Posts by leaving

6

Did Jesus shun the obstinately willful or incorrigible sinners?

by I_love_Jeff in

did jesus shun the obstinately willful or incorrigible sinners?

a popular jw on yahoo answers is insisting that jesus shunned those types of sinners.

i do not recall jesus shunning anyone in his time.

leaving_quietly

Since the Pharisees weren't his disciples, he couldn't very well shun, but he did expose their hypocrisy. What about his disciples? John 6 gives us the answer. John 6:60: "Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: "This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?" What did Jesus do? Shove them out? Call them apostates for not believe his words? Not at all. Verses 66 and 67: "Owing to this many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. Therefore Jesus said to the twelve: "You do not want to go also, do YOU?" No, Jesus just calmly and quietly let them go. No berating. No name-calling. No shunning.

18

Some thoughts on the 'days' of Daniel 12

by Splash in

1260 days (dan 12:7).

1335 days (dan 12:12).

1260 days (dan 12:7).

leaving_quietly

The interpretations of the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days (especially the latter two) are laughable. Just as laughable is the interpretation of the 2300 days of Dan 8:13, 14. I'm really to believe that a convention, a book release and a talk / charter amendment are the fulfillment of these prophecies?

Thanks for the secular dates. I haven't had time to research this all that much. It's on my long list of things making my head spin right now.

33

Evidence of Fabrication in the recent WT study article for 8/19/12?!?

by 00DAD in

i noticed what seems to be evidence of a glaring fabrication in the wt study article from last week, the 08-19-2012 wt study article, why put jehovahs service first?, june 15, 2012, pages 20-24. .

consider this excerpt from paragraph 14: .

reflect back on the joy that so many of gods people had during the memorial season this year.

leaving_quietly

Yes, they have to the 20th of the month to put in the reports, but that's for the previous month. March 20 report would be for February. The count would not be known until April 20th, a month later than the appearance of the article, and the article itself would have been written a month or two or more prior to its publication. Years ago they said the articles are written five months in advance. Not sure if that's still the case.

83

The Truth About Bible Principles: Chastity and Abstinence

by sabastious in

jehovah's witnesses have a vast array of buzzterms that are fed into them on a regular basis, not the least of which is the term "bible principles.

" for most of my life i was convinced that only members of the watchtower bible and tract society were applying bible principles in the correct way.

this was mainly because we believed we had the correct translation of the holy scriptures which was largely rejected by "satan's world.

leaving_quietly

Having read the Bible again in recent months, when going through the Law, there were plenty of laws related to not laying bare the nakedness of your mother, father, sister, aunt, granddaughter, etc. (Leviticus chap. 18). However, there is no reference in the law to not having sexual relations prior to marriage. At least, I couldn't find any.

There are references, of course, to adultery and "sexual appetite", but I have found nothing that warrants any such rule of not having pre-marital sex.

Try this:

Search for "you must not" to get all the "don't do" laws.

Search for "lay bare" (some overlap with "you must not")

Search for "sexual"

Search for "adultery"

Search for "fornication" (which is defined by most dictionaries as sex between unmarried partners)

Interestingly, "fornication" is NOT listed in the Mosaic Law. It just doesn't exist there.

Also, interestingly, "loose conduct" is defined in the bible several times. (Lev. 18:17; Lev. 20:14; Job 31:10,11; Eze. 22:9-11.)

58

26% drop in auxiliary pioneers in "special month" between 2011 and 2012

by sir82 in

jw
friends

i don't recall seeing this posted on this board before, my apologies if the topic is duplicated..... in april 2011 and march 2012, the gb made a "loving provision" to allow jws to sign up for the auxiliary pioneer work with only a 30 hour requirement instead of the usual 50 hours.. in 2011, in the usa, about 500,000 signed up to be auxiliary pioneers.. in 2012, per the august 2012 km, only about 370,000 signed up.. that's a 26% drop in just 1 year!.

granted, in many parts of the us, the march weather is far worse than april's.

but on the other hand, there were 5 saturdays in march 2012 - you could get your "time in" with 5 long saturdays and nothing else.. .

leaving_quietly

Does anyone have the worldwide figure? You may recall the June 15 mag that appeared before March was even over that said "During March, a special provision allowed auxiliary pioneers to choose whether they would devote 30 or 50 hours to the field service (Ps. 110:3) Millions shared in auxiliary pioneer service, and congregations seemed to radiate exceptional exceitement and joy." (w6/15 p23 par 14) For this statement to hold true, there would have to be at least 2 million.

4

Another Watchtower Contradiction

by God_Delusion in

howdy guys & gals!.

kudos to leaving quietly for finding this contradiction in a new watchtower magazine.

here's my take on it.. http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/watchtower-bloopers/watchtower-contradiction-15th-june-2012/.

leaving_quietly

Thanks for the kudos!

In par 5, I would highlight also "the Lord’s day began in 1914".

7

For Bethelites & Gileadites Only

by The Searcher in

"who really is the faithful and discreet slave".... (matt.

when discussing john 1:1 with trinitarians, we always refer to the original greek, and inform them that the verse speaks of the word being 'a' god, not 'the' god, because the definite article 'ho' is not used in his case.

leaving_quietly

Ex-bethelite here (many years ago).

It depends on which base manuscript is used. The Emphatic Diaglott does use 'ho' at Matt 24:45. It also uses it at John 1:1, but that was describing 'the word' (it translates it as 'a god was the word'.)

Interestingly, though, not to get off on a tangent for John 1:1, the Diaglott translates the first part of the verse literally "In a beginning was the word", and verse to "This was in a beginning with the God." Notice the NWT puts the word "the" in brackets: "In [the] beginning was the Word" and "This one was in [the] beginning with God." Kinda seems like translators do whatever they want with these.

Contradiction in last week's study article

by leaving_quietly in

6/15/12 p.15 par 5 footnote: "although the components of the dual world power have existed since the 18th century, john describes it as it would appear at the start of the lord's day.

in fact, the fulfillment of the visions recorded in revelation takes place during "the lord's day.

" (rev.

leaving_quietly

6/15/12 p.15 par 5 footnote: "Although the components of the dual world power have existed since the 18th century, John describes it as it would appear at the start of the Lord's day. In fact, the fulfillment of the visions recorded in Revelation takes place during "the Lord's day." (Rev. 1:10)"

Oh, really? Same issue, but previous article: 6/15/12 p. 8 par. 6: "At the time of John's writing, five of those had fallen, one was currently in power, and one had "not yet arrived."

So, which is it? If, indeed, "the fulfillment of the visions recorded in Revelation" is in the Lord's day, then the entire interpretation about the prophecy about the wild beast needs a complete overhaul.

3

Ex 7:1 ponderings

by leaving_quietly in

if god could make moses god (capital g, hebrew elohim) to pharoah, what prevents him from making jesus god to all humans?.

my point is: the concept of the father is god and the son is god is not a big stretch in light of ex 7:1, when god made moses god to one human.

jesus, being greater than moses, could easily be made god to all humans, and it would seem to fit the scriptures better, especially when considering john 14:28 and 1 cor 15:26,27, and, dare i say, john 1:1 as understood by most people.

leaving_quietly

If God could make Moses God (capital G, Hebrew elohim) to Pharoah, what prevents him from making Jesus God to all humans?

My point is: the concept of the Father is God and the Son is God is not a big stretch in light of Ex 7:1, when God made Moses God to one human. Jesus, being greater than Moses, could easily be made God to all humans, and it would seem to fit the scriptures better, especially when considering John 14:28 and 1 Cor 15:26,27, and, dare I say, John 1:1 as understood by most people. The only thing would be that Jesus is not equal to Jehovah as the scriptures point out, but he could still be viewed as God (with a capital G, just like Ex 7:1).

In light of Ex 20:3, I'm not sure if this would fly, but then again, the Law was done away with when Jesus died. Th is is, of course, just a wild thought that crossed my mind. Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

14

9:40 Symposium:Motivate Right hearted Ones to Love . . . Their Spiritual Father (Acts 13:48; 16:14) Their Spiritual Mother (Proverbs 6:20)

by wolfman85 in

this is a topic for dc 2012. it turns out that more than 7 million jw are not the spiritual children of god to the wt, the most we can hope for is to be his friends.

are we or are we not spiritual children of god?

the truth is that this organization has made us spiritual bastards.. the other theme of "spiritual mother" has pagan and idolatrous connotations.

leaving_quietly

w61 2/1 par. 14. That's the last time it appeared in print in relation to this scripture. Struck me as odd at the DC, too, so I've been doing research on it. Since it was printed before I was even born, then of course it sounds new. But, alas, old teachings are becoming new again. I have heard the term "mother" in relation to the organization, but it was always because it was a "bride class" for Jesus (from Rev 21:2,9), and since we are her children (I'm guessing Rom 9:8), in that sense, it made sense at the time. However, I don't think Solomon had any inkling of relating "father" and "mother" in Prov 6:20 to Jehovah and "his organization". I think he was literally talking about human fathers and mothers. This is a bit of a stretch.

leaving_quietly

Posts by leaving_quietly