Posts by Phizzy

6

Finger of God

by peacefulpete in

a myriad (or close) of threads have discussed the depiction of deity in the ot and nt.

many exjws simply can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of hypostases of god.

hypostases as i'm using the term refer to personified conceptualizations of divinity often acting in a particular role.

Phizzy

I agree, The Evolution from basic anthropomorphising of gods to a more "abstract metaphoric sense" is plain to see as you outline.

Prof. Francesca Stavrakopoulou , in her excellent, entertaining, and frankly hilarious in places Book, "God an Anatomy" * traces this evolution, and she often quotes what the best Hebrew translation of many Scriptures is, where later Bible Writers obscure the original meaning, and even Translators have tried to obscure what was said.

She comments on the "Finger of God " engraving upon the tablets that god gave to Moses, as verse Exodus 32 v 16 says, thus " As Yahweh's fingertip crafts the commandments by which his worshippers are to live, he inscribes his physical presence in to the covenant with his people".

So the simple idea of a god with fingers quickly came to have a deeper meaning.

* I recommend Prof. Stavrakopoulou's Book, if you haven't read it P.P. and to others on here, it really opens ones eyes to so much that is hidden in Scripture, much of it being the real Sexy bits, sanitised by a number of later hands !

12

What are you wearing for the special talk

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

many are talking on whatsapp about what to wear.

sisters wearing slacks and brothers wearing all sorts of different tops.

Phizzy

It will be fascinating to see how far the JW's , especially the PIMO ones, are prepared to go with this. Any "Counsel" by old school types can be ignored, as such people now have no mandate.

How long before we see this ?

Image result for Pic of young lady with full beard

23

New rules for dress & greeting disfellowshipped: It's even worse!

by neat blue dog in

i know they're panicking and trying to gain favor with governments, former members, prospective converts & those who are teetering, all for financial worries.

still, the latest update in some ways made things worse, and if there's any jws watching it who are beginning to wake up it should be very disturbing.. starting with dress codes: they say that suits, ties & skirts are no longer required, but in so doing they admit that they were required, something not often appearing as an explicit command in print.

(similar to how lett referred to the "policy on beards" in his video, even though this direct policy wasn't made available to rank and file.

Phizzy

The "Hounders" now have no basis upon which to do their "hounding", they simply will have to STFU !

As for the "Stumbling" nonsense, no J.W with any self respect should fall for that`, how can you be "Stumbled" out of the "True religion" over such infantile trivial matters ?

I remember several instances where people had been "stumbled" over quite serious matters, and no action was taken by the Elders against the offending person, and the offended one was left to stew for a very long time, and then, maybe got a "Shepherding" visit".

Anybody hounded now can tell the "hounder" to "go forth and multiply" without a qualm.

32

Punkofnice

by jhine in

jw
friends

does anyone know how punky is ?

he hasn't posted in a while ?

jan from tam .

Phizzy

Just a Bump for this Thread in case anyone who knows Punky ( Paul ? ) hasn't seen it.

He is from the Peterborough area.

9

Lawsuits for shunning for decades

by jehovaxx in

now they suddenly examine the context of these scriptures and have come to the conclusion that it only applies to apostates and those who continue in serious sin???????.

there are families torn apart by their shunning policies and some have said the gb are wrong and these scriptures only apply to those carrying on in serious sin?

but no for the last several decades families have been ripped apart for lifelong shunning just because some don’t want to be jws anymore.. the lawsuits that are to come will not make up for life long relationships being ruined.

Phizzy

" only to invite them back to meetings."

Yes, that is the "Direction" from the G,B, but while doing so what an opportunity will be afforded for the J.W's doing so to find out WHY the former J.W left, and why they will probably never go back !

I know the practicing J.W is not supposed to discuss " Spiritual matters" with the former attender, but just one well thought out reply to such an invitation may well plant a seed.

All of these latest moves may be more counter productive for the Org. in reality than they intended, though no doubt will keep up the figures of those attending for a while.

9

Lawsuits for shunning for decades

by jehovaxx in

now they suddenly examine the context of these scriptures and have come to the conclusion that it only applies to apostates and those who continue in serious sin???????.

there are families torn apart by their shunning policies and some have said the gb are wrong and these scriptures only apply to those carrying on in serious sin?

but no for the last several decades families have been ripped apart for lifelong shunning just because some don’t want to be jws anymore.. the lawsuits that are to come will not make up for life long relationships being ruined.

Phizzy

" Insolvency might."

Yes, if they are arraigned in Court for the Shunning of the past, they will have to defend themselves, to avoid paying $$$.

I am sure such cases will not be totally successful sadly, to the extent of getting the Org. to abandon such practices, but the cost is still there for the Org. and maybe in individual cases even compensation may have to be paid, but I do not see any Court actually ruling that the practice of shunning cannot continue at some level.

What is not in doubt is DFing and Shunning go against several basic Human Rights, so such Cases will highlight this for the whole World to see, and the Org. will shoot themselves in the foot once again to protect a few $$$.

9

When did JWS start disfellowshipping and why?

by lettersfromthevoid in

i know this question has been discussed, but i can't find the topic i was just looking at, so.... one thing about this is that the other posters here didn't mention, that i noticed anyway, that there was this member of the gb in the 40s and early 50s (but possibly during rutherford) who was at odds with rutherford or knorr, and they wanted to do away with them, so they accused (falsely) that person, then they declared that the punishment for that sin was something they invented, or at least once iteration of, what we know as the modern disfellowshipping practice among jws.. so, that is why they invented that doctrine; they.

Phizzy

DFing and Shunning were things in the time of Rutherford, as his words in this WT show :

Watchtower 1920 Apr 1 pp.100,101

"We would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord's channel. If others see it in a different way, that is their privilege. There should be full liberty of conscience."

It is interesting that this very much mirrors what the Org. wishes to achieve now, i.e that treatment of individuals who disagree with the Org, for any reason will not change from the overt practices of the past, but will be identified as INDIVIDUAL JW's "Exercising their Bible trained conscience ".

Thus the Org. can argue in Courts that it is not mandated by them, which we of course KNOW is not true, for individual J.W's to go against their natural love for friends and family would not happen based upon Scripture, but will continue because of fear of being perceived as going against the "direction" of the G.B.

78

God, one person, or three?

by slimboyfat in

the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

niv.

gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.

Phizzy

Yahweh became the only god who should be worshipped, according the religious leaders in Judah, but it seems they were still Henotheists more than real Monotheists IMO.

Monotheism in the sense of claiming that pagan gods were not real was a late development.

But it is clear that the Trinity Doctrine was not something made out of whole cloth, it was a natural evolution from the ideas of what the Divinity of Christ consisted of.

Of course, the Scriptures used to justify it could easily be culled from the polytheistic influenced ones of the O.T, as well as the Gospel of John.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.

i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.

i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.

Phizzy

" Notice how jwposter, all through this thread, simply ignores each problem that is pointed out about his incorrect alternative history, and either focuses on what he thinks is his strongest point, or just moves on to the next incorrect assertion. "

This is a favourite technique of Politicians, used all the time, never answer an accusation that you know you are guilty of. Only the best of Interviewers drag the Politician back to the try to make them answer, they will then continue not to, and then claim they have answered it.

I wonder if there is an element of the Dissembler about our friend "jwposter", what is his motive ? or, am I being my usual self, and suspicious where I shouldn't be ? or even, does he really believe his nonsense ?

Thank you once again for your tireless work Jeffro, which is of immense value to those who are Lovers of Truth.

9

2024-March-Announcements-Slacks-Ties-Jackets-Serious-Wrongdoing!

by Atlantis in

jw
friends

slacks.

ties.

jackets.

Phizzy

Thanks Grandpa, very informative !

So, finally they get a bit sensible on "Dress", and won't look so obviously Cult-like either out in the " Ministry" < that label is joke ! or inside the K.H.

And a very slight relaxation on shunning, and more care on dealing with "wrongdoing" by the under 18's. None of this goes far enough IMHO to make them acceptable as to adhering to Human Rights, but I guess they think they will now be able to persuade a Court that this , just a fraction milder, set of Policies, do not mean they should, as an org. lose $$$. They will argue these are decisions made by individual Congregations in each case, and not mandated by the Org. "We only offer guidance in these matters".

With the matter of Dress I see clearly the hand of a "Worldly" P.R Company behind this move !