Posts by OutsiderLookingIn

42

JW broadcasting and doubts

by Colinconfused in

hi everyone to cut a long story short, ive been away from the meetings for over 10 years.

i recently reconnected with the congregation and started a study.

cant get my head around all the changes and jw broadcasting.

Hi Colin, you don't need to return to the Watchtower Corporation to teach your children about God and Jesus. Nowhere does the Bible say that God has an organization. And it certainly wouldn't be one that, as I've learned, has tried to replace Jesus. Sure, they give Jesus a token reference here and there, but they're "the truth". No, Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). And He's the way to the Father, not a speculation-driven end-time publishing company. Continue enjoying life and your beautiful family. All the best!

39

It's official - the G.B. has replaced the Holy Spirit!

by The Searcher in

the watchtower november 2016, page 16, par.

"some may feel that they can interpret the bible on their own.

however, jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only* channel for dispensing spiritual food.

OutsiderLookingIn

Thanks, Searcher. Just a question: is this from the secret study edition or what they have on the carts? If the latter, I'd love to ask the cart attendees about John 14:26 and what exactly happened in 1919 to override the Bible. If the GB still call attention to 1914/1919, it makes it harder for JWs to get away from it and the fact that nothing has happened in over 100 years of the kingdom.

14

The Last Supper

by Teddy in

i have been studying with the jw since june of 2016 and they say only the ones who make up the 144.

000 and can partake of the bread and cup.

is this true?.

OutsiderLookingIn

Hi Teddy,

I wasn't sure if your question was whether it was true that that's what JWs teach or if that interpretation is Biblically sound. It is true that JWs teach that only 144,000 should partake as they are the only ones going to heaven to rule with Christ--and this number partaking today should be decreasing with time, not increasing. But it is not Biblically sound.

It is based on stringing very distinct topics together. For one, the reference to little flock is only to his 12 disciples (or would it be 11 as they've somehow concluded that Judas had already left?) yet somehow they extrapolate based on nothing to get to the 144,000. The number is only mentioned twice in the entire Bible and both times in Revelation (ch. 7:4 and 14:1) and I find it interesting that those verses suggest they would be on earth NOT heaven. For instance, chapter 7 discusses the 144,000 being sealed before harm occurs to the earth and sea. Oh, the way they claim it's about those who will rule with Jesus is based on something the 144,000 don't even say (Revelation 5:8-10). And as freddo mentioned, the number is supposedly literal even though the reference over four verses to the distribution over the 12 tribes of Israel is purely symbolic.

What the Bible does say is that it's something to do in remembrance of Jesus (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26) and that those who don't take the bread and cup (eat his flesh and drink his blood) have no life in them (John 6:51-56). You should ask whoever is studying with you. I remember this was one of the issues that absolutely shocked me when I learned about it. You gather once a year to pass the symbols of Jesus's sacrifice for virtually no one to partake?? Exactly what is the point? And then there's logic: in the nearly 2,000 years since Christ died, there haven't been 144,000 faithful people? There's so much to this onion and the more you peel it, the more it stinks. But that's a start. Oh, and I've never been a JW so you can say this is apostate-free information

Also, all the verses that Searcher specified are spot on. ANYONE who receives Jesus becomes a child of God.

12

Gods' name removed in Silver Sword?

by AmyWatson916 in

does anyone have an explanation about why the silver sword edition of the nwt removed god's name at exodus 34:14?

that verse is now different than the 1984 and 1970 versions of the nwt.

odd for an organization who believes that "god's name is of the utmost importance" as it says on page 195 of the bible teach book..

OutsiderLookingIn

Wanted to revise my above comment as not all jealousy is based on a *legitimate* claim --> Jealousy implies a claim over the object of jealousy. Envy is malicious feeling from wanting what's not yours..

60

New Here ... Just woke up

by Sevan in

jw
friends

hey all, .

this is my first post.

i haven't been out in service or to a meeting in over a month.. i realize now that i've been having serious questions for years and many articles and talks have greatly disturbed me over the years.

OutsiderLookingIn

Welcome, Sevan! Thank you for sharing your story. You seem very thoughtful about things that others just accepted because the GB told them to. Take things one day at a time. I hope your fade goes well.

12

Gods' name removed in Silver Sword?

by AmyWatson916 in

does anyone have an explanation about why the silver sword edition of the nwt removed god's name at exodus 34:14?

that verse is now different than the 1984 and 1970 versions of the nwt.

odd for an organization who believes that "god's name is of the utmost importance" as it says on page 195 of the bible teach book..

OutsiderLookingIn

Clearview: I'm not sure if it says he is "jealous" in any other part of the bible, but part of their reason for changing the wording could have been to lessen the HUGE contradiction that is: Love does not get jealous, so if god is love, how can he be a jealous god? i think the way they worded it is an attempt to erase that contradiction, probably among other reasons.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 13:4 says love does not envy. I know we often use jealousy and envy interchangeably, but jealous generally suggests an offense to expected exclusivity (like a jealous husband, which God is described as to an unfaithful Israel going here, there and everywhere). Jealous implies at least some basis of a legitimate claim over the object of jealousy. Envy is malicious feeling from wanting what's not yours. (And a quick look at a lowly non-NWT translation--New King James Version--describes God as jealous or Israel driving God to jealousy in Deuteronomy 4:24 and 32:16, and Paul is jealous with a godly jealousy in 2 Corinthians 11:2...those are the examples from a very limited concordance).

So it seems like a paraphrase to say "exclusive devotion", but the words actually say His name is Jealous. Why is the "one true religion" pureeing the spiritual food? I'm with Mephis; I think it's about not wanting to confuse their claim to fame as the only ones using God's one and only name.

19

Need Suggestions/examples: Guide to helping family & friends break free

by LisaRose in

jw
friends

i was going through my copy of steve hassan's combating cult mind control and it occurred to me that it would be great to have something like this specifically for us ex jehovah's witnesses.

while this is a great book, the examples he uses are mostly from people that were moonies, as steve is a former moonie and many people that have contacted him for help were relatives of moonies.

while cults all work basically the same, it would be nice to be have some ideas on things that are specific to jehovah's witnesses.

OutsiderLookingIn

This is a nice list. I have tried most of these, even without knowing it. Building trust is key, but it takes time and can't be faked. Not a rush job, at all. Also, living your own life well is a powerful anti-witness. And seeming disinterested in their ultimate decision ("I'm not interested, but if you want to do it, consider why as well as the consequences") lets them make their own choice but shows that you won't cave to peer pressure on the issue. I'm not sure of the success yet, but I feel hopeful when I hear a comment like, "I never thought of it that way" or see the cult personality come into direct conflict with the authentic personality and/or what the person knows to be true. Thanks, Lisa Rose.

Edited to add: success, meaning actual renouncing the JWs

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Okay. I think we've reached the limits of this discussion because it's getting redundant. My comments on the subject however imperfect and imprecise are spread throughout the pages of this OP. Cofty, I'm glad that we were finally able to agree that you're judging from a 21st century standard. And I can say that I got my very first dedicated meme from Outlaw, even if it is calling me stupid. Maybe an encore after this post? I bid you all a good night.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Sheesh, guys! That statement was sarcasm--and clearly not a mandate from God. Sorry to have offended; I'll speak more plainly going forward. My thinking was that a month very likely diminished the immediate aggression associated with warfare. It wasn't instant gratification or the heat of passion. And the guy might think twice if he had to provide for her as a wife instead of only using her for sex.

David Jay, I'm not sure how what we're saying is so different. I agree that God didn't tell people to rape and pillage or to keep slaves. I have said that the Law was tied to the culture and that it governed their interactions with other people in a more humane manner--for that time. The Law was along the lines of "if you're going to do X, don't be completely awful about it," or a guide for living in a fallen world. That's been my point all along, but it was called cultural relativism. Would you say something else? My mention of dietary laws and animal sacrifice was just to say it's not applicable for Christians because of the NT, not that the Law exalted Israel above anyone else.

Wayward, no I wouldn't; I wouldn't want it for myself either. All I'm saying is it was a very different world then. Even with arranged marriages today, I don't quite understand it. Maybe you meet once or twice before the marriage and hope you like each other? Or learn to? We're not under the law. We don't live in that world. I'm very glad for that.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Diogenesister: Considering god ORDERED Hosea to marry a hooker

Yes, that's true, but Hosea wasn't a priest; he was a prophet. Priests could only come from the Levites and the high priest could only come from Aaron's line. Only the priests were subject to these limitations. Other men could marry whomever they wanted. Priests and prophets had different roles--priests bring the people to God (presenting their sacrifices) and prophets bring God (His message) to the people. Hosea and his wife is an allegory of Israel's repeated unfaithfulness to God.

Re Jephthah's daughter, that is one popular interpretation. His vow was to sacrifice whatever came to meet him as a burnt offering. And that perhaps with the surrounding pagan influences, he didn't see anything wrong with it. It's clear he didn't think he would see his only child there. I've thought about this before (maybe too much #nerd lol) and also consider that God was opposed to human sacrifice, that the girl went away for two months with her friends and that the text twice mentions that she would never marry, not that she was killed. When Hannah dedicated Samuel to the Lord, it didn't mean she would kill him--only that he would be in God's service all the days of his life. So as soon as he was weaned, he went into the house of the Lord. It's definitely something to think about, though. Thanks.