I am sorry but I do not know what a font button is. Is it on your computer or at this site? I am using webtv and am limited. It use to keep my spacing before the new program. Now even when I edit and replace them it gets squashed back when it is posted.
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
22
Did Jesus meet them in Galilee? Contradiction
by peacefulpete inlibrary: magazines: the skeptical review: 1992: number one: did they tarry in the city?
if one were to ask a christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of jesus met him in galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "yes, they did.
" after all, matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "but the eleven disciples went into galilee, unto the mountain where jesus had appointed them.
-
-
-
22
Did Jesus meet them in Galilee? Contradiction
by peacefulpete inlibrary: magazines: the skeptical review: 1992: number one: did they tarry in the city?
if one were to ask a christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of jesus met him in galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "yes, they did.
" after all, matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "but the eleven disciples went into galilee, unto the mountain where jesus had appointed them.
-
-
peacefulpete
Ive tried and tried to put paragraphs yet it does not respond, please try to read it anyway. sorry
-
22
Did Jesus meet them in Galilee? Contradiction
by peacefulpete inlibrary: magazines: the skeptical review: 1992: number one: did they tarry in the city?
if one were to ask a christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of jesus met him in galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "yes, they did.
" after all, matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "but the eleven disciples went into galilee, unto the mountain where jesus had appointed them.
-
-
peacefulpete
Library: Magazines: The Skeptical Review: 1992: Number One: Did They Tarry in the City? If one were to ask a Christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of Jesus met him in Galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "Yes, they did." After all, Matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted" (28:16-27). That seems clear enough, and if Matthew had been the only one to write about postresurrection events, this meeting in Galilee would certainly be believable to anyone who could accept the premise that a dead man had been resurrected. Considered in the context of all four gospel accounts of the resurrection, however, this meeting in Galilee poses tremendous credibility problems, because Luke said in his gospel that Jesus told his disciples on the night of his resurrection that they were to stay in Jerusalem until they were "clothed with power from on high" (24:49). According to the same writer (Luke), this power came to them about fifty days later when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:3-5; 2:1-4), but by then Jesus had already ascended back to heaven, because he had remained on earth only forty days after his resurrection (Acts 1:3). So if Luke was right and Jesus did tell his disciples on the night of his resurrection not to leave Jerusalem until they received "power from on high" and if this power from on high did not come to them until fifty days later and if Jesus remained on earth for only forty days after his resurrection and if the disciples obeyed Jesus's command not to leave Jerusalem until they had received power from on high, how could they have possibly met him on a mountain in Galilee as Matthew claimed? Bibliolaters will say that the command to stay in the city until they were "clothed with power from on high" was not given to the disciples on the night of Jesus's resurrection, but careful analysis of the text will not support them in this. Luke 24:1-12 described events that occurred at the empty tomb on the morning of the resurrection. The women went there "at early dawn" (v:1), found the stone rolled away and the tomb empty (vv:2-3), and encountered two men in dazzling apparel who told them that Jesus was risen (vv:4-8). The women ran to tell the news to the eleven (v:9), who considered their words to be only idle talk (v:11), but Peter ran to the tomb, looked inside, and went back home, "wondering at that which was come to pass" (v:12). After all these things were related, Luke said, "And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus" (v:13). The expression "that very day" surely was intended to mean the very day of the resurrection, the day all of the events just mentioned had happened. So the encounter between Jesus and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (vv:15-27) had to have happened on the same day that Jesus was allegedly resurrected. If not, what did "that very day" mean? Evidence that it was the very day of the resurrection is seen in verse 21. In the conversation that Jesus had with the disciples, the one named Cleopas stated, with implied doubt, that Jesus was the Messiah: But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. Yea and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass. Cleopas clearly indicated in this statement that the events being narrated in this passage were taking place on the third day. What day could that have been except the third day following the trial and crucifixion of Jesus that Cleopas had just summarized? As any Sunday school student knows, the resurrection was supposed to have occurred on that third day. So at this point in Luke 24, everything happening was happening on the day of the resurrection. When the trio arrived at Emmaus, Jesus "made as though he would go further" (v:28), but the two disciples "constrained him, saying, Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is now far spent" (v:29). The "far-spent day" would have been the day the journey started, so Luke's narrative shows quite clearly that everything he was telling had happened on the third day, the day of the resurrection. The insistence of the two disciples prevailed, and Jesus went into Emmaus with them. When they sat down to "break bread," Jesus blessed the bread and gave it to the others. Until then, the two disciples had not recognized Jesus, but at the breaking of the bread "their eyes were opened" and they realized who he was as "he vanished out of their sight" (v:31). "And they (the two disciples) rose up that very hour, and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together" (v:33).The eleven told the men that "the Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared unto Simon," and the men told the eleven what they had seen (v:34). Emmaus was located only seven miles from Jerusalem, so if the two disciples had left "that very hour" after recognizing the vanishing Jesus and returned to Jerusalem, they would certainly have arrived there the same night. While the disciples from Emmaus were telling the eleven what they had seen, Jesus suddenly appeared out of nowhere: And as they spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. And he said unto them, why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet (vv:36-40). Luke's narrative at this point reads very much like John's account of an appearance that Jesus made on the night of the resurrection day: When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had said this, he showed unto them his hands and his side (John 20:19-20). The similarity of these two accounts should confirm that the appearance of Jesus to the eleven that Luke wrote about did allegedly happen the night of the resurrection, because John plainly said that it occurred on "the first day of the week." In the continuation of Luke's narrative, Jesus asked for something to eat, and a piece of broiled fish was given to him (v:41). After eating it, he spoke to the disciples about non-existent scriptures (as we will see in a later article) that his resurrection had fulfilled (vv:44-46). Then in giving to them Luke's version of the "Great Commission," he made the statement that casts serious doubt on Matthew's claim of a postresurrection appearance in Galilee: Ye are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high (vv:48-49). As related earlier, this "power from on high" that the apostles were to receive presumably came to them when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit: (A)nd being assembled together with them, he (Jesus) charged them not to depart from Jerusalem but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard from me: for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence (Acts 1:4-5). The apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), so that would have been the time that they received Jesus's promise of "power from on high." Pentecost (from a Greek word meaning fiftieth) fell fifty days after the sacrifice of the passover lamb (see Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, 3.10.5-6), and Jesus was crucified as the passover was approaching (Matt. 26:1-5, 17-19; Mk. 14:1-2, 12-16; Lk. 22:1-2, 7-13; Jn. 18:28, 39). John even said that it was during the "preparation of the passover" that Jesus was taken before Pilate (19:14). So if Jesus was crucified at the time of the passover, he had already ascended back to heaven when the apostles were "clothed with power from on high" on the day of Pentecost (50 days after his crucifixion), because Luke claimed that he stayed on earth only forty days after his resurrection (Acts 1:3). By now the problem in reconciling Matthew's resurrection account with Luke's should be obvious. Luke very clearly indicated that Jesus on the night of his resurrection charged the apostles to stay in Jerusalem until they were "clothed with power from on high" (baptized in the Holy Spirit, Acts 1:4-5), so that leaves no room for a postresurrection appearance to the apostles on a mountain in Galilee. As I said earlier, IF Jesus did tell his disciples on the night of his resurrection not to leave Jerusalem until they received "power from on high" and IF this power from on high did not come to them until some fifty days later and IF Jesus remained on earth for only forty days after his resurrection and IF the disciples obeyed Jesus's command not to leave Jerusalem until they had received power from on high, they couldn't have possibly met him on a mountain in Galilee as Matthew claimed. No one can successfully argue that the meeting on the mountain in Galilee happened before the meeting in Jerusalem on the night of the resurrection, because that would pose other textual reconciliation problems. For one thing, Galilee was too far from Jerusalem to make such a meeting logistically possible. The disciples were presumably in Jerusalem the morning of the resurrection, because the women ran to tell them of the empty tomb (Lk. 24:9). Peter and another disciple even ran to the tomb, looked inside, and returned home, wondering about what had happened (Lk. 24:12; Jn. 20:3-9). Are we to believe that after Peter returned home from the tomb, he and the other apostles journeyed to Galilee (a distance of some sixty or seventy air miles, even if the mountain was in the southernmost region of Galilee), saw Jesus, and then returned to Jerusalem ALL IN ONE DAY! The mere suggestion is preposterous (but perhaps not as preposterous as believing a resurrection story as riddled with contradictions as the one told by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Besides, Luke said that when the disciples from Emmaus found the apostles in Jerusalem the night of the resurrection, they were immediately told, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (24:34). But if all of the eleven had met Jesus earlier that day on a mountain in Galilee, they would have surely told the disciples from Emmaus that Jesus had appeared to all of them. There is just no way to reconcile Matthew's story with Luke's. If Matthew was right about a postresurrection appearance of Jesus on a mountain in Galilee, then Luke was wrong in at least some details of his description of a postresurrection appearance in Jerusalem the night of the resurrection. If Luke was right in all the details he described, then Matthew erred. One of them had to be wrong. Either that or believers in the resurrection will have to say that the apostles disobeyed Jesus's command to stay in Jerusalem until they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Either alternative they select won't build much confidence in the Bible inerrancy doctrine. The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is certainly applicable to the four resurrection stories. This rule of evidence recognizes that testimony found to be false in one matter should be considered unreliable in other matters. So if either Luke or Matthew erred in telling the resurrection story, how could it possibly be that both were protected from error by the Holy Spirit as they wrote? If either of them was wrong about the when and where of postresurrection appearances, then maybe they were wrong about the resurrection period. Maybe it didn't even happen. This is surely something for resurrection believers to think about. Or maybe they would rather go on with their heads in the sand. ERRANCY Mailing List Copyright Internet Infidels 1995-2002. All rights reserved. disclaimer I hate it when people just cut and paste but really I am short of time and this point is obvios to anyone who has compared verses anyway. Any refutation is welcomed and will be responded to as I can.
-
16
Who Really Rules the World???
by ARoarer inremember the tract that had a picture of a big scary looking hand with a grip around the earth and the title "who really rules the world?
" i never really read all of the words in it until last night when i was looking at my mail.
my husband laughed and said you'll never guess who wrote you a letter.
-
-
peacefulpete
I know this is a long dead thread but perhaps it will appeal enough to some to be rereading them. I have found additional support for the conclusion that 2 Cor 4:4 is refferring to Yhwh rather than Satan. Elaine Pagels book ,The Gnostic Gospels relates that the Gnostic form of Christianity addressed YHWH as the God of this Age, or Archon a usurper of power and not the ultimate god. They held that He was the source of the religios ignorance and physical unrest in the world. There are many reasons to conclude "Paul's" letter is in fact written from a Gnostic or as least a preGnostic viewpoint. Language, phrasology, and cryptic double meanings as found in his letters are standard Gnostic material.
-
20
price for truth
by peacefulpete inwhat would you be willing to pay for the answers to all your questions about life, death, religion, etc.?
and please noone say the clich`e , "noone really knows what is true".
this is a philosophical question.
-
-
peacefulpete
Then is ignorrance the spice of life? Would life become unlivable if we could focus upon peaceful living rather than debating? Would the knowledge become too isolating? Someone else out there must be pondering these things.
-
110
The Dixie Chicks
by Stan Conroy ini don't understand the logic of boycotting the dixie chicks because of the comments the singer made about being ashamed that bush is from texas.
it doesn't make sense to me.
keep in mind that i'm just a canadian, so maybe i'm just not tuned in to the american way of thinking.
-
-
peacefulpete
Freedom96.. of course that is your right. And we hope and are fighting that that continues to be the case. The issue is not whether she or anyone else has the ABILITY to dissent. Rather it is about 2 things, whether our society is being manipulated by the big buisness and media moguls to supress that "freeness of speech" thru heavy handed tactics like what is happening in radio and entertainment And 2ndly whether our culture in general is becoming more violently intolerant. The two are connected of course because culture is shaped by leadership example. It is quite relevent that noone is boycotting or blacklisting those hollywood and music celebrities who have supported the war. I am not suggesting that many have not personally done so in exercise of their freedom, but due to the fact that the industry belongs to the Right has prevented any real dissenting views being largely broadcast. And in fact many celebtities have spoken about fear to express themselves due to this undue influnce that political correctness has on their careers. This is largely due to the deregulaton of the media that Reagan initiated. It has done the same thing that California saw in the utilities. A monopolizing of power in the hands of the greedy and politcally connected.
-
11
Fragments of "Light"
by refiners fire inits a shame that one has to wade through 300 pages of boring twaddle to find a few pearls.
but then...you have me to do the wading!
some observations on the book light (volume 2/1930)
-
-
peacefulpete
I don't know why all the text runs together. I do put paragraphs in my typing and the text copied also had paragraphs. Sorry ...please do try to read anyway as it is great stuff showing the lack of originality to WT interpretation and the subsequent denial of the sources.
-
11
Fragments of "Light"
by refiners fire inits a shame that one has to wade through 300 pages of boring twaddle to find a few pearls.
but then...you have me to do the wading!
some observations on the book light (volume 2/1930)
-
-
peacefulpete
Prisca has asked what the name of the body that was seen as the predecessor to the League was, The Hague International Peace Conference formed in 1899. I have copied an insightful review of the development of this type of fundementalist speculation that is unknown to r&f JWs. ............THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND THE UNITED NATIONS IN PROPHETIC SPECULATION "Making Known God's Prophetic Truths," published in The Watchtower of August 1, 1971, pp. 467ff., give the impression that, prior to the outbreak of the World War in 1914, well-nigh all except for the Witnesses took an optimistic view on the future, sensing that peace, not war lay ahead: The political, religious and commercial elements of this world widely accepted that view. However, Jehovah's witnesses held a view that was just the opposite! In the July 1879 issue of their official publication, The Watchtower (at that time known as Zion's Watch Tower) its readers were told: "God teaches in many Scriptures that a great time of trouble will come upon the nations." IIt is certainly true that strong optimistic trends prevailed during the last century in the fields of science, politics, economy and religion. Yet the statement indicates gross ignorance of the views held by millions of Biblebelieving Christians of that time. "The International Bible Students" was just one small group among many other, much larger groups of Christians who in the latter part of the last century predicted that the world was rapidly approaching the great "time of trouble" and Christ's second coming. These groups formed parts of a broad current, known as the "millenarian movement" (so called because of a common belief in a future millennial kingdom on earth to be ruled by Christ). This movement had its roots back in the early decades of the last century and the widespread interest in the Bible prophecies prompted by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. In the days of Pastor Russell, the millenarian movement had deeply influenced many of the great denominations, such as the Episcopal, Presbyterian and Baptist churches. Even at that time, the millenarian movement included millions of people. Common to them all was the fact that they did not share the general optimism with respect to the future of the world. The outbreak of World War 1, therefore, came as no surprise to these people, as Dwight Wilson points out in his book, Armageddon Now, (Grand Rapids, 1977 pp. 36, 37: World War I stimulated the premillennialists to a tiptoe expectancy and also provided tantalizing fulfillment of some of their longings. The war itself came as no shock to these opponents of postmillennial optimism; they had not only looked toward the culmination of the age in Armageddon, but anticipated "wars and rumors of wars" as signs of the approaching end. Wilson then quotes one of the millenarian expositors, R.A. Torrey, who in his book The Return of the Lord wrote the following in 1913, one year before the outbreak of the war: We talk of disarmament, but we all know it is not coming. All our present peace plans will end in the most awful wars and conflicts this old world ever saw! Similar predictions had been made for several decades by different millenarian writers, and Wilson gives several examples in his book. The view of the future held by the Bible Students, then, was in no way unique. It was a view held by practically all fundamentalist Christians of those days. Predictions of what would take place in the near future were countless, even if the millenarians generally did not fix dates (there were exceptions!) for the coming events, as did the Bible Students. They were therefore spared from the bitter disappointments that the Bible Students had to experience when the expectations failed and the predicted events refused to appear on the "right" dates. The Bible Students, as well as several millenarian expositors, had explained that the World War was the prelude to Armageddon.2 C.l. Scofield, the famous translator of The Scofield Reference Bible, thought in 1916 "that the war would be the death struggle of the present world system which would be succeeded by the Kingdom of God."3 When the war suddenly ended in 1918, this came as a nasty surprise to these experts on Bible prophecy. They explained that the period of peace would be very short and that Armageddon would surely come very soon. When, in 1919, the League of Nations appeared, they immediately predicted that this organization would fail and that it could just create a temporary interruption before Armageddon. Watch Tower writers have often tried to give the impression that they, because of their prophetic insight, foresaw the failure of the League of Nations: When the League of Nations was established, some of the clergy of Christendom even hailed it as the "political expression of God's kingdom on earth." However, what were Jehovah's witnesses saying? Again, just the opposite! The March 1, 1919, issue of The Watch Tower declared: "Lasting relief to suffering humanity will come neither through human uplift nor through any league of nations, however desirable such an arrangement might be, but only through the power of Christ, . . ."4 What Watch Tower writers fail to mention, however, is that this attitude towards the peace organization was the one generally held among the millenarians. As early as 1918, the above-quoted R.A. Torrey had the following to say at a prophetic conference held by the millenarians in New York City that year (Nov. 25-28, 1918): "Now that the armistice has come, the minds of people on both sides of the water are filled with all kinds of fantastic hopes and anticipations that are doomed to disappointments." 5 Then Torrey went on to tell his audience that "the League of Nations can never achieve more than a temporary cessation in hostilities." 6 Dwight Wilson, too, points out that "at the close of the war, there was little optimism reflected concerning the peace treaties or the League of Nations. Our Hope (la millenarian periodical edited by Arno C. Gaebelein) had no hope that the League would prevent war." 7 Even more detailed predictions concerning the League of Nations were made by the two Bible commentators, C.F. Hogg and W.E. Vine, in their book, Touching the Coming of the Lord, published in London in 1919, shortly before the League was formed. They explained that the failure of the League of Nations was predicted in the Bible, at Revelation 17:12, 13: Such a League of Nations, for instance, as is proposed to-day as a panacea for national wrongs, not only has been foretold in Scripture as the last resource of international politics, but its failure has likewise been predicted. 8 Vine who wrote these lines, then quotes Daniel 7:23, 24 and continues: A corresponding vision was given to the Apostle John. He also saw a beast with ten horns, and the symbolism is again explained, but in greater detail: "The ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour (i.e. for a brief time). These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast," Rev. xvii.12,13. Obviously these ten kingdoms are contemporaneous. The potentates ruling over them agree to a certain policy in handing over their authority to a superior ruler. No such league has existed in human history as yet. It is manifest, too, from this Scripture that the existence of the League will provide the opportunity for a man sufficiently strong to dominate the situation. 9 Further on in the book, Vine explains: Clearly, therefore, a league of nations is in view, and this is apparently to be the new form of the old empire.... We are not justified, however, in concluding that the territories of the League of Nations, indicated by the passages related to the ten horns of the beast, will necessarily be confined to the area which has just been under consideration [i.e. the areas of the earlier world empires]. Whatever the arrangement may be, the fact of the League will prepare the way for the government of the final and all-controlling despot. 10 It is very interesting to note that the Bible interpretations which the Watch Tower Society many years later began to attach to the League of Nations are practically identical to those published by Vine in 1919. It seems rather obvious that President Rutherford and some of his co-workers were well aware of the interpretations different millenarians tied to the League of Nations at an early stage. Vine and Hogg were both well known commentators on Bible prophecy. Besides, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words is often quoted in the Watch Tower publications. Watch Tower leaders picked up his application of Revelation 17:11-13 early in the 1930s, without mentioning the source or sources of it. A later generation of Witnesses is now given the impression that the leaders of the Watch Tower Society, under the influence of God's holy spirit, originated these predictions and interpretations, and this in turn is used as evidence of their claim to be Jehovah's modern-day prophet! Vine and Hogg were both associated with the "Open Brethren," a branch of the Plymouth Brethren (also known as the Darbyists). But the prophetic speculations attached to the League of Nations were very common among fundamentalist Christians in a number of denominations, for instance among the Baptists and Pentecostals. Dwight Wilson writes: The formation of the League of Nations produced immediate speculation. The following appeared in the Prophetic News and the Evangel (Pentecostal), and was reprinted in a collection which went through at least five editions: "The World War thus originated by demon teachings has produced the result predicted in Revelation 16:14. It has gathered together all the kings of the earth and of the whole world. It has gathered them into a league of nations which will become the preparation of the nations for Armageddon. The gathering or leaguing of the nations together is the signal that the end is in sigh:. The Peace Conference at Paris had unconsciously set the stage for Antichrist and Armageddon." 11 How, then, about President Knorr's prediction in 1942 - right in the middle of World War II - that the peace organization which had disappeared from the scene at the outbreak of the war in 1939 would "ascend out of the abyss," (Rev. 17:8) again after the end of the war?" 12 At first glance, this seems to be a remarkable prophecy. It was a prediction that clearly was fulfilled. But it was in no way unique. As was shown above, W.E. Vine, as early as 1919, identified the League of Nations with the "beast" in Revelation, chapter 17. This interpretation was not adopted by the Watch Tower Society until eleven years later, when it was presented in volume 2 of the work Light, published in 1930. In 1919 the Society still held the beast with the woman on its back described in Revelation, chapter 17, to be the pagan Roman empire, with the apostate Church of Rome "on its back." 13 This had been the prevalent Protestant interpretation of these figures ever since the Reformation in the sixteenth century. But in the second volume of Light the League of Nations was associated with this prophetic vision, exactly as Vine had done eleven years earlier. The "scarlet colored beast" (Rev. 17:3) was explained to be "The Hague International Peace Conference," formed in 1899. 14 This organization "functioned until the World War. It then went into the abyss and ceased to function. After the World War it came out of the abyss or pit and began to function again in the form of the League of Nations." 15 This understanding was prevalent until 1942 (see for instance the book Enemies 1937, pp. 283ff.), when it dawned upon the Watch Tower leaders that World War II would not develop into Armageddon either. Another interpretation of Revelation 17, therefore, became necessary. It came also, in the booklet Peace - Can It Last?, founded upon a speech by the same name delivered by the President of the Society, Nathan H. Knorr, in the autumn of 1942. The Hague International Peace Conference was now completely excluded from the role list. The "beast" was at first the League of Nations. It went "into the abyss" in 1939 at the outbreak of World War II. But it would not remain there. Quoting Revelation 17:8, President Knorr predicted: "The association of worldly nations will rise again." 16 As all know, this prediction was fulfilled. But it was not difficult to make at that time. As Knorr himself pointed out in the same booklet (p. 21), plans of reviving the peace organization after the war were well on the way, the Axis Powers, Japan and Hungary having signed a "new League of Nations" already on November 20, 1940. In fact, the United Nations had already been formed, several months before Knorr's prediction, on January 1, 1942 at Washington D.C., with twenty-six nations signing a joint declaration on that date.17 Besides, Knorr's prediction was neither new nor unique. Other prophetic expositors had predicted the same thing - as much as two years earlier! Dwight Wilson refers, for example, to a prediction by the well known Bible expositor, Harry Rimmer: "Harry Rimmer in 1940 forecast a new League of Nations as a result of the war - and the rise of a universal dictator. The United Nations has arrived, but there is no dictator yet." 18 Thus, the Watch Tower Society can claim no priority on this or other predictions and prophetic applications attached to the League of Nations and the United Nations The same views were held by the millenarian fundamentalists in general at that time, who originated the predictions about the future of these peace organizations years before they were picked up by the Watch Tower Society. Fundamentalist Christians in general did not change their attitude towards the peace organization after World War II. They continued to regard it as the "beast", of Revelation 17 and - like the Watch Tower Society at that and like the "harlot" on its back as corrupt Christendom. 19 Sociologist Louis Gasper explains: The Fundamentalists literally believed that "the woman arrayed in purple and scarlet" in Revelation 17 prefigures the establishment of a corrupted, though colorful world church which would include the Catholics and Protestants. 20 The attitude of the Watch Tower Society, not only towards the United Nations but also toward "the organized, corrupted Christendom," then, is seen to be shared by fundamentalist Christians in general. Even when it comes to the habit of adopting disapproving resolutions against the United Nations, the Watch Tower Society closely follows the methods of the fundamentalist movement: Although the fundamentalists were generally opposed to the United Nations and criticized it vehemently, they did not make any organized attempt to place pressure upon Congress to cause the withdrawal of the United States from it. Their opposition was usually expressed in the form of statements and resolutions which were adopted at frequent intervals to indicate their general disapproval of the United Nations. 21 CONCLUSION The above examination has demonstrated that the views held by the Watch Tower Society about the international peace organizations are more "traditional" than most Jehovah's Witnesses believe. They are views that, more or less, have been shared by practically all fundamentalist Christians. The same holds true of the "predictions" of the future of these peace organizations presented by the Society: They were simply taken over from the fundamentalists. If some of these predictions seem to have been fulfilled, therefore, this does not prove anything as to the Society's ability to prophesy; it just proves that they are able to plagiarize. For this, no divine inspiration is needed. If these predictions were divinely originated, the leaders of the Watch Tower Society should be forced to conclude that God gave them to fundamentalist Christians outside the Watch Tower organization. One question remains to be answered: Is the vision of the "beast" at Revelation 17 really applicable to the League of Nations and the United Nations of our days? Even if at first glance this application may seem likely, this author feels it has serious problems. He hopes to return to this subject in a future article. Carl Olof Jonsson Notes 1 For a fair, balanced and scholarly discussion of these prophetic failures and their importance for the doctrinal and organizational development of the Watch Tower movement see Dr. Joseph F. Zygmunt's article "Prophetic Failure and Chiliastic Identity: The Case of Jehovah's Witnesses," published in the American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 75, July 1969-May 1970 pp. 926 948. 2 Wilson, p. 37ff. The Watch Tower Nov. 1, 1914, pp. 327, 328. 3 Wilson, p 38. 4 The Watchtower, August I, 1971, p. 469. 5 Quoted by Ernest R. Sandeen in The Roots of Fundamentalism, London 1970, p, 235. 6 Sandeen p. 235. 7 Wilson, p. 56. 8 C.F. Hogg and W.E. Vine, Touching the Coming of the Lord, London 1919, p. 95. 9 Hogg and Vine, p. 96. 10 Hogg and Vine, pp. 118,120. 11 Wilson p. 81 12 See the booklet Peace - Can It Last? published by the Watchtower Society in 1942, p. 21. 13 See for example Studies in the Scriptures. Vol. Vll, first published in 1911, pp. 259, 263. The work went through several editions in the subsequent years. 14 Light, Vol. 2, 1930, p. 86. 15 Ibid, p. 94. 16 Peace - Can It Last? 1942. p. 21. The Watch Tower Society has open referred to this prediction as evidence of the prophetic ability of the organization. The Watchtower of 1960 p. 444, paragraph 19, claimed they made it, guided by Jehovah's spirit. Cf. also "Your Will Be Done On Earth, " 1958, p. 282; ''Babylon The Great has Fallen!" Cod's Kingdom Rules! 1963, p. 585; The Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1963, p. 696; The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1967, p. 122 and the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 203. 17 The A American A Annual for 1 944, p. 701, quoted in The Watchtower, Dec. I, 197 1, p. 723. 18 Wilson, p. 157. Rimmer's prediction is to be found on p. 83 of his book The Coming We and The Rise of Russia. Grand Rapids, 1940. That Harry Rimmer's writings were not unknown to the Society is seen from the fact that he has often been quoted in the Watch Tower public cations on other subjects. See for example the booklet Basis for Belief a New World, published in 1953, where three of Rimmer's works are quoted on pp. 23, 27, 37 and 44. 19 Since 1963 the Society identifies the "harlot" with On false religion. See "Babylon the Great Great pub 1963 20 Louis Gasper, 7hc Fundamentalist Movement 1930-lg55, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1981 treprint of the 1963 edition), pp. 49, 50 21 Gasper, p. 52.
-
24
Submitting a DA letter and walking away?
by Jourles ini have been perusing through the many boe documents i have recently received and noticed something interesting.
regarding ones who disassociate themselves, there have been many discussions on this board where people tell others not write a letter as you are giving away any legal footing you may have against the society.
well, it appears that there are two routes you can take without officially getting da'd, according to the society's own documents.
-
-
peacefulpete
Maverick...I am curious about what you meant by they reduced you to an unbaptised publisher and then DA you. Are you suggesting they changed the files? How then could they DA you if you are not regarded as baptised?
-
20
price for truth
by peacefulpete inwhat would you be willing to pay for the answers to all your questions about life, death, religion, etc.?
and please noone say the clich`e , "noone really knows what is true".
this is a philosophical question.
-
-
peacefulpete
What would you be willing to pay for the answers to all your questions about life, death, religion, etc.? And please noone say the clich`e , "Noone really knows what is true". This is a philosophical question. Would you pay 1/2 of all your wages for the rest of your life? 10 years off your lifespan? Give up your family? Go without TV for a year? Are you afraid of these answers and would prefer to not know......