Posts by NewWay

29

So-called Bible Scholars........

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

it is not a difficult thing to do to criticize wts literature, however i found this comment in a recent wt very enlightening as it seems to explain the unscholarly nature of much of what they produce.

it also is an object lesson on how to manipulate a conditioned group of people by the use of 'trigger words'.

i have highlighted these expressions, which are deliberately used by writing, as we have previously discussed to 'encourage' the readers to adopt a patently flawed line of reasoning.

NewWay

"I actually think that scholars who have no faith in the Bible make far more successful researchers and translators exactly because they have no agenda, and because they bring to the table a historical persepctive that is often missed by those with an emotional investment in the whole issue."

Very good point Hillary on the matter of unbiased research, unfettered by religious affiliation. Which is why we have to bear in mind that although "Christendom" has the lion's share of Bible, Commentary, and Lexical publications, there is a certain bias in matter of doctrine, and this will be reflected in what is written at times. However, after reading the paragraph you quoted from the Watchtower with my own eyes, my first thought was, "What a cheek!" How about this:

"The Society's vice president, Fred Franz, was acknowledged as the organisation's principal Bible scholar. On a number of occasions I went to his office to inquire about points. To my surprise he frequently directed me to Bible commentaries, saying, 'Why don't you see what Adam Clarke says, or what Cooke says,' or, if the subject primarily related to the Hebrew Scriptures, 'what the Soncino commentaries say.' Our Bethel library contained shelf after shelf after shelf filled with such commentaries. Since they were the product of scholars of other religions, however, I had not given much importance to them and, along with others in the department, felt some hesitancy, even distrust, as to using them. As Karl Klein, a senior member of the Writing Department, sometimes very bluntly expressed it, using these commentaries was 'sucking at the tits of Babylon the Great,' the empire of false religion according to the Society's interpretation of the great harlot of Revelation." - Crisis Of Conscience by Raymond Franz (3rd Edition, page 22, paras 3 & 4)

Kind regards.

45

".......... but are as angels in heaven"

by Ice Blue in

one of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?

does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?

surely then they will not be the same person that they were?

NewWay

LauraLisa: I think your view that Jesus was not giving them the information they were looking for is a good idea. For as you pointed out, they were trying to trick him, which is why he may have spoken enigmatically to them. From what I've read of Jewish belief at the time of Jesus Christ, it seems apparent that they believed in a fleshly resurrection, so the Saduccees whom the historian says believed that "souls die with the bodies" ("Antiquities", 18.1.4), would be probably unaware of a "heavenly resurrection". So yes, maybe Jesus was bringing out "new light", and the fact that (as has been brought out - which I had forgotten about) the resurrected ones also "do not die anymore" could be used to support such a view. Nice post.

Kind regards.

89

Why do so many people believe that jesus is god?

by Legendary U.2.K. in

i still say that, christiaity is f--- up in these last days.. christianity teaches that the messiah is god, when the bible clearly points out that jesus is a prophet sent by god... jesus prayed to god<----that's the biggest proof... so i think if anybody believe that jesus is god, is not only an'-ti-christ(not accepting) but also a liar, foolish, and you knoweth nothing, and you are not close to god or christ, you are closer to that devil which we call satan....

NewWay

LINKS TO TEXT OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (BOOK 2)

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-38.htm#P6431_1050993

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/Origen/view.cgi?file=anf10-38.htm&size=20

The "Commentary On John" features in Volume 10 of the "AnteNicene Fathers" published by WM. B. Eerdmans.

89

Why do so many people believe that jesus is god?

by Legendary U.2.K. in

i still say that, christiaity is f--- up in these last days.. christianity teaches that the messiah is god, when the bible clearly points out that jesus is a prophet sent by god... jesus prayed to god<----that's the biggest proof... so i think if anybody believe that jesus is god, is not only an'-ti-christ(not accepting) but also a liar, foolish, and you knoweth nothing, and you are not close to god or christ, you are closer to that devil which we call satan....

NewWay

Some notes on John 10:31-39:

First, let it be noted that any Greek language Bible texts I use are from well-known sources outside of the WTS - I don't use the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT). My own main personal sources of information on the Greek text of the New Testament are (1) The United Bible Societies' 4th Edition Greek New Testament and (2) The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (which incorporates the UBS Greek text) published by Tydale House.

In John 10:33, as with John 1:1, the Greek definite article is absent from the word 'god' (Greek = 'theos'), so a translation of "make yourself [a] god" (Greek = "poieis seauton theon"; note no "ton" [the] before "theon") is not taking an unreasonable liberty in view of the structure of the sentence. In fact when we bear in mind the Jewish understanding of what a "son of God" actually meant (i.e. an angel, or a being from the spirit realm), then it is understandable why they said "because you being [a] man ..." (Greek = "hoti su anthrohpos ohn ..."). It was their association with the word 'god' being one who inhabited the spirit realm rather than a man on earth that makes sense of what Jesus said next. Jesus straightaway in answer (verse 34) refers to a scripture which obviously used the word "god" in relation to human beings. Again, immediately (verses 35 & 36) after quoting the scripture, he asked them the pertinent question, "can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, 'I am God's son'?" (New Revised Standard Version of the Bible).

Also, what would be the point of defending himself against a charge of blasphemy for claiming to be "the god" if he were really God? His quoting from the Psalms would be irrelevant, since the ones called 'gods' (Greek = "theoi") were not being called "the god", but those human beings to whom "the word of God came" (NRSV). In fact, it is interesting to note that Strong's Concordance (Greek listing 2316) gives as a figurative meaning for 'god' one who is a 'magistrate' (Compare John 5:30, where Jesus is able to act as a 'judge' yet not by virtue of his own will by the will of him [God] who sent him).

Link to article on John 1:1: http://www.semachiah.fsnet.co.uk/notes/scripturenotes-joh1v1.htm

(Edited to correct link)

Edited by - NewWay on 2 August 2002 7:9:2

48

Does Ray Franz owe us an apology?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

(not, ray franz owes us an apology) .

(ok lets add this on)do those who are or were governing body members have a greater amount of responsability than witnesses in general?at what point do we stop being victims and become instigaters?

this may have been discussed before but i'm not sure.so sorry if it has.

NewWay

jst2laws: Thanks for sharing that information about Ray with us.

dstepper: Welcome to the forum!

Kind regards.

89

Why do so many people believe that jesus is god?

by Legendary U.2.K. in

i still say that, christiaity is f--- up in these last days.. christianity teaches that the messiah is god, when the bible clearly points out that jesus is a prophet sent by god... jesus prayed to god<----that's the biggest proof... so i think if anybody believe that jesus is god, is not only an'-ti-christ(not accepting) but also a liar, foolish, and you knoweth nothing, and you are not close to god or christ, you are closer to that devil which we call satan....

NewWay

Robert, and others who have raised the question about Origen. I can't remember offhand exactly were the treatment of John 1:1 is, but is within his Commentary On John. As has been pointed out, there are internet resources that have the text to the complete set of volumes of the "Church Fathers". However, if you follow the link I gave in my earlier post, and look under the Scripture Notes, you will find a reference to John 1:1. The article will give the exact location in the works of Origen. The web site also has an article on John 10, showing how in context, Jesus was not claiming to be God - one has to read the whole account and ask why Jesus made reference to the Psalms in his answer if they were discussing "the God". As has been brought out by another poster, our understanding of certain words change in time. Modern languages can only try to express the original ideas of ancient language texts, but there are problems. For instance, the word 'god' had a special meaning to the people of the first century, and we have to put ourselves in their shoes when we discuss words like this.

(Edited for typos)

Edited by - NewWay on 1 August 2002 18:37:18

45

".......... but are as angels in heaven"

by Ice Blue in

one of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?

does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?

surely then they will not be the same person that they were?

NewWay

IceBlue:

As you suggested I looked at the "Insight Book" under Marriage>Celebration. It may not be obvious on first reading, but under the heading "Proof of Virginity", it says:

"After the supper the husband took his bride into the nuptial chamber. (Ps 19:5; Joe 2:16) On the wedding night a cloth or garment was used and then kept or given to the wife's parents so that the marks of the blood of the girl's virginity would constitute legal protection for her in the event she was later charged with lack of virginity or of having been a prostitute prior to her marriage. Otherwise, she could be stoned to death for having presented herself in marriage as a spotless virgin and for bringing great reproach on her father's house. (De 22:13-21) This practice of keeping the cloth has continued among some peoples in the Middle East until recent times." - Page 341, para. 7.

As the 'blood' is surely not that from a menstruating woman (that is not proof of virginity), then it seems to me that sexual intercourse was a necessary part of this 'security', as the act would break the hymen and cause some bleeding. If I have the wrong understanding of this then I would be pleased to hear why.

Obviously, in the case of Mary and Joseph we have a unique situation! In Matthew 1:18 Mary is spoken of as being "betrothed" (NJB) to Joseph. In verse 19, the word rendered "husband" is translated from the Greek word "aner" which basically means "a man (prop. as an indiv. male)" (Strong's Greek entry 435). So, at this time they were engaged to be married, but not married in the sense of being 'man and wife'. Going back to the Insight book, on page 727, it says: "The Hebrews viewed an engaged couple as bound as if already married, though cohabitation did not take place until the formalities of the wedding were completed." It appears to me that the engaged state was considered so serious because a vow had been made that the couple would eventually get married. Joseph was told specifically by the angel Gabriel not to be afraid "to take Mary home as your wife". She was pregnant before they had gone through with the actual 'marriage', because Joseph had not as yet taken Mary 'home'. It is stated, no doubt because of the unique state of affairs, that by the time Jesus was born he had had no intercourse with her (which would have been the usual thing after taking her 'home' as his wife).

Now, on the point about what make us 'us', I think we may have to agree to disagree, since your perception of what makes you 'you' is probably a lot different from my perception. However, I will give the subject a final consideration. I do agree with you on the fact that our physical-world personality is changing all the time, no doubt in some ways we do not understand. My problem is this. If our personality (qualities/traits) is, as I currently believe, based on a physical 'etching' of the brain, then it would be quite possible for another body to have its brain 'etched' with that same pattern. Rather like a computer program that is copied from one computer to another. Imagine if that were possible while you were alive. Would you consider that clone to be you? That is why I believe there is something beyond physical personality (as found in the brain) which constitutes the essence of us. When God breathed into Adam the breath of life, I believe it was something more that went into his body than just a blast of air. If there were not some 'inner' not-physical self that differentiated us from one another in God's eyes, then how would it be possible for a Christian to be 'converted' to life in a heavenly body?

At the end of the day, though, it is faith in God as knowing what is best and happiest for us that will act a comforter when we contemplate our future life. Of course we each are expert at seeing things from our own frame of reference. Please be assured that I'm not trying to contend with you or put down your view of things, for you may well be right and I wrong, and I would indeed be happy if this had a bearing on your happiness in the new system of things.

I wanted to make some comments on points raised by other posters, but this will have to await a more convenient time.

Kind regards.

PS: Sorry for the long post(s), but a long time ago I learned to touch-type, so I can get quite a bit of data from my brain to the 'page' in a short period of time. But if I've rambled, I do apologise!

48

Does Ray Franz owe us an apology?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

(not, ray franz owes us an apology) .

(ok lets add this on)do those who are or were governing body members have a greater amount of responsability than witnesses in general?at what point do we stop being victims and become instigaters?

this may have been discussed before but i'm not sure.so sorry if it has.

NewWay

It is obvious from the question asked and from what I've read in other posts that there are some who are not content with what Ray has done so far. I may have been in two minds about this had Ray written only "Crisis of Conscience". Not only did it seem that Ray felt responsibility for the knowledge he had about the inner workings of the society, but he also, via his book "In Search Of Christian Freedom" appeared to want to help those who still had a Christian spiritual need. It is one thing to simply expose error and leave people fuming, but to actually do something to help people move on with their lives is, to my mind, a noble thing to do. As has been pointed out, he did not have to write any books. But, because he has a conscience and a sense of responsibility he did what he could according to his abilities.

Let's not forget his age, nor what it takes to compose books and get them published. I'm persuaded by what I've read on different web sites and forums that he spends much time in conversing with individuals who have responded in a positive way to what he has written. It seems appropriate here to cite the example of the Apostle Paul, whose way of life once resulted in great persecution (and death in the case of Stephen) for the early Christians. How did God deal with him? Paul, after having his eyes opened to the truth, used his life henceforth according to God's will for him. Let's just be thankful for what he has done in that without his publishing efforts it would have been much harder for some of us to have escaped from the strangle-hold of servitude that the WTS had on us.

Lastly, I agree with Jan, and others here who made it clear that actions speak louder than words. I know that if Ray had simply made a public announcement to say, "Sorry", it would be a matter of personal opinion as to whether or not he really meant it. However, his publishing efforts, and continued interest in helping people spiritually represent, to me anyway, good evidence of repentance.

However, sleepy, I personally was not offended by your asking the question, as I am interested in knowing what more he could have done - or even should be doing, according to the opinion of some people.

Edited by - NewWay on 1 August 2002 15:18:57

89

Why do so many people believe that jesus is god?

by Legendary U.2.K. in

i still say that, christiaity is f--- up in these last days.. christianity teaches that the messiah is god, when the bible clearly points out that jesus is a prophet sent by god... jesus prayed to god<----that's the biggest proof... so i think if anybody believe that jesus is god, is not only an'-ti-christ(not accepting) but also a liar, foolish, and you knoweth nothing, and you are not close to god or christ, you are closer to that devil which we call satan....

NewWay

This is something that I've spent a lot of independent research over, and I've come to the conclusion that in this instance the WTS have got it right. Many people don't get much of a chance to challenge the trinity doctrine, as they stand in awe of Christendom's scholars, who by and large are products of institutions and courses run by Christendom. I have already had John 1:1 answered to my satisfaction from an expert witness (Origen) who actually spoke Koine Greek while it was still a living language, someone who obviously knew what he was talking about. Like the WTS, Christendom has for a very long time perpetuated various doctrines, so to expect it to suddenly change its view would be expecting too much I think. Unfortunately, individual thinkers have a huge amount of literature written by people who are attached in some way to the religions of 'orthodox' Christianity, so the odds of their coming across a legitimately alternative view of who Jesus Christ is, is quite low. For anyone who is open-minded enough to consider an answer to the 'proof' texts that trinitarians often use, please take a look at the articles (under Scripture Notes) at this web site: http://www.semachiah.fsnet.co.uk

3

Hippocratic Oath

by NewWay in

hippocratic oath.

to reckon him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to regard his offspring in the same footing with my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they should wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, i will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath, according to the law of medicine, but to none others.. .

i will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, i consider for the benefits of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.

NewWay

The reason for the above post is because I, like many others, had always heard about the oath but had never seen it in writing. My wife has a number of health publications, so when we were talking today about something I'd read about first-century (C.E.) practises, she showed me a reproduction of the oath in one of her books. So, I've provided a copy here for anyone who might be interested.