Justin

Joined

• started 50 topics
• posted 385 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Justin

• 
  7

  just curious about Hebrew verb tense in Isaiah...

  by lost_sheep in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i was comparing the nwt & the niv the other day & noticed there's a discrepancy at isaiah 48:18 & 19... the niv reads: .

  18 if only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

  19 your descendants would have been like the sand, your children like its numberless grains; their name would never be cut off nor destroyed from before me.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  Here's more information on the interlinear translation already mentioned:

  Full title: The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament

  Translator: John R. Kohlenberger III

  Publisher: Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan
• 
  1

  Too good?

  by Justin in

  1. social
  2. humour

  the gb member said to the apostate: "you know what happens when you're too good to people?

  you get a swift kick in the a .

  s." the apostate replied, "you're not talking about me, are you?

  1. 
• 

  Justin

  The GB member said to the apostate: "You know what happens when you're too good to people? You get a swift kick in the a . . s." The apostate replied, "You're not talking about me, are you?" "No," said the GB member, "I'm talking about someone else."
• 
  58

  Why do so many show such anger towards JW who post here? What might help?

  by Lady Lee in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  why do so many of us show such antagonism towards jw who post here?

  we know they won't listen.

  we know how it feels to have religion forced upon us.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  The reason some lurk for years is that they know they will be attacked unless they renounce their faith or express doubts when they begin posting. For the most part, the active JWs we get are the ones who break their own rules in order to attack us. We don't see people making changes as a result of interaction with us. Any change that occurs is during the lurking period, and when they emerge from their lurking they become one of us!
• 
  22

  When did JW,s stop considering the nation of Israel Gods chosen people?

  by moomanchu in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  I believe it was in 1932 that the Society changed its position regarding the Jews. Rutherford was then in the process of writing a three-volume series, Vindication, on the book of Ezekiel, and when he came to the restoration prophesies he applied them spiritually to the anointed remnant rather than a return of the Jews to Palestine.

  This is actually the classical belief known as replacement theology - that the new Christian Israel replaces the old natural Israel as God's chosen people. The only difference is that the Society limits the new Israel to its own anointed members instead teaching that it refers to the Christian church at large.

  Russell had actually embraced a newer theology known as dispensationalism - the belief that God's purpose is being worked out in a series of dispensations or ages in which his dealings with mankind are somewhat different in each. So, according to this belief, the Jews have temporarily lost divine favor during the Christian or Gospel Age, but are expected to be restored during the Millennium.

  Even newer is the thought which is becoming more widespread today, that the Jews and Christians each have their own covenant with God, and that these covenants are operating simultaneously.
• 

  New Dance Craze

  by Justin in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  doin' the watchtower wiggle

  i'm doin' the watchtower wiggle, i don't worship ereshkigal.. old light, new light, what's the latest truth tonight?.

  i play by the rules, 'cause i ain't no fool.

• 

  Justin

  Doin' the Watchtower Wiggle

  I'm doin' the Watchtower wiggle, I don't worship Ereshkigal.

  Old light, new light, what's the latest truth tonight?

  I play by the rules, 'cause I ain't no fool. When they change them, I'll be cool.

  I'm doin' the Watchtower wiggle.
• 
  2

  What if . . .

  by Justin in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the wts had continued to keep older publications (russell, rutherford, etc.

  ) in print for those who wanted to do historical research?

  it seems that people are now learning about "old light" and doctrinal changes when they begin to become disillusioned, but if they knew about these matters when they were still zealous jws, perhaps they wouldn't be so shocked later.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Justin

  the WTS had continued to keep older publications (Russell, Rutherford, etc.) in print for those who wanted to do historical research? It seems that people are now learning about "old light" and doctrinal changes when they begin to become disillusioned, but if they knew about these matters when they were still zealous JWs, perhaps they wouldn't be so shocked later. It would be like developing immunity to a disease. Of course, the WTS had no way of knowing that the internet would eventually reveal what had been allowed to go out of print.
• 
  9

  Antichrist

  by knight40 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  what is the jehovah witness point of view on the antichrist?.

  is there only one antichrist?

  or is he or it to come in the future?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  Only the verses quoted from the letters of John specifically use the term "antichrist," but the early Church Fathers saw this Antichrist as a fitting designation for figures which are identified by other terms - such as the "man of sin [lawlessness - NWT]," the "abomination of desolation," the "beast," etc. The JWs take these figures to refer to other entities - such as the clergy, the worldwide political system, etc. They are not considered to be predictions of a specific, personal Antichrist. But as Leo has stated, they could be considered in JW thinking to be a collective antichrist.
• 
  3

  Translation

  by JesusDeity in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i notice that their are differences in the jw version of the bible.

  i am told that the bible was transcribed directly from the greek text.. my questions are:.

  1) who translated the text?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Justin

  With regard to Aramaic: This was the spoken language of Jesus and his disciples, a language closely related to Hebrew. The New Testament manuscripts, however, were written in Greek. There may have been an Aramaic original of Matthew (now lost), and a few Aramaic words were sprinkled here and there. Most scholars regard a later Aramaic version (known as the Peshitta) to be a translation from Greek rather than the "original" Aramaic of Jesus, and there are some (outside the mainstream) who try to make the case for an original Aramaic NT. But, in brief, there is no Aramaic translation work involved in modern translation - either JW or otherwise.

  Sometimes, if a saying of Jesus doesn't make sense in Greek, a scholar may attempt to determine what it would have meant in Aramaic - but there is no Aramaic original from which to work.

  Now I'm sure someone would like to contradict me.
• 
  2

  Passover and other Old Testament Feasts

  by lysislove in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a newbie introduction: i am a secular humanist/unitarian universalist , married to a non-active jw (iow, about as far apart on the spectrum as you can get).

  my husband only attends meetings twice a year (memorial and convention) but still believes much of the theology.

  now my question: is there a prohibition against celebrating the feasts and holidays mentioned in the old testament?

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Justin

  With regard to the Old Testament holidays, Jehovah's Witnesses are in agreement with the historical concensus of Gentile Christianity, that they should no longer be celebrated. They are a feature of the old covenant which has been superceded by the new. They are not, however, intrinsically evil, and were God's will at one time. When viewed spiritually, they are considered to have aspects which pointed forward to Christ, and are therefore worthy of study but not of observance.
• 
  8

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

  by bob1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  thanks....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.