Posts by OldGenerationDude

33

why jesus never tempted with sex?

by criticalwitness in

i mean really whats the number one reason a dub gets kicked out the org?

one of stongest natural desires and he was supposed to be a full fledged human all desires and everything i mean satan tempted him with food but no sexual pleasure?

and was he attracted to women?

OldGenerationDude

I'm Hebrew, and thus my people, the Jews, have no belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

It's odd that as a Jew I know the Scripture text that claims that Jesus was indeed tempted with sex. Sure, I learned it when I was a Jehovah's Witness, but the interpretation by other Christians is the same. The Christian text of Hebrews 4:15 states that Jesus " was tempted in every way that we are, except without sin."

Therefore Jesus of Nazareth, according to Christian tradition, was indeed tempted with the same sexual temptations common to others. How this text was missed by people who are supposed to be fully educated in the Bible's contents, enough to either reject or accept it, especially after having had it hammered in them by the Watchtower (they commonly cite and quote this text), is curious. It's been decades since I was a Witness, but I still remember where that text is.

33

Why did Lazarus Pay for his sins twice?

by criticalwitness in

according to j dub doc the wages sins pays is death meaning to them death covers your debt of sin when lazarus died did he not pay his debt?

so when jesus resctd him why did he die again?

when jesus brought him back did he creat or recreat an imperfect being on the sinful road to destruction?

OldGenerationDude

Though there is no Biblical text that says that Lazarus died, there is historical evidence that the man to whom the Gospel tradition attributes this resurrection did in fact die.

While the debate between Jews and Christians may still continue as to whether or not there was a resurrection, the individual (whose real name is Eleazar--"Lazarus" is a Latinized form of the Hebrew name) is a historical one. He was one of the first Christian bishops, known to history as Lazarus of Bethany.

While there are many religious legends regarding Lazarus of Bethany, with both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church at odds to where he served as Bishop, the historicity of Lazarus of Bethany is affirmed not only by the Early Church Fathers but by both Jewish and Islamic historians and religious traditions. While only considered a "possible" or "likely" spot of the original burial place, there is a spot in the West Bank town al-Eizariya revered by Catholics, Orthodox, and Muslims as the location of the tomb of Lazarus. So regardless of the argument about the validity of the claim that Jesus of Nazareth resurrected Eleazar/Lazarus of Bethany after being dead for four days, the conclusion of the religions that venerate him as saint is that Lazarus did in fact die (thus the reason for the site of a tomb connected with him).

Again the problem with the Governing Body view is that it is developed from a theology that strives to ignore the fact that the very texts which it venerates as inspired is part of a dichotomy with the religious history or tradition that supplies the basis for its exegesis. A denial of this essential dichotomy or ignorance of it causes the problematic conclusions being discussed here.

33

Why did Lazarus Pay for his sins twice?

by criticalwitness in

according to j dub doc the wages sins pays is death meaning to them death covers your debt of sin when lazarus died did he not pay his debt?

so when jesus resctd him why did he die again?

when jesus brought him back did he creat or recreat an imperfect being on the sinful road to destruction?

OldGenerationDude

According to non-JW Christian doctrine, perfect human beings would have grown out of mortality as one grows out of infancy, childhood, adolescence. Under this understanding the "mortal" existence would eventually die to be supplanted by something else. Because of the complexity of this teaching which is generally learned in collegiate level theology, the Governing Body has neither been exposed to this exegetical theory nor teaches it. This is why we end up with a paradox if we try to apply their view on death and resurrection.

The eschatology of some Christian faiths speak of Adam and Eve experiencing a “death” in the mortal state upon entering immortality had they not sinned as originally described in Genesis (this "death" of mortality is symbolized by eating from the “Tree of Life” and understood as entering into immortality). Death is thus not viewed as a fault, imperfection, or punishment in all eschatological systems as it is in the JW theology. Wisdom 4:10-19 (accepted by the majority of Christians as an inspired text) states that death is often a reward from God in some instances.

Regardless of our own view of the book of Wisdom or the validity of religious eschatology in general, the problematic reasoning of the Watchtower doctrine shows the limitation of the Governing Body. They hold that Romans 6:7 (which states that a person who has died has paid the penalty of death) applies in all circumstances. This is due to their view of the atonement and what is referred to as “ransom theory.”

The Governing Body paints their “Jehovah” as a blood-thirsty God who demands appeasement or literal penal substitution in human terms of life, flesh and blood. Christianity, on the other hand, views sacrifice of all kinds as a symbol and a metaphor for what Christ accomplished in the Passion. The “satisfaction” offered to God in Christian theology does not refer to “gratification” in the sense used by the Governing Body or in the vernacular. Instead it is viewed as “restitution.”

But it is a very complex theology that branches out into several forms of exegetical theory that would be best researched elsewhere due to space and time considerations. The bottom line is that outside of the Watchtower exegesis, Lazarus death is not a literal “payment for the penalty of sin” as the Governing Body misunderstands the application of Romans 6:7. The Pauline statement is in the context of a diatribe, arguing with fictionalized “Judaizers” in the context of Torah (over whether Mosaic Law can declare persons righteous on its own terms or if Christ’s coming was necessary). Because neither the Devil, nor the angels can demand or merit satisfaction for sins committed by Adam and Eve against God, only God’s terms need be satisfied. According to Christian theology, literal sacrifice of human blood and life as a penal subtitution for Adam to God is not what occurred at the Cross.

Besides, if Romans 6:7 applies outside of the context of discussing Torah vs. “grace via Christ,” then Christ would not be necessary because everyone would have ‘paid for their sins’ by their own death. Obviously more than the Law’s requirement of a “death” of each sinner was necessary, which is the totality of the Pauline argument. Therefore the raising of Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, and the young man of Naim demonstrate a clear failure in the Governing Body’s theology.

14

Young and angry

by d in

since i left the jw's in 2008. i have since struggled with feelings of anger at people in power and religous leaders.i feel that in this world you just can not trust anybody.i have given up trying to see the good in people and i just feel deattached from people..

OldGenerationDude

And anger and the ability to identify and express your distrust and disappointment is a healthy thing. It's better than keeping quiet and living with a situation that says you are bad if you disagree with something you feel is unjust or just outright incorrect.

At the expense of speaking for ABibleStudent (and I know I may be wrong in interpreting what I read in their statement), I think perhaps that the advice was to stay "critical," not to become "cynical."

A cynic is one who attributes selfishness to everyone and that no one or anything is worthy of total trust or belief. One who is cynical, according to definition, is attributing malicious and/or exploitative motives to all acts, including honesty and bravery. That really isn't the way to live.

But being critical, to skillfully analyze one's motives or the reasoning behind something taught, believed or done is healthy. Sure, one can carry this too far and become cynical, but when it comes to ideologies that can change or alter lives there's nothing unhealthy with investigating.

People often trust the critical or truth-seeking individual, but people will end up avoiding and rejecting the cynic. If your experience under the shadow of the Watchtower makes you better at critical thinking, that's great. But don't let the that same experience with the JWs turn you into someone who refuses to see the good in others or who won't trust others who will like or love you for just being you. It can happen because the Governing Body tries to teach us that we aren't anything without them, not worthy of a God's love and thus not worthy of love from others.

Of all the lies the Watchtower teaches, that is the worst and the most irresponsible of them all. Never believe it.

27

What biblical support is there for the belief that a creative day is 7000 years long?

by JWB in

what biblical support is there for the belief that a creative day is 7000 years long?.

as most folks here are probably well aware, the wts teaches that humankind has lived for about 6,000 years and that there will be a 1,000 year reign of christ to restore humans to perfection.

they teach that the end of 'this old system' must be coming very soon since everything must fit into a 7000 year 'creative day'.

OldGenerationDude

Leolaia, I am not writing a testimony to my own personal beliefs. I'm Hebrew. My people don't hold to Christian theology. While you state that you don't believe in some of what I wrote, that is fine with me. I am not necessarily writing what I believe here, but what mainstream Christian theology states. So I am perfectly happy with your personal convictions on the subject, and your views or belief on the subject neither negate what I wrote nor have a bearing on the religious views of my ancestors.

Jewish theology on this subject is very different than what has been presented here, even very different from what I wrote. Since it isn't applicable to the discussion (Jews are unconcerned with the Adventist views adopted and held by the Jehovah's Witnesses and the whole heaven and afterlife thing of the Goyim), I just cited what I had learned from my education in Christian theology. Please do not mistake my writings for a personal testimony.

Again, I am happy for you that you have strong personal convictions in whatever it is you believe as I do for any of my exJW sisters or brothers, theist, atheist, or otherwise.

45

Jesus ,the son of GOD,on earth as a man,never wrote down his words of wisdom,message of salvation,only talked to a minority group,majority of what he preached was never recorded by observers,?

by smiddy in

doesn`t this sound a little bit odd to you ?

according to christendom/jehovah`s witnesses in particular , the greatest man who ever lived,had the means at his disposal,to write down everything he had to say for the benefit of all mankind ,jew and gentile,and he never availed himself of this priveledge .rather most of what he had to say, according to the bible, was lost,no one recorded all he spoke ..he was quite content to leave it up to a few, who would put his words to pen,many of which were not eyewitness accounts to his deeds.,but received the information secon-hand.

if the almighty god jehovah and his son jesus christ were in anyway serious, wouldn`t they have made this" so important" message available to all mankind ?

OldGenerationDude

Francis of Assisi, founder of the Roman Catholic order known as the Franciscans, said in reference to the Gospel:

"Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary use words."

The question that is posed here is another example of Watchtower influence we may still have floating around in our heads that may cause us to come to incorrect conclusions. The Jehovah's Witnesses, like the Latter Day Saints, are obsessed with a written revelation. While Martin Luther taught that the Scriptures should be the basis for direction in the Church, he did not hold that revelation from God originated from this written form. The Church, like Judaism, came first. Some of the tradition or revelation from God was in written form--not all according to Jews and Christians--but again some of it.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, believe that revelation is limited to what is found in Scripture. Unless it is preserved in this format it does not qualify under the Governing Body's view of divine disclosure.

The religions of Christianity and Judaism are unique in that they are not religions based on a book or looking to any book as the basis for their beliefs or theology. The opposite is true. The books of Scripture reflect the teachings of Judaism and early Christianity, each group developing from a theophany or series of such. Except for the Ten Commandments, no theophany was ever limited to the scope of writing, not in Judaism or Christianity for the most part.

This is incompatible with the Governing Body’s view, of course, because it necessitates study and frequent catechesis in centuries-old religious tradition. But the study and reading of Talmud, Midrash and/or the Church Fathers and the works of Christian Saints would expose Jehovah’s Witnesses to at least abandon the Governing Body, if not choose the teachings of these religious groups themselves.

Jesus didn't leave a book behind, he left a Church or a Congregation of believers behind. These written testimonies are not the entire message, as Francis of Assisi was pointing out. Each member was the message (or is supposed to be). How they live is supposed to be a greater and more substantial teaching than any written document can provide, but as we can all attest very few seem to fit this description. As one writer put it: "It's not that people have thoroughly tried Christianity and found it wanting. It's that people have found that Christianity is very difficult to live out, and thus it has been left untried."

But regardless, if like the Witnesses teach, salvation is limited to a written testimony, then yes it would be an odd thing. But the reason that Christianity is general is not worried about this is because for the majority of them the Bible is not the basis for their beliefs nor is it the primary witness to Christ.

27

What biblical support is there for the belief that a creative day is 7000 years long?

by JWB in

what biblical support is there for the belief that a creative day is 7000 years long?.

as most folks here are probably well aware, the wts teaches that humankind has lived for about 6,000 years and that there will be a 1,000 year reign of christ to restore humans to perfection.

they teach that the end of 'this old system' must be coming very soon since everything must fit into a 7000 year 'creative day'.

OldGenerationDude

Postscript: My comments might possibly also be in line with what JWFacts brings out.

If this were literal and thus historically linear, then the order of things (and there is a lot of "order" happening in the account) doesn't make sense. It would make no sense to have "light" separated from "darkness" but have to wait three days before you have the things that bring "light" to therefore allow for the separation.

Like a storyline that does not unfold in a linear fashion, such as Christopher Nolan's film MEMENTO, we need to read the account like a Hebrew who is used to finding doublets in their writings (such as found in the proverbial patterns in Proverbs). Since P was added to the Genesis account after the Jews returned from Babylonian exile, an exile the Jews attributed to not obeying the Law (especially failing to observe Sabbath, which the Jews to this day cite as the foremost obligation they had failed in up to that point), it is likely that P, being concerned with Torah observance, was careful to place this addition into a mnemonic pattern which emphasized or highlighted the importance of keeping Sabbath. This wouldn't be unexpected since it would become the first thing a reader would encounter when reading Genesis.

Outside of this "Sabbath-observance" reminder, the number of days lose their meaning. Days 1 and 4 obviously describe the same event, as do days 2 and 5, and finally 3 and 6. That this may seem complicated to the Gentile reader should not be dismissed. It is not meant to be read from the standpoint of a Gentile unconcerned with Sabbath observance or unfamiliar with Hebrew proverbial doublet structure but instead may require this. Should that be the case, seeking support for the Watchtower teaching of 7000 year-long days would be highly illogical, even if one were reading it with the belief that it was merely superficial mythology.

27

What biblical support is there for the belief that a creative day is 7000 years long?

by JWB in

what biblical support is there for the belief that a creative day is 7000 years long?.

as most folks here are probably well aware, the wts teaches that humankind has lived for about 6,000 years and that there will be a 1,000 year reign of christ to restore humans to perfection.

they teach that the end of 'this old system' must be coming very soon since everything must fit into a 7000 year 'creative day'.

OldGenerationDude

And, if you want to be a little more technical in arguing against the Watchtower view you may want to point out that:

The creative time periods aren’t “days” at all.

If they are literal days or meant to symbolize years, then everyone needs to cut their calculations in half. Only half a Hebrew day is mentioned in the first six days, each beginning with “evening” but instead of ending with the next night they stop halfway at “morning.” Technically speaking that is only 12 hours, half a day.

A unique poetry-like pattern is introduced into Hebrew prose to describe each day not found elsewhere in Scripture.

The listing of what appeared on each day appears to be three sets of doublets, and neither a historical reference or a reflection to the commonly perceived order of creation among the ancients. If you notice, the writers of the P account seem to weave a pattern, with the days 1, 2, 3 matching with 4, 5, 6. Note the pattern of what is being discussed:

Days 1-3: The Three Days of Separation

DAY 1-God creates heavens and separates light from day

DAY 2-God separates water above (rain) from water below (seas)

DAY 3-God separates land from seas (vegetation grows on land)

Days 4-6: The Three Days of Integration

DAY 4- Sun, moon, and stars integrated into heavens or sky

DAY 5-Birds integrated into sky; fish integrated into seas

DAY 6- Animals and man integrated into earth paradigm

Now note the doublets:

God brings light to the heavens

DAY 1-God creates heavens and separates light from day

DAY 4- Sun, moon, and stars integrated into heavens or sky

God brings life to the skies and the seas

DAY 2-God separates water above (rain) from water below (seas)

DAY 5-Birds integrated into sky; fish integrated into seas

God brings life to the earth

DAY 3-God separates land from seas (vegetation grows on land)

DAY 6- Animals and man integrated into earth paradigm

Also note that each day has a structure to it:

Each “day” opens with “And God said,” followed by God’s command “Let there be…”

which is then fulfilled with “and it came to be that….”

Each “day” also gets a judgment (“And God saw that it was good”)

and a time limit of half a day (“And evening came, and there was morning, the ___ day”).

The seventh day, the Sabbath, acts like an epilogue, with God “resting.” From what is God “resting”? From putting the universe “in order” or in the pattern that the ancients could observe.

While it is clear that the writers and editors of Genesis 1-11 adapted and reshaped the mythologies of their Near Eastern neighbors, it appears that the Hebrews were doing so by subtly attacking heathen beliefs, namely that creation was a struggle between the gods resulting in chaos (from which humanity sprang, according to the Goyim). Instead of reading or interpreting a literal time period into the account like the Witnesses and Adventists do, perhaps it is the fact that an “order” to things is introduced at the expense of the usual “chaos” found in Canaanite and Babylonian myths that is more important. The writer(s) obviously go to a great extend to set their account in a very repetitive structure (lacking in the following creation account in chapter 2) and therefore must have a purpose. It is more likely that the writer(s) wanted readers to find a meaning in this instead of a “hidden code” wherein days stand for years through some ambiguous formulae which is not provided.

54

God's Perfect Creation

by MrFreeze in

so, one of the main things that jw's teach is that when god first created everything, it was all perfect.

no flaws in his creation.

that is until you realize that the wt reasons that adam and even knew what death was because the animals died.

OldGenerationDude

Thanks for the clarification, MrFreeze.

It weakens the atheist argument to base one's viewpoint or convictions regarding the deity issue on Watchtower doctrine. It's concept of God is not only limited in an academic sense but very narrow in regards to its application.

Yet we should also be careful of the type of argument we use to champion the atheist cause. Richard Dawkins is often cited by many on the board, but his arguments are not applicable outside much of Evangelical/Fundamental Christianity. The arguments he uses are generally based on the concept of deity shared by that branch of Christianity with little regard to the complexities of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. And even worse, practically no arguments of his are ever presented against a deity that fits outside such a paradigm, and that in itself may weaken one's reasoning if the atheist does not learn to expand past this narrow definition of what a god may be or if one presents his views to give the theist such an impression.

Quoting Dawkins no more proves the atheist argument than quoting the Bible proves there is a God. Neither does quoting him seem to raise the atheist's way of thinking higher than when a Christian quotes the Apostle's Creed. Claiming that the definition of God by one religion is false does not disprove God nor does it speak any better about one's convictions than a Jehovah's Witness who sticks to their own narrow defintions and doctrines. It seems that few if anyone raises subjects against the god concepts of Hindus, Native Americans, Pagans, and a myriad of other concepts of God. No offense to Richard Dawkins or those who hold him in high regard, but if there truly is no God, then the entire concept of deity of any kind being possible under any circumstances has to be taken into consideration.

54

God's Perfect Creation

by MrFreeze in

so, one of the main things that jw's teach is that when god first created everything, it was all perfect.

no flaws in his creation.

that is until you realize that the wt reasons that adam and even knew what death was because the animals died.

OldGenerationDude

You hit it right on the button, MrFreeze. As you yourself stated, your statements and current conclusions are based on what you know--and are limited by that. This limitation you admit to (such as the JW religion being the only one that teaches that all the animals were vegetarian at one time--Jainism and Nazarene sects also hold to such a belief, by the way) just shows how your conclusions are incomplete and cannot be held as valid.

They can't apply to any religious view that does not view death as a flaw. My ancestors, the Jews, hold that the death of some people are like a "kiss from HaShem," and therefore not outside of God's purpose.

The Book of Wisdom, accepted by Catholics and Orthodox as canonical, teaches that death is not always an evil but sometimes a reward. (Wisdom 4:7-19) And traditional Native American religious beliefs view death and life as equal to one another, not a flaw at all.

You are blaming God for something the Jehovah's Witnesses teach. That is giving the JWs too much power.

As one writer stated: "Who has ever had their cars towed? When you get to the car impound who doesn't hate the guy at the desk? But is it his fault that our cars were towed? No."

You are treating God like the guy at the car impound. It isn't God who teaches the things you curse God for, it's the Jehovah's Witnesses who draw God in this form. So you are telling everyone here that you believe the false claims that the JWs hold, that their definition of God is the only true view of what God is--and then you curse God for it when you should be blaming the Witnesses for teaching you garbage and yourself for limiting your view of God to what they teach.