Posts by doubtful

87

Gems from the August 15, 2011 WT

by Ultimate Reality in

pdfs can be obtained at jw.org.... spiritual gem #1. perhaps witnesses should apply the standard the wt recommends for gathering information on the internet to wt publications; from page 4:.

(1) who published this.

material?

Another WT urban myth?

by tenyearsafter in

has anyone been sent the e-mail going around showing a photo of brooklyn hq with text attached to it saying in essence:.

"we all know that the gb has been cutting back on expenses by reducing printing runs, making fewer cd's, going to part time help and selling property.

at the annual meeting a story was told about the famous "read the watchtower daily" sign and how they no longer illuminate it at night to save expenses.

doubtful

But these workers are unpaid volunteers! It doesn't matter if they're part time or full time!

33

Governing Body urge followers to "close rank" with them

by Rank&FileGuy in

an exerpt from the wt aug. 15, 2011 p.21:.

sounds to me like they're bracing themselves up for something big and/or the internet is really.

doing a number on them.

doubtful

I have NEVER seen such self-glorifying and desperate language from them! This is getting crazy..I'm seriously waiting for them to pull out the kool-aid at the next annual meeting!

91

Just wondering ....

by talesin in

jw
friends

there are many new posters here, and i'm very interested to learn why you chose your screen names.. .

one book i read, the mists of avalon, was very important to me.

among the main characters was merlin, who in the book, was called "taliesen".

doubtful

Doubtful..I came on this board because I found a lot of WT teachings to be "dubious". I often found myself saying..."Hmmm...that's doubtful". I was full of doubt!

And I still am. My experience with the WT religion and my escape from it have made me very skeptical..some might say jaded. But I prefer to really sift through evidence, evaluate alternative viewpoints, and I make a concerted effort to never hastily arrive at conclusions without weighing all the evidence.

And when I chose my screen name, I had all of about 30 seconds to do so, being that I was worried about a family member walking in on me reading apostate material. lol. I'm only 21, so perhaps later on in life I'll recover from doubtfulitis!

209

The trouble with Christianity. TRINITY.

by whereami in

gotta love pat.. "ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.

ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity.

it is the mere abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of jesus.

doubtful

Great thread. I've only read the first page...Marked

18

THOR movie.

by Mad Sweeney in

jw
friends

if you've seen it, what sort of "adult" stuff is in it?

why is it pg-13 and not just pg?.

would you bring a relatively mature 11 year old to see it?.

doubtful

The movie looks lame. But I'll probably pay to see it just so I can see Natalie Portman. She's such a babe! Lol.

11

Behold, Man has become like us...

by Iconoclast in

jw
friends

genesis 3:22 - and the lord god said, "the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.".

within this scripture lies a very perplexing statement to me.

doubtful

Iconoclast,

As a disclaimer I should say that I unequivocally reject the Genesis account with regard to its historical reliability. It's a made up myth designed to account for the origin of mankind, the unjustice and iniquity of the world, as well as our own mortality, that ever present, unvanquishable enemy. It's also an attempt to explain other more seeminly mundane things in comparison, such as why women suffer so much during labor, and why snakes don't have legs.

Yet, when attempting to interpret Hebrew scripture, I prefer to allow the text to speak for itself. I begin with the assumption that the text means what it says. Genesis is presented as a historical fact, complete with detailed geneologies. The idea that it's all allegorical is in my opinion nothing more than a pitiful attempt by apologists to dismiss the most easily verifiable historical inaccuracies of the bible, while still maintaining a basis for their belief in Jesus and all that jazz.

When Elohim (Gods or "THE God" (Hebrew used a plural to sometimes show the excellency or uncomparable nature of someone or something, much like we use the royal "We"). Others will argue that "Elohim" refers to a pantheon of gods, in the pre-monotheistic past of Judaism. I'm not sure who to believe on that one though.

Either way, I hardly believe this constitutes support for the Trinity doctrine. In the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), it would appear that the Israelites had no concept of a person in heaven such as Jesus Christ. There is never any reference or even an inkling of an indication that they believed in or knew of a spirit person existing in heaven as the "only-begotten" Son of God. They did however, believe in the existence of myriads and myriads of Angels. They called them Angels, cherubs, seraphim, "sons of God", "sons of the Most High", "glorious ones", "morning stars", etc.

So, within the religious context, it is clear that the Hebrews never believed God to be all by himself up there in heaven. They thought of him as being among millions of other spirit persons. Hence, when he is obviously speaking to someone in heaven, the "US" would then be a reference to the angels. "Us" can be as many as two persons, or as much as a billion persons or infinitely many people. It certainly doesn't necesitate that "us" only refers to God and Jesus, or to God and two other members of a mythical Godhead.

When it talks about "them becoming like us, knowing good and bad"... I again allow the text to speak for itself. People, including JWs try to dismiss this quotation as figurative. They claim that the fruit offered no supernatural powers, but merely that the act of eating the fruit symbolized a decision made by Adam and Eve to alienate themselves from God. They espouse this view only to make the text conform to the more pragmatic mind of a modern reader. When Genesis was written, it was read and passed along by people who believed the earth was the center of the universe, that there was a metal dome encapsulating the planet, that the sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth, and that snakes could talk. These people believed in mythical, mystical, supernatural things such as sticks turning into snakes, women being turned into pillars of salt, talking donkeys, etc. In the case of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, it would seem to be more than just a symbol. The text says that immediately after eating the fruit, their eyes were opened. It brought about a change in their pysche, in their self-awareness. Before eating of the tree, they were essentially like innocent children. They were not capable of evil, and they couldn't think independently of God. If God said something was bad, they like robots, would agree and feel that thing was bad also. They could not determine for themselves what was bad. They were entirely dependent on what God told them was good or bad.

Then they eat the fruit, and suddenly they're free thinking individuals, with their own tastes, and opinions on what was kosher or not. Poof! Just like that. The downside is that they no longer have God's super powerful spirit artificially sustaining their life indefinitely. That gets immediately cut off, and their biological, organic, fleshly body is allowed to undergo the natural degenerative aging process that all living, biological things experience. They're now doomed to die.

Up until this point, one might still try to claim that the eating of the fruit itself was not the cause of this change, but that the fruit tree was only a symbol for a more profound spiritual transformation. Yet, consider this. If eating the fruit meant nothing in itself, then why the rush by God to seal off access to the Tree of Life? Why was he so concerned about the tree if the tree didn't offer any powers of immorality, and was instead just a symbol? The answer is that according to the story, it did! If Adam and Eve had got their hands on the Tree of Life, they would've been both free of God, and immortal! That's something God would not allow. Their defiance could not go unpunished, and they had to be made an example of.

That's why I think the author(s) of Genesis intended for the fruit of both trees to be understood as literally confering powers upon man, rather than just symbols. That's what jumps out at you from reading the text.

3

Was God's name known to Abraham and other Hebrew Patriarchs?

by doubtful in

exodus chapter 3.

15god, furthermore, said to moses, "thus you shall say to the sons of israel, '(w)the lord, the god of your fathers, the god of abraham, the god of isaac, and the god of jacob, has sent me to you ' this is my name forever, and this is my (x)memorial-name to all generations.. exodus chapter 6. god spoke further to moses and said to him, "i am (b)the lord;.

likewise, the hebrews to whom he was being sent did not know of god's name.

doubtful

Exodus Chapter 3
13 Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?"
14 God said to Moses, " [ a ] ( V ) I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ' ( W ) The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you ' This is My name forever, and this is My ( X ) memorial-name to all generations.
Exodus Chapter 6
God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am ( B ) the LORD;
3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as ( C ) God Almighty, but by ( D ) My name, [ a ] LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.

From the first passage quoted above, it would seem that Moses did not know of a personal name for the God he was talking to. Likewise, the Hebrews to whom he was being sent did not know of God's name. Were they perhaps not a monotheistic people at the time? Who did they worship? Even Pharaoh himself was unfamliar with the name "YHWH" or "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" or however you want to translate it. He is quoted as having said, "Who is Jehovah?"

Also, in the second passage quoted above, God says that he did not reveal his personal name to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Yet, throughout the Pentateuch (spelling?) God's name is used liberally by the Hebrew Patriarchs, suggesting that his name was known to them and used by them. If supposedly Moses was the writer, then why would there be such a glaring conflict?

Was the name YHWH known to Israel before this particular revelation to Moses or not?

If his name was not known or used prior to this, and considering that his name essentially means "I am", does using his name really matter?

JWs love to point out that the name appears close to 7000 times in the Old Testament. Yet, even in the most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, the divine name is never used, and the use of it was never attributed to Jesus. Jesus always referred to him as "The Father". By the time of Jesus and the Apostles, the divine name had been a cultual taboo and had been prohibited from being uttered for centuries, since around the 3rd century BC. Would the early Christians have broken with the tradition and the deeply ingrained religious superstition regarding the prohibition against using the name? If it had been important to God, then surely Jesus and the early Christians would have risked their necks and at least given it some emphasis in the inspired writings..But they didn't.

If it's true that God's name wasn't used until the time of Moses, then I come to the following conclusion. Being the only true God, the one and only omnipotent creator diety, and having existed for eternity without any other personage in the universe prior to his creating his son, God felt no reason to assign himself a name, as if he had to distinguish himself from any other Gods. To do so would be almost like acknowledging the existence of other rival gods.

Yet, as a temporary provision, when he gathered the Hebrews to be his chosen people for a time, it was necessary that he have a name that would set him apart from the pagan gods of surrounding nations. Just as the Israelites demanded a king they could see and touch, so too they would have stubbornly clamored for a name to call a God of their own. So he gave them one, and the name he chose sent a message. It essentially means something like the following: "I am, and I always have been, and I always will be. Before me there was no other, and there shall be no others like me for all time. I exist by my own power, and I am dependent upon no other force or being for my existence. I am what I am and I will be whatever it is that I must be."

Yet, evidently it was not his purpose that he continued to be called that indefinitely. It was a temporary provision for the "stiff-necked" people of Israel. Once the arrangement with the physical nation of Israel was terminated, he no longer had to distinguish himself from other gods as if he were recognizing their existence. That is why Jesus never taught us to use the name, and neither did the writers of the New Testament use the divine name, but instead referred to him as the "Father" or simply "God", which is what he is.

The JWs however have gone crazy with the name, and utter it about every five seconds. I imagine they can't even use the restroom without blabbing the name between bowel movements. That's why they even inserted the name inappropriately and without basis over 200 times in their translation of the New Testament.

So, back to the original question though. According to the Bible, was God's name known to the Hebrews prior to the time of Moses?

Whether Moses or multiple redactors of the Documentary Hypothesis wrote the first five books of the bible, the question is why would he/they portray the patriarchs as knowing and using the divine name, only to insert passages such as Exodus 6 which indicate that they didnt know or use the name???

14

The last days.

by MrFreeze in

in matthew, jesus lines out all the signs of the last days.

he puts a stipulation on it saying that nobody will know the day or the hour.

does that not mean that nobody could know the last days as well?

doubtful

In Matthew, Jesus lines out all the signs of the last days. He puts a stipulation on it saying that nobody will know the day or the hour. Does that not mean that nobody could know the last days as well? I think the Jws put too much literal meaning into it. JWs say last days begin in 1914 but Jesus said nobody would know the day or the hour. Would that not also apply to the last days as well? All of the signs Jesus listed are things that have occurred throughout history. Do you think maybe Jesus meant that "as long as these types of things are occurring, be on the watch"? He was not talking about any particular span of time. Or do you think his prophecy only refers to Jerusalems destruction and not any fulfillment past that.

Mr. Freeze,

The WT has a very easy way around this. Jesus said no one knew the day or hour. He did not say that his followers would not recognize the general time period, or that they wouldn't discern when the time was approaching. To the contrary, he gave them many signs which would mark the time period of the tribulation leading to his second coming..which the NTW conveniently translates as "presence". He specifically stated that they would be able to recognize the time of the end just as one can recognize a season based on observable changes in the weather.

So, the GB has no problems with claiming that we are in the "last days". Nor do they even have a problem predicting a certain year, since Jesus' words only exclude the possibility of predicting the very day or hour.

Now, if they prophesied that Armaggedon was going to occur on June 14th, 2017 at 8:00 PM, then they'd have a problem.

The big picture however is that they are waiting around for nothing. Jesus promised his return was to be imminent in the first century. He prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and the preceding events...and then what? He said immediately following those days, celestial phenomena would occur, and he would appear in Heaven coming in heavenly glory with his angels to execute judgement against the wicked.

A few verses later, he says that all these things would occur before the generation of his day passed away. All those things naturally would include everything he predicted which preceded this proclamation. That would include both the destruction of Jerusalem, AND his Second Coming.

Yet, his Second Coming or Advent never happened. 2,000 years have passed and it still hasn't happened!

Bottom line - This was a false prophecy. He never came back and he's never going to. So don't hold your breath.

25

Curious about the name "Jesus"

by tec in

my niv has notes at the bottom of pages, regarding other possible meanings and some definitions, etc.. anyway, it says that jesus is the greek form of joshua, which means the lord saves.

would that mean that joshua is the english form of his name?

thanks for your comments,.

doubtful

Yep! That's it. I believe the Hebrew was something like YEHOSHUA... the Greeks would have a mighty difficult time pronouncing that being that there was no "sh" sound in Greek, a sound which is very common in Hebrew. Apparently Jesus of Nazareth went by the abbreviated form of the name known as "YESHUA".

Jesus comes to us from the Greek form of Yeshua, which was Iesous.

Hebrew/Aramaic - Yeshua - Ye-shoo-ah

Greek - Iesous - Ee-eh-soos

Latin - Iesus - Ee-eh-soos

Jesus - Gee-zus

The English letter "J" was once pronounced like "Y" and in Latin as in many modern Romance languages, the "Y" sound is represented by "ie"..hence the Latin "Iesus".