihilation is made if the entity which once existed is made to perish - there does not need to be a complete reversal of creatio ex nihilo.
Apollumi may have a wide range of meaning, but the meaning chosen must fit the particular context. The nineteenth century lexicographer, Joseph H. Thayer, gives as one of its meanings: "to destroy i.e. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to, ruin," and for an example, among others, he gives Luke 17:27,29 concerning the destruction at the time of the Flood and of Sodom. But when he comes to Matthew 10:28 (our present text), he assigns the meaning: "to devote or give over to eternal misery." Why? Presumably due to the association of apollumi with Gehenna.
The twentieth century lexicographers Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, in their work, give as their first definition of apollumi: "ruin, destroy." They indicate that, in the Septuagint, it can refer to killing or putting to death. (Gen. 20:4; Esther 9:6; 1 Maccabees 2:37) Also, in the parable of the vineyard, the master "will miserably destroy [apolesei] those wicked men" (tenants who killed his son) (Matt. 21:41). Whatever the eternal punishment may be, certainly in the parable they were merely killed - and this was the basic meaning of apolesei. Bauer et al. do state that the Greek word especially refers to "eternal death" - but they do not expound on this in theological fashion as to what exactly that entails. There are other definitions which you have covered admirably well and which do not need further explanation here.
The crucial point is that traditional or orthodox commentators will not acknowledge that apollumi (or its cognate apolesai) refers to destruction at Matthew 10:28 because it is there associated with Gehenna, and Gehenna is elsewhere depicted as a place or condition of torment. So for them, apollumi must have a meaning different from the natural one in this context. This is similar to the situation with the twentieth chapter of Revelation, where the so-called "lake of fire" (or Gehenna) is called "the second death" - a designation which annihilationists are all too happy to accept - and yet the same chapter states that those cast into the lake of fire "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (compare verses 10 and 14) The mystery as to why terminology is used which does not seem appropriate is for theologians to unravel, but the explanation is not in the text. Similarly, the statement at Matthew 10:28 that soul and body are destroyed in Gehenna (a state in which such destruction would seem impossible) is left for the Church and its sectarian opponents to explain.
-
14
fear not those who kill the body
by John Doe inwitnesses believe that the soul and the body are the same thing, right?
well, i had one of the old songs running through my head today, and it hit me what it was saying: .
"fear not those who kill they body, but cannot destroy the soul.
-
-
Justin
I don't think the JW view of the soul is that it is simply the body, although it certainly is considered an embodied existence.In Volume V of Studies in the Scriptures, under the heading "What is a Soul?," Russell stated: "Examining this question from the Bible standpoint we will find that man has a body and has a spirit, but is a soul. . . . The word 'soul,' as found in the Scriptures, signifies sentient being; that is, a being possessed of powers of sense, sense-perception." (p. 322) Not that this definition is current - the precise definition of "soul" seems to be something the Society has varied over the years (as with so many other teachings). And I believe in the Appendix to the NWT, examples of a dead nephesh are given - that, of course, being a dead body. But in the case of a living soul, the soul is not simply the body.
Leolaia - I see you have referred to the destruction of soul and body in Gehenna. The simplest understanding of this would be annihilation, but I believe in other threads you have supported the orthodox idea that Gehenna involves eternal suffering or torment. Can you supply any references from ancient sources that the destruction of the wicked was not simply their annihilation? By this I mean, sources in which this term is actually redefined in an orthodox way?
-
7
What would Luke the physician have known about medicine at the time?
by truthseeker ini was always fascinated by the apostle luke.
as a physician, what kind of medical knowledge would he have in the 1st century, and where would he have learned it?.
the only vague reference to his profession was luke 8:43 "a woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her living on physicians, and could not be healed by any".
-
-
Justin
The reason Luke is considered to have been a doctor is the statement at Colossians 4:14 - "Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you."I remember there was one scholar who claimed that Luke was actually a horse doctor! If anyone knows about this, perhaps they can inform us.
At any rate, for the medical knowledge available in the first century, I would recommend Hippocrates (the "Father of Medicine") who lived four centuries prior, and perhaps Galen - although he lived two centuries later.
For Hippocrates, see Internet Classics Archive/Works by Hippocrates .
For Galen, http://www.med.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/antiqua/galen.htm .
-
24
"God is Love"
by Justin inafter my thread on seminary education, i am doing one more about liberal clergy.
my previous thread dealt with the idea that their education seemed incompatible with their calling, and this naturally led to the possibility that they may hide an underlying skepticism from their parishioners.
in this thread i am asking why many of them present a god whose love goes beyond that of the biblical god or even the god of traditional theology.
-
-
Justin
To remain with the point I was trying to make: If we can point to scripture texts which depict God acting in ways which do not seem to be loving (whether justifiably so or not), then the clergy who represent God as unconditionally loving are misrepresenting their own Book. (It doesn't matter whether the Book is inspired, is correct or not - they have chosen to depart from the tradition while claiming to be its representatives.)
If these same people do not actually believe in a god (and we discussed their seminary experience in another thread), and their motive in ministering to others is a humanistic one, then perhaps they feel free to invent a god who is healthier for people who need to believe. Then, when they say, "God loves you," their emphasis lies on the humans who are being loved. In other words, there is something good about you for God to love you. Whereas, the traditional belief would seem to be that God loves the unlovable - there is something in God which reaches out to those who do not deserve his love. And, the older belief follows this up with the threat that those who do not respond to this love will experience the other side of God.
So the liberal belief is intended to make people feel good about themselves, whereas the classical belief is intended to make them feel good about God (as they say, to the glory of God).