Posts by Bobcat

18

Memorial on wrong day

by isaacaustin in

jw
friends

ok...i have read before that the jws celebrate the memorial on the wrong day.

can someone explain this to me in a dummyproof way?

do the jws celebrate the memorial on the 13th day after sundown (which is nisan 14) or do they do it on the 14th days after sundown (nisan 15)??

Bobcat

James_Woods said: "only on passover day (a non-scriptural specification ..."

I agree with this statement.

Jesus simply said "keep doing this" Paul said "as often as" you do this.

And when discussing the Corinthian problems (1Cor 11:17-34) he said "when you come together... (for the Lord's Evening Meal)." There is no hint in any of that that this is a once a year memorial. If it was just once a year, you could easily describe the problems the Corinthians were having as poor prior planning for a once a year event. But Paul views them as ongoing moral faults.

On the one hand, the few directions given (for the Memorial) would allow for a once a year memorial view - or any number of times for that matter. But one has to wonder: Where in the NT is the direction for Gentiles to familiarize themselves with the Jewish calendar so that they can keep it on the proper day? - if thats when it HAS to be. "When you come together" and "as often as you [do this]" indicate a certain amount of autonomy on the part of the Corinthians.

In connection with the Christian view of the Passover, Paul said: "For, indeed, Christ our passover has been sacrificed. Consequently let us keep the festival (referencing the Passover), not with old leaven, neither with leaven of badness and wickedness, but with unfermented cakes of sincerity and truth." (1Cor 5:7, 8; Indicating, to me at least, that Paul saw the Jewish Passover as having a year round meaning for Christians. Coincidentally, the Society views the other Jewish festivals as having year round meaning.)

John (gospel, writing near the end of the 1st Century) mentions "Passover" 10 times. And 3 of those times refers to it as "the festival of the Jews." (2:23; 6:4; 11:55) That description of the Passover sounds like (again, to me) that there is some distance between Christians and this Jewish festival.

To me, this makes the whole Nisan 14/15 arguement moot.

16

The Governing Body Paradox

by truth_b_known in

after briefing reading the original post on this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/224030/1/do-i-have-this-right i asked myself the following question:.

the watch tower bible & tract society publishes in its writings, as of late, that the governing body/faithful & discreet slave must be obeyed to gain jehovah's salvation and favor.

the gb/fds are comprised of imperfect, spirit guided men whose teachings are to be accepted as truth.

Bobcat

OTWO said: "The cognitive dissonance cannot stand such obvious contradictions ... would have to be introduced in stages."

That is an interesting point. I had noticed this in the explanation in the w08 2/15 when they changed their position about who "this generation" was. At first I thought it was a fascinating change. But then, as I researched it more and tried to look at the validity of their arguments, it became more apparent to me that this was a snow job of sorts.

The 2/15 Watchtower does exactly what you said within just a few paragraphs.

Page 23 par.10 acknowledges that in the past they thought it was worldly contemporaries.

Page 23 par.11 says, in part: "Since Jesus did not use negative qualifiers when speaking to them about 'this generation,' the apostles would no doubt have understood that they and their fellow disciples were to be part of the 'generation' that would not pass away "until all these things [would] occur."

Page 23 par.12, 13 argues that it was Jesus' disciples who would see ("draw certain conclusions when they saw") all these things, not the world. (Conveniently ignoring the fact that Jesus did not say that "this generation" would understand "these things," only that it 'would not pass away until all these things occur.') Par.13 completes the change: "So Jesus must have been referring to his disciples ..."

The movement in thought is interesting: First, this generation was the world (p.10) Next, 'the disciples would think they were part of it.' (par.11) Finally, 'its them and only them.' (par.13b)

Kind of like moving a box from one room in your house to another: First in one room, then transitioning (in the hallway), then finally in the new room. (The article also ignores the fact that the "box" used to be in this new room earlier.)

(A couple of other things the article ignores: "this generation" is mentioned in Mt 23:36, probably less than 2 hours before it is mentioned again in 24:36, or, less than ten minutes reading time apart for the reader of Matthew. Yet no explanation is given in Matthew for this (supposedly) complete change of meaning of the identical terms. Luke 21:31 - 36, contrasts "You" (the disciples), who hopefully keep "standing before the Son of man," whereas "this generation" eventually "passes away.")

Thus, the article employs subtle movement of thought coupled with selective use of unrelated ideas and non-use of pertinent facts.

(Another interesting thing with the above is the timing of the release of the "Faith In Action" DVDs which memorializes the WT leadership.)

89

Emblem stupidity, and the bizarre dance of the confused memorial-taker

by cedars in

jw
friends

well, i went along to the memorial with mrs cedars.

it was my first since my "awakening" just less than a year ago.

apparently i made a lot of people happy by being there (even if it was only building up false hopes), the most important of which were my family.

Bobcat

Eccl 10:14; cmp w77 11/15 What Did the Wise Man Mean? p.698 par.2

26

The annointed remnant figure rising - a question

by jambon1 in

jw
friends

having been out of the loop for a while on here, it dawned on me that the figure of memorial partakers has risen substantially from when i was a jw.. i think i bowed out at around 8500 in 2006.. can anyone briefly explain what the main reasons for this increase are and if it is ever discussed among jw's because if i remember correctly, the figure should be going down, not up.. thanks.. j.

Bobcat

Just as a side thought, in case you are interested: The whole idea of an 'anointed remnant' is pure bologna. The idea is built on the Society's explanation of Rev 12:17 were 'the dragon goes off to wage war with the remaining ones of her seed.' It is the Society, not the Bible, that says only the 144,000 are of this seed (besides Jesus). And the word "remnant" in English has a different connotation than the Greek word translated "remaining" in Rev 12:17. Bare with me and I'll try to explain (as briefly as possible):

Galatians 4:21 - 5:6 shows that Christians are part of the seed of the woman (and in context, part of the new covenant, -- and by extension partakers of the bread and wine) by means of their faith in Christ, not by means of anointing. (Cmp John 6:53, 54) And in that context, if the seed of the woman was only going to number 144,000 max, then the "children" (or "seed") could never outnumber those of the old law covenant. (Gal 4:27) All Christians make up the offspring or "seed of the woman" since they are, in effect, offspring of Jesus, the main seed of the woman. All Christians make up the 12 tribes of Rev chapter 7 (and compare Mt 19:28), and the 144,000 are selected from "out of" them. (Rev 7:4-8)

Now concerning the word "remnant": In English, "remnant" has the idea of 'a few leftovers, a residue.' In contrast, "remaining" in Rev 12:17 means basically 'the rest.' Here are all the occurances in Revelation: 2:24; 3:2; 8:13; 9:20; 11:13; 12:17; 19:21; 20:5.

In 2:24 and 3:2 its hard to tell percentage wise how many 'the rest' / 'remaining' are. In 8:13 it is 3/7s. In 9:20 it is 2/3s. In 11:13 it is 9/10s. In 19:21 and 20:5 it is the vast majority. If you ever get a chance to peruse a Greek concordance, you'll see that throughout the NT the word (especially when speaking of people) is usually, if not always, used to refer to the majority. Thus, in Rev 12:15-17, the dragon's 'flood' only succeeds in killing some of the woman's seed. So he goes off to wage war with the majority who survived his flood.

There is a Greek word that means "remnant" (as in a few leftovers). But it only occurs in Acts 15:17. In the context it refers to the comparatively few Jews who become Christians in the earlier years of the Christian movement.

As I said, this was 'in case you are intrested.' If not, I'll hope you'll forgive me. These are things I could never speak of in the Hall. You are doing me a service letting me vent some of the things learned since taking the 'red pill.'

89

Emblem stupidity, and the bizarre dance of the confused memorial-taker

by cedars in

jw
friends

well, i went along to the memorial with mrs cedars.

it was my first since my "awakening" just less than a year ago.

apparently i made a lot of people happy by being there (even if it was only building up false hopes), the most important of which were my family.

Bobcat

St George: "... he mentioned the number and emphasised how tiny that is in relation to the 19 million +"

Even that is a dishonest use of statistics. The 19 million+ is everyone that came. The tiny number of partakers is only the ones they chose to count among those that partook.

89

Emblem stupidity, and the bizarre dance of the confused memorial-taker

by cedars in

jw
friends

well, i went along to the memorial with mrs cedars.

it was my first since my "awakening" just less than a year ago.

apparently i made a lot of people happy by being there (even if it was only building up false hopes), the most important of which were my family.

Bobcat

Sorry. I think I went off topic a little.

89

Emblem stupidity, and the bizarre dance of the confused memorial-taker

by cedars in

jw
friends

well, i went along to the memorial with mrs cedars.

it was my first since my "awakening" just less than a year ago.

apparently i made a lot of people happy by being there (even if it was only building up false hopes), the most important of which were my family.

Bobcat

The procedure described is mandated by the Society. Like you said, it is distressingly ritualistic. To what extent each congregation follows the ritual might depend on the COBOE or brother giving the talk. I used to give the talk every other year and this ritual passing used to bother me very much. It wasn't enough that the speaker gave the emblems to each attendant. He had to sit down afterwards and be handed them by one of the attendants.

Rant starts here: Its not enough to just come and "observe" like the Society says. Its as if the Society is adamant that you accept their superiority by your physically refusing the emblems (knowing that they do partake). It is also dishonest to the outsiders who accept the invite to attend. They are invited to observe and then find themselves having to make a choice. Imagine going to some other function 'just to see what is going on,' and then finding yourself being somewhat forced to participate. I could see how this might bother someone who thought partaking was the norm and then finding themselves having to decide what to do with everyone else turning down the emblems and the speaker encouraging the same.

I figured out a few years ago that all Christians were to partake. I was intending to go to a different congregation but the other elders volunteered me to give the talk. I could 'feel' every eye on me as I was the last to be handed the emblems. I told the brother who was going to hand them to me just before the meeting so he wouldn't have a stroke.

The real shame of it all is the Society's 'published' view that many who partake are 'mentally unstable' or 'influenced by past beliefs.' But they won't say the real reason the number is going up. People are figuring out that they are lying about who should partake. And its a shame also that if you came out and said you partook because all Christians should, you would be put out for apostasy. I seem to remember 'Narkissos' saying something about this very thing. I wish I could talk to him about it.

Here is another way you can see that the WT doesn't see things correctly: In the Bible, the reason for partaking is to 'remember Jesus,' to 'keep proclaiming the death of the Lord.' In the Kingdom Hall if you partake, the immediate and only response is: 'So you think you are going to heaven.'

13

what is the all time best example of the WT selective history?

by Aussie Oz in

it's almost like there are so many little things that add up to a lot, a lot of evidence that the wt selectivly presents its history, and even attempts to re-write it at times.. but if you had to choose just one item to prove your point, what would it be?.

oz.

Bobcat

One that comes to mind for me was related as an experience at last years (or the year before) DC. I think it may have been the public talk.

The experience was of a brother just released from a concentration camp near the end of WWII. He runs into a fleeing German official. The German says something like: 'So what now, since the Nazi empire is collapsing? (Said as if JWs thought that would not happen.) The JW responds that they always knew that Germany would lose the war. At this point the speaker (no doubt sticking closely with his manuscript or outline) points out how the "faithful slave" was on top of things all the time - that is, they knew Germany would lose the war.

The real history follows: In the late thirties, JF Rutherford gave a talk at Albert Hall in London (?) called "Face the Facts." In the talk he urges US and Great Britian not to oppose the Nazis since a Nazi victory was Scripturally certain. This would be followed immediately by God's Kingdom bringing Armageddon. The allied leaders would be better off trusting in God's Kingdom. This talk was then published as a booklet called "Face The Facts" for the next several years.

After that, around 1940, the Society published another booklet called "The End of the Axis Powers." (?) In it, it was said that the Axis and Allied powers would fight to a draw, then God's Kingdom would wipe out both powers at Armageddon.

Then in September 1942 came the "Peace - Can It Last." There it was predicted that the Allied powers would win, soon followed by Armageddon.

So, it didn't matter how the war ended. The Society -with their usual great insight - had predicted it!

As an aside, the actual conversation between the Nazi and the JW may be accurate. The JW may have been in a camp and only heard the most recent WT rantings. Whereas, the German may have heard the "Face the Facts" material but then got too busy with the war to keep up with the Society's latest.

As an additionsl aside, the Society's predictions actually followed after major turning points in the war. "Face the Facts came out while Germany was subdueing continental Europe, but before the Battle of Britain. "The End of the Axis Powers" came out after the Battle of Britain was lost by Germany, thus blunting their westward movement. "Peace - Can It Last" came out after the German push into Russia had been stopped and after Japan lost two major sea battles in the Pacific.

One thing I learned from this experience is that the Society does read the newspapers.

18

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-01-2012 WT Study (ROYAL PRIESTHOOD)

by blondie in

jw
friends

33 c.e., jesus christ and his 12 apostles.

the apostles have understood these words?.

for sins that the israelites would.

Bobcat

Ugh! I had to comment again because I saw 1 Tim 2:5. (Jesus being the mediator between God and men.)

A couple years ago a man ranted with some sisters in field service about the NWT's "all sorts of" in 1 Tim 2:4. The sisters came to me and I checked the Greek and Lexicons and sure enough "all sorts of" is a possible translation of the Greek pas . Case closed. It only occurred later to me what the NWT was actually doing.

Verse 4 says that God's will is for "all" / "all sorts of" men to be saved. Verse 5 starts out by saying "For" 'there is one mediator between God and men.' According to the AMG Greek lexicon, "For" is a causative particle ... expressing the reason for what has been [said] before." In other words, God wants "all" / "all sorts of" men to be saved as members of the covenant that Jesus mediates. The NWT can't say "all" because that would go beyond the 144,000 that the Society says are the only ones in that covenant. From their standpoint it has to be "all sorts of" or "all kinds of" as opposed to "all." Of course, the NWT doesn't mind saying "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 because there is no mention of the new covenant there. For the same reason they don't mind saying "all everywhere [should] repent" in Acts 17:30.

Some time later we had a KM article on the need to preach to "all sorts of" people (the article quoting from 1 Tim 2:4). I told the PO that the writer of the KM article didn't understand why the Society said "all sorts of" in that verse and, in effect, the KM article was misapplying the verse (according to how the Society wanted it understood). The PO acted like he knew what I was talking about, but he didn't seem pleased that I would suggest that the KM writer was ignorant about such things.

The Society uses 1 Tim 2:4, 5 one way when they talk about the new covenant and another way when it suits them. I have to give this to them, they "Adroitly (as in with great skill) set aside the commandment of God in order to retain [their] tradition." Mark 7:9

18

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 04-01-2012 WT Study (ROYAL PRIESTHOOD)

by blondie in

jw
friends

33 c.e., jesus christ and his 12 apostles.

the apostles have understood these words?.

for sins that the israelites would.

Bobcat

Notice how they emphasize "a kingdom of priests" and neatly set aside "and a holy nation." (Peter is quoting from the LXX of Ex 19:6 by the way.)

As you mentioned, the Jews who heard this in Sinai understood that not all would be priests, but the covenant included the entire nation. The whole nation was commanded to eat the Passover, not just the priests. Conversely, those who were not to eat the Passover were 'not to come near it' (Ex 12:43-49) Thus, there was no such thing as merely 'observing' the Passover. (Aside from the complete nonsense of inviting someone to watch you eat a meal.)

Jesus told Peter that those 'who have followed me would sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel' Similarly, the 144,000 mentioned in Rev 7 are from "out of" (Gk: ek ) the twelve tribes. They don't make up the tribes, rather, they are selected from among them. (As the Jewish priests would have been until the provision of a priestly tribe. - Num 3:41) As a comparison, the great crowd is from "out of" every nation etc. The priests of Rev 5:9, 10 are from "out of" every tribe, etc. Each group mentioned is smaller than the group(s) they came "out of."

In Galatians 6:16 "the Israel of God" is paralleled with "all those who will walk orderly by this rule of conduct." (The word "even" in this verse is actually the conjunction normally translated "and." The NWT translates it as "even" because they - rightly - understood the conjunction to be explanatory [epexegetical].) In other words "the Israel of God" is another way of describing "all those who will walk orderly by this rule of conduct."

I could go on about the relationship between the new covenant and adoption as sons. John 1:12 says that all who exercise faith in Jesus are 'given authority to become God's children.'

Yet in all these, the Society finds some reason why it doesn't mean what it actually says. The WT makes a living off of saying they follow the Bible - but please don't take the Bible at its word ?!? I've come to the conclusion that there are just too mant examples of this to be able to say that the Society does this in ignorance.