Posts by leaving

5

CHRISTIAN BY DIVINE PROVIDENCE

by Nicholaus Kopernicus in

the following information looks at the use of the descriptor "christian" and "jehovah's witness".

reference is made to information published by the wtbts, as is information in wikipedia.

a discussion ensues at the end.. insight vol i - christianpublished in 1988the latinized greek term khristianos, found only three times in the christian greek scriptures, designates followers of christ jesus, the exponents of christianity.ac 11:26; 26:28; 1pe 4:16.it was first in antioch [syria] that the disciples were by divine providence called christians.

leaving_quietly

The translation of the Greek verb khre·ma·ti′zo as "by divine providence called" is unique to the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. It has been translated as such from the beginning (1953) up to and including the recent 2013 revision. An examination of translations via Biblegateway shows that they all translate khre·ma·ti′zo simply as "called" (except Young's).

In this case, the NWT appears to be giving a translation that brings in the flavor of the word, and in this case, I agree with the translation. From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance:

From chrema; to utter an oracle (compare the original sense of chraomai), i.e. Divinely intimate; by implication, (compare the secular sense of chreia) to constitute a firm for business, i.e. (generally) bear as a title -- be called, be admonished (warned) of God, reveal, speak.

Also, see here and here for other interesting writeups about this.

In reviewing this history, I have resolved to refer to myself as a Christian only.

Rutherford selected one Hebrew scripture for his re-branding strategy - thereby denying every Christian scripture which commanded Christians to witness for Christ!

Yes, and the verse Rutherford chose was there for a particular purpose. A reading of Isaiah 43 shows what that is. It was not to be a name for a religious organization, otherwise, the Israelites would have been called "Jehovah's witnesses" 2500 years ago.

5

CHRISTIAN BY DIVINE PROVIDENCE

by Nicholaus Kopernicus in

the following information looks at the use of the descriptor "christian" and "jehovah's witness".

reference is made to information published by the wtbts, as is information in wikipedia.

a discussion ensues at the end.. insight vol i - christianpublished in 1988the latinized greek term khristianos, found only three times in the christian greek scriptures, designates followers of christ jesus, the exponents of christianity.ac 11:26; 26:28; 1pe 4:16.it was first in antioch [syria] that the disciples were by divine providence called christians.

leaving_quietly

Marked for later reading when I have more time

5

The "Great Multitude" and the "Jehovah's Witnesses"

by Doug Mason in

i wonder if someone is able to tell me the date and publication when those of the "great multitude" were first included with the "jehovah's witnesses".. i do not mean the "jonadab class", since to me they appear to be different to the "great multitude".

(i am open to correction on that but i will need precise references.).

doug.

leaving_quietly

According to the index, the earliest reference to the "great crowd" as "Jehovah's witnesses" was w48 p.87. There could be an earlier reference, but not sure. Here's an image snippet of that WT:

23

Help! I'm drowning!

by vinman in

my wife and sons don't know how far i have gone in withdrawing from the organization in my heart.

i've been faking family worship.

i got angry and almost showed it while watching the march tv.org.

leaving_quietly

Sorry to hear what you're going through. I'm in the same predicament. I'm a little farther along, though. My wife knows how I feel about this religion. We've had a couple of intense discussions about it. So, I know how you're feeling. I'm living it.

I was about to ask the same question as Oubliette. Did you mean "worshipped Jesus" in the past? Because JWs certainly don't do so in the present. Does it bother you that they once gave more credence to Christ than they do now? I wasn't sure what you meant by that.

8

Watchtower and the Dishonest Use of Uncredited Images

by jwleaks in

jw
friends

the below image comes from the following web site page: commons wikimedia.

the author of the work has granted licence to use his work providing he is properly credited or attributed as the author.. .

[credit: daniel meyar, licensed for use under creative commons].

leaving_quietly

I have to agree with Dark SpilveR here. The assets "page" is not a page per se. It's very common for a site to have an assets folder, or for high traffic sites, a whole server dedicated to assets. In web programming, a page is made up of a number of things, such as the html of the page, the text content, scripts, stylesheets, images, videos, etc. "Assets" are the individual pieces of these pages and typically include scripts, stylesheets, images and various other media (e.g. videos). Thus, the image is there on the assets server, just sitting there, waiting to be used on some page somewhere. No credit is necessary for an image at rest.

Also, in looking at the source of the page in the article the image is used in, one can see that the image has different sizes, presumably for different platforms (desktop, tablet, mobile). The one you referenced is the smallest image. There are two other sizes referenced, one medium, and one large. There appears to be some script that they use to place an appropriate sized image on the page for layout purposes, likely depending on the device (desktop, tablet or mobile). Both the medium and the large image have the credit embedded directly in the image. It's completely possible that if the smallest one is used, the credit is made elsewhere outside of the image in the page it's composed on, or it's possible that the smallest image is never used on any page even thought it's in the "small size" script variable.

http://assets.jw.org/assets/m/g10/201011/g10_201011.art/102010407_univ_cnt_3_md.jpg

http://assets.jw.org/assets/m/g10/201011/g10_201011.art/102010407_univ_cnt_3_lg.jpg

I believe, in this case, there isn't an issue.

9

Songs 139-142

by wifibandit in

full set: http://imgur.com/a/4xl77.

for pdf use key: uyqnbqyeulurxzvvvuo2iq.

sample: .

leaving_quietly

It would be absolutely wrong for anyone NOT a pioneer to sing this song as it would be lying. And we all know how God feels about liars, right?

BTW, I thought the song book was called "Sing praises TO Jehovah", not "Pat OURSELVES on the back"

85

jw.org cart days numbered?

by jookbeard in

reading a report of an elder in a friends cong has been hiding and spying on the pioneers who seem to have a practise of dumping the cart and finding a local coffee shop, i've noticed that they do this in my local high street as well but this week they seemed to be all huddled around the cart, they've clearly been warned, a vast percentage of the time i see they seem to be more interested in fiddling with their mobile phones and gossiping, is just seems these carts are a means for the pioneers to turn in "easy time" i wonder what sort of figures show how much literature is being taken by the public?

i bet its very minimal.

naturally the gb would say they are a phenomenal success , we clearly know they are not.

leaving_quietly

Our territory doesn't really have a place for cart witnessing. But we have a cart because the CO forced the elders to get one. It has been sitting in a corner, unboxed, in the elders' room for the last few months. I'm sure they'll drag it out before the next CO visit just for show.

14

Have you met people in the "world" who are more commited to their christian believes than JWs?

by nevaagain in

jw
friends

i met a coworker at my work who was even more commited to his religion then almost anybody i had seen in the jw mids yet.

whenever we went for lunch, he would do a little prayer first, he didnt care if anybody would take notice of him.

he does not curse, never!

leaving_quietly

I have a co-worker who is Protestant who is like your co-worker. Maybe not as many meetings, but the prayers at meal time, church on Sunday, possibly other charity-type activities related to the church. He and his wife pray regularly. He speaks of the kingdom of God. He's very happy in his faith and he's very close to many in his church. It's a fairly stark contrast to JWs.

55

Are we pro-shunning or against it?

by Simon in

just to continue my theme about religious freedom and how we approach criticizing the wts, i've also been thinking about 'shunning'.. i think shunning is the most unifying complaint that most ex-members of religious groups that practice it have in common.

it is the layer that runs under every other complaint - whatever the reason for leaving it seems "... and i was shunned" can be added to it as the final rap on the charge sheet.. of course it seems like a no-brainer to many of us and we hardly ever stop to really think about it - shunning is bad, the watchtower believes in shunning therefore the watchtower is bad.

they need to stop it.

leaving_quietly

Otherwise the distinction you attempt of shunning versus avoiding is amusing. Avoiding is an instance of shunning.

You are right. I was thinking of the WT definition of shunning which goes beyond your typical avoidance, to include not even speaking with someone.

55

Are we pro-shunning or against it?

by Simon in

just to continue my theme about religious freedom and how we approach criticizing the wts, i've also been thinking about 'shunning'.. i think shunning is the most unifying complaint that most ex-members of religious groups that practice it have in common.

it is the layer that runs under every other complaint - whatever the reason for leaving it seems "... and i was shunned" can be added to it as the final rap on the charge sheet.. of course it seems like a no-brainer to many of us and we hardly ever stop to really think about it - shunning is bad, the watchtower believes in shunning therefore the watchtower is bad.

they need to stop it.

leaving_quietly

By comparison, the biblical instance where Paul supposedly recommended a congregation shun an individual he went on to tell everyone the precise reason for his recommendation.

As others stated, forced shunning is the issue. But, for the record, Paul NEVER said to shun. He said to "stop keeping company" or "stop associating". There's a BIG difference in shunning and avoiding.

Something to keep in mind with regards to whether religious shunning should EVER be acceptable. Did Christ shun Satan? Did God? Or did BOTH actually have conversations with him? Shouldn't that be the measuring stick?

leaving_quietly

Posts by leaving_quietly