Posts by Justin

8

Does the WTS currently claim to be guided by the HS?

by bob1999 in

thanks....

Justin

This subject has been discussed previously, and it has been shown that the holy spirit was reinstated once Rutherford passed off the scene and the Knorr/Franz era began. So, Rutherford's claim that the holy spirit had been taken away is "old light," like so many other teachings. I would like to be able to read Rutherford's comments in context once all his books are on line.

That being said, the ministries of the Holy Spirit and the angels are not exclusive of each other in the NT. See Heb 1:14; 6:4; Acts 2:1-4; 5:19-20; 15:28, etc. What makes Rutherford's statements so controversial is the removal of the Holy Spirit and the exclusive use of angels.

Rutherford may have had in mind the passages in John which refer to the Spirit as the Paraclete ("Comforter" - KJV; "helper" - NWT). Jesus is portrayed as referring to his own imminent departure, and saying to the disciples: "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. . . . Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth . . ." (16:7, 13) The Spirit operates in this capacity during Jesus' absence. While the Gospel of John does not have much to say about the Parousia (second coming), the inference could be drawn that with the return of Jesus the Spirit would be withdrawn in the capacity of Paraclete. Jesus would once again be with his disciples in person to comfort and teach them. For Rutherford, this coming of Jesus apparently was not his Parousia-coming in 1914, but his coming to the temple in 1918, for then the spiritual resurrection (supposedly) also began in fulfillment of the promise: "I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." (John 14:3) If this were his understanding, Rutherford could claim that he did not mean by the removal of the Spirit a complete absence of the Holy Spirit from the earth, but rather that the need for the Spirit as a guide or teacher was no longer there. However, a fallacy here would have been the belief that angels were being used instead of the Spirit - for even angels would have been agencies substituting for an absent Jesus, whereas the inference we have drawn is that once Jesus had returned there would be no need for anyone or anything else to take his place. So then, if we follow JW thinking to its logical conclusion, we have a situation similar to the Memorial which is still observed, namely, that the "coming" of Jesus in this sense is not accomplished until all the anointed have finished their course and passed off the earthly scene - for he comes specifically for them to take them home to himself.

There is, however, a larger context in which to view this. It is the question of how far removed a new religion (whether a sect or a cult) can distance itself from the parent religion without losing its identity. For example, Christianity found it necessary to retain the Old Testament rather than being entirely independent of Judaism. Both Russell and Rutherford found it necessary to state that dispensational changes were taking place which necessitated their distancing themselves from Christendom. Russell claimed that certain "truths" specially meant for the harvest period were now due, and Rutherford needed to distance his presidency even further from Russell - so that the corresponding distance from normative Christianity was increased. By the time of Rutherford's death there were questions as to whether the new religion could even be considered Christian anymore. Whether conscious of this fact or not, Knorr and Franz had to discard some of Rutherford's more extreme positions, including the removal of the holy spirit. And this is what they did.

But, as I say, I would like to see of there is any explanation given in Rutherford's own writings.

32

Going to Memorial Service for the first time.....what should we expect?

by whyizit in

jw
friends

we spent 6 months "studying" with a jw couple.

they claimed the wts had all the answers, but they actually couldn't answer any of our questions.

(we are devoted born-again bible-believing christians.).

Justin

You will need to decide whether or not you are going to partake of the emblems despite their belief that you should not. Personally, I think as outsiders who are merely visiting, you could reason that it is really their memorial or communion service and, for this reason, the communion is not open to you. Similarly, if you attended Mass at a Catholic Church, you probably wouldn't go forward and receive communion because you are not really welcomed to do so. This would not constitute a rejection of Christ because you are outside of the fellowship which is holding the communion. Even if the speaker states that people are going on record as to what their hope is (i.e., those with a heavenly hope partake and those with an earthly hope do not), this does not apply to you - it is irrelevant as far as you are concerned.

19

Pyramids and 1914

by smudge in

jw
friends

i have had several studies with several j.w.s as i am very interested in theology and most of my in-laws are j.w.

on many occasions i asked to see the very complicated way that the year 1914 was obtained.

everyone of my studies told me not to worry about it, that it involves much complicated math and it has been checked over and over and is right.

Justin

My original link to the Scripture Studies isn't working. Here's a better one: http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/htdb0088.htm .

Also, I've reviewed the 1916 WT article from the second link, and it's only fair to say that although Russell extended the time parallel to 1918, he seems to have allowed for the harvest work to continue for some years without regard to date.

19

Pyramids and 1914

by smudge in

jw
friends

i have had several studies with several j.w.s as i am very interested in theology and most of my in-laws are j.w.

on many occasions i asked to see the very complicated way that the year 1914 was obtained.

everyone of my studies told me not to worry about it, that it involves much complicated math and it has been checked over and over and is right.

Justin

Nathan,

The 1918 date was predicted after 1914. It is found in the Watch Tower of September 1916, just a month before Russell's death. See http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r5950.htm .

After 1914 Russell had to make some adjustments. He had claimed that the period from 1874 to 1914 was a forty-year harvest which would end with the complete destruction of Christendom as foreshadowed by the destruction of Jerusalem. This would mean that the year 70 C.E. would be the counterpoint in time to Christendom's destruction, initially expected in 1914. When this did not occur, he added three and a half years and came up with 1918. This apparently was because the last Jewish stronghold at Massada fell in the year 73 C.E. This did not mean (according to Russell) that the Gentile Times did not end in 1914, only that the harvest would extend to 1918.

But, when using the Scripture Studies, I try to put myself in the original time frame of 1874 - 1914, because that's when Russell's teachings were originally meant to apply. Once that timeframe was past, it caused problem's for Russell's followers - even those who tried to stick as closely as possible to the original teachings.

19

Pyramids and 1914

by smudge in

jw
friends

i have had several studies with several j.w.s as i am very interested in theology and most of my in-laws are j.w.

on many occasions i asked to see the very complicated way that the year 1914 was obtained.

everyone of my studies told me not to worry about it, that it involves much complicated math and it has been checked over and over and is right.

Justin

As has been noted, the Pyramid was merely used to corroborate Russell's conclusions based on other grounds. To read Russell's own comments on the calculations for 1914, see Studies in the Scriptures, Volume II, The Time is at Hand, Study IV - The Times of the Gentiles.

Here is a link: http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/htd0088.htm .

Russell referred to Jesus' prediction as found at Luke 21:24 (KVJ): "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Russell understood the trampling of Jerusalem by Gentiles to have begun, not when the Romans destroyed the city in 70 C.E., but when it was overthrown by the Babylonians, which (according to Russell) was in 606 B.C.E. (The Society later changed the date to 607 B.C.E., but historians prefer 586 B.C.E.)

Today Jehovah's Witnesses obtain the length of the Gentile Times by referring to the fourth chapter of Daniel in which King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon dreams about a great tree which is cut down and its stump is banded, not allow it to grow again for "seven times." While the book of Daniel applies the vision only to Nebuchadnezzar, the WTS sees in these "seven times" a cryptic reference to the times of the Gentiles. As the "seven times" fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar were supposedly seven years, the seven Gentile times would be the equivalent. It is claimed that the average Jewish lunar year is 360 days (and is consistently so in prophecy), so that 7 x 360 = 2,520 days. Applying the "day for a year" principle, we arrive at 2,520 years. (See Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6.) Counting 2,520 years forward from 606 B.C. gave Russell the date of A.D. 1914.

Russell expected the reversal in 1914 of what had occurred in 606 B.C. In that year (according to his reckoning) the Gentiles began trampling in the literal city of Jerusalem. So Russell thought that in 1914 there would a a reestablishment of a Jewish theocracy in the land of Palestine. The "earthly phase" of the kingdom of God would be Jewish. The WTS has since accepted replacement theology (i.e., the view that the Christian church has replaced the nation of Israel) so that the Jerusalem which in their thinking was restored in 1914 was the spiritual or heavenly Jerusalem.

For Russell, 1914 was the end point of his calculations, whereas for Jehovah's Witnesses that year was just the beginning of the end. Also, Russell' primary argument in favor of 1914 being the end of the Gentile Times was not Nebuchadnezzar's "tree dream." Russell referred to another mention of "seven times" in the book of Leviticus. There Jehovah warns Israel of the consequences of disobedience: "And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins." (Lev. 26:18, emphasis added; see also verses 21, 24, 28) Russell calculated that one time was 360 day/years, and seven times would be 2,520 years. The beginning of Israel's punishment was (supposedly) in 606 B.C. when Jerusalem was overthrown, and the end would be in A.D. 1914 with the restoration of the theocracy. But today, the WTS cannot use this argument at all, not only because of nonfulfillment, but because it has accepted replacement theology.

40

Council of Nicaea / Arius / Constantine and the Bible

by MissBehave in

i've been reading up on the constantine's involvement in the compilation of the bible at the council of nicaea.

as well as the ousting of arius because of his "controversial" beliefs.

it's been many years since i've read any watchtower literature...anyone know what the jw's believe / teach / preach regarding this subject.

Justin

With regard to the books that were rejected, we have more of them available today than at any time during the intervening centuries. Anyone who is discontented with the current Bible can read some of the other books and see if they would like to have them in the Bible.

Here are some websites:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/index.htm

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/

18

To whom is the Ransom paid?

by Fe2O3Girl in

i think that even jw-lites have a grasp of the basic teaching that all humans have inherited sin from adam and eve, and hence all humans die.

jesus was a perfect human, and through his death......(from the wt website):.

"his sacrificed perfect human life became the ransom price, able to redeem mankind from sin and death.

Justin

In JW thinking the ransom is paid to Jehovah. I used to question this myself (how, in effect, Jehovah was ransoming people from himself to himself), and no one could give me a satisfactory answer.

The ransom idea is used by JWs as a form of what others call the substitutionary atonement, which means that Jesus paid the penalty and died in the place of sinners. This satisfied God's justice. As a ransom takes the place of what is ransomed, substitution is thereby implied. The reason JWs prefer to speak of ransom rather than substitution is that, in the ransom analogy, the price paid cannot be taken back. This thought leads to the belief that Jesus was not resurrected back to human life, in his human body. The ransom (a perfect human life) having been paid, he was raised on a higher level than human - to the spirit plane.

Christians who believe in substitutionary atonement would say instead that Jesus made condign satisfaction - that is, since Jesus is believed to be both God and man, his brief sufferings had an infinite value and could atone for the sins of people who would otherwise have to spend an eternity in hell. This equivalency did not preclude his remaining the God-man when resurrected - he took back a glorified human body.

So the ransom idea, as used by JWs, is an attempt to discredit Christendom's belief in a physical resurrection for Jesus. The substitutionary atonement theory is only one approach to Christ's atonement even in Christendom (though Evangelical Christians think it is the only one), and causes problems for many. But such an atonement would be a ransom only metaphorically, and in its classical form avoids the problem of who receives the ransom.

40

Council of Nicaea / Arius / Constantine and the Bible

by MissBehave in

i've been reading up on the constantine's involvement in the compilation of the bible at the council of nicaea.

as well as the ousting of arius because of his "controversial" beliefs.

it's been many years since i've read any watchtower literature...anyone know what the jw's believe / teach / preach regarding this subject.

Justin

It seems I've confused Athanasius with Eusebius. Eusebius was commissioned to provide 50 copies of the Bible, but it was Athanasius who first listed the books as we have them today. And the Justin who is cited by Sad Emo from the second century was Justin Martyr, not me!

As for the Society's approach to the compilation of the Bible, when they have attempted an explanation they have quoted from early Church Fathers (such as Justin, Tertullian, Origen, etc.) who quoted the books as Scripture. They have relied on Church tradition! Other than than, they have also used circular reasoning by saying, in effect, that one book of the Bible refers to another, and vice versa, so that the books verify each other. This has always been a weakness in WT theology - it begins with a Bible (which is shown by certain "proofs" to be inspired) with little concern as to how we got the Bible.

40

Council of Nicaea / Arius / Constantine and the Bible

by MissBehave in

i've been reading up on the constantine's involvement in the compilation of the bible at the council of nicaea.

as well as the ousting of arius because of his "controversial" beliefs.

it's been many years since i've read any watchtower literature...anyone know what the jw's believe / teach / preach regarding this subject.

Justin

Arianism does not call into question the biblical canon. Arius used the same books as his opponents - that's why both modern Arians (JWs, etc.) and Trinitarians can find "proof-texts" in the canonical Bible to support their respective positions. The Council of Nicea dealt with the question of whether or not Jesus Christ is fully divine. Constantine supported the position that he is, and as a result Arius was banished and a creed was drawn up supporting what became the orthodox position. This resulted in the doctrine of the Trinity, but the Trinity as such was not the issue at the time.

The Old Testament canon was inherited from Judaism, but the Apocryphal books were also accepted as the Church used the Greek version which contained those books. Most of the New Testament books can be found in the second century Muratorian canon.

At Nicea, Arius' main opponent was Athanasius, who eventually came to be known as the champion of orthodoxy. Constantine, quite apart from the council, requested Athansius to provide copies of the Bible for use in the churches, and Athanasius had to decide whether to include certain NT books which had been disputed (I'm not sure, but perhaps such books as 2 Peter, Hebrews, or Revelation). He did include those books, and made up the first list which is identical to the canon we have today. When this list was finally ratified by another council, it was claimed that the Church was merely identifying the books that were already canonical. It certainly wasn't a matter of laying out a bunch of books on a table and voting on them.

Another set of books was written by the gnostics, and these books were rejected by the emerging Catholic Church from the beginning. Arianism and orthodoxy are like cousins compared to gnosticism. Constantine's role amounted to using his political power to enforce the ban on the gnostic books.

The Original Jehovah's Witness

by Justin in

judge rutherford did not name the watchtower adherents "jehovah's witnesses" until 1931, but a jehovah' witness was referred to by pastor russell in the third volume of the scipture studies, thy kingdom come.

it was the great pyramid!

in chapter 10, "the testimony of god's stone witness and prophet, the great pyramid in egypt," on page 320, russell commented on the findings of early pyramidologists:a few years after prof. smyth's return [from visiting the pyramid], came the suggestion that the great pyramid is jehovah's "witness," and that it is as important a witness to divine truth as to natural science.

Justin

Judge Rutherford did not name the Watchtower adherents "Jehovah's Witnesses" until 1931, but a Jehovah' Witness was referred to by Pastor Russell in the third volume of the Scipture Studies, Thy Kingdom Come. It was the Great Pyramid! In Chapter 10, "The Testimony of God's Stone Witness and Prophet, the Great Pyramid in Egypt," on page 320, Russell commented on the findings of early pyramidologists:

A few years after Prof. Smyth's return [from visiting the Pyramid], came the suggestion that the Great Pyramid is Jehovah's "Witness," and that it is as important a witness to divine truth as to natural science. This was a new thought to Prof. Smyth, as well as to others. The suggestion came from a young Scotsman, Robert Menzies, who, when studying the scientific teachings of the Great Pyramid, discovered that prophetic and chronological teachings coexist in it.

It would be interesting to see if Robert Menzies actually used the designation "Jehovah's Witness" for the Pyramid, or if that was Russell's choice of words. At any rate, it is possible that Rutherford remembered this designation from the Scripture Studies, as well as the text at Isaiah 43:10, when he chose the name Jehovah's Witnesses for his people.