Posts by Bobcat

7

WT study today - Eph 1:8-10 - the administration, Stage 2

by Hoffnung in

in todays wt study (wt 15/jul/2012 p.27 paras 3-4), the society advances ephesians 1:10, which refers to an adminstration, that gathers the things in the heaven and on the earth.

whereas the bible clearly identifies a double purpose of the adminstration, there is no reason to believe there are also 2 different time frames intended, however the wt explains it this way.

we are actualliy in the adminstration stage 2, according to the wt.

Bobcat

Hoffnung:

Note that God is going to "gather all things together again." (NWT) "Gather ... together again" is the NWT translation of anakephalaioo. The ana prefix means "again," and the rest means "to sum up, recapitulate. To sum up, gather together again in one. In the mid[dle] voice (as in Eph 1:10), to reunite under one head, to bring all things into one in Christ" (AMG Greek-English Dictionary, p. 152)

It is also used in the passive voice in Rom 13:9, where the NWT translates it "summed up."

Most commentators take "the things in the heavens ... earth" as a reference to all creation which has been 'disturbed/left in chaos' with the outbreak of sin.

The Society says "the things in the heavens" refer to the 144,000 and the "things in the earth" to earth-bound believers starting with the great crowd.

This raises several questions:

Why would Paul refer to Christians on earth (in his time) as the things "in the heavens"? None of the 144,000 were in heaven at that time.

Why would he refer to them in the neuter (the things"), when they were all people?

Why would he refer to the 144,000 as being "gathered ... together again"? The idea of a 144,000 only became a necessity after sin broke out. There was no 144,000 dispersed by sin that needed to be "gathered ... together again."

Why would the context (Eph 1:11 - 14) include believers as an additional thought ("in union with whom we were also assigned" [vs. 11] and "but you also" in vs. 13) if they were already referred to as "the things in the heavens."?

Like you said, there is no expression of "stages," although one might argue that God would accomplish this in an orderly fashion.

This idea of unifying the cosmos under Christ is also alluded to at 1 Cor 15:28 (where all things are subjected to the Son, and the Son to God), Phil 2:10 (where every creature - heavenly, earthly and subterranean - pays homage to Jesus for God's glory), and especially Col 1:20 (where God reconciles all things, whether in heaven or on earth, to himself through Christ). BECGNT, Ephesians, p. 67

Romans 8:18 - 25 also expresses a similar thought with "the things in the heavens ... earth" being replaced with "the creation."

(In Col 1:21-23, after mentioning "the things in the heavens ... earth" in verse 20 there is a similar addtional ("indeed" [NWT] which is kai in Greek, normally translated "and") idea expressed about believers. They believed the good news which was preached "under heaven." So it would be odd to refer to them as "the things in the heavens" and in the next clause as hearing the preaching "under heaven.")

Take care

7

Who are the "glorious ones"?

by JWB in

who are the "glorious ones"?.

* 'doxas' (greek strongs #1391) 'glories'/'glorious beings' (the new greek english interlinear new testament), or 'angels'.. .

daring, self-willed, they do not tremble at *glorious ones but speak abusively, whereas angels, although they are greater in strength and power, do not bring against them an accusation in abusive terms, [not doing so] out of respect for jehovah.

Bobcat

JWB:

The NAB commentary on 1st & 2nd Peter & Jude has this to say:

The arrogance of the false teachers is reflected in that they were "not afraid to slander celestial beings." Literally, "they do not tremble" (tremousin) in slandering "glories" (doxas). The NIV provides an interpretation here since the word "glories" could refer to human beings - either church leaders or civil authorities (cf. Ps 149:8; Isa 3:5; 23:8; Nah 3:10; 1QpHab 4:2; 4QpNah 2:9; 3:9; 4:4; 1QM 14:11). 69 It seems more likely that angels are designated as glorious beings (Exod 15:11, LXX; T. Jud. 25:2; T. Levi 18:5; 1QH 10:8). We might also think that the reference is to good angels since describing evil angels as "glories" seems inappropriate. Nevertheless, the context suggests that evil angels are indeed in view, as will be argued from the next verse. 70

Footnote 69 says:

For a reference to church leaders see Bigg, Peter and Jude, 279-80; Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 116-17; Smith, Petrine Controversies, 89-91; for political leaders see Reicke, James, Peter, and Jude, 167.

Footnote 70 says:

So also Kelly, Peter and Jude, 337; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 261-62; Moo, 2 Peter, Jude, 121; K. H. Schelke, Der Petrrusbrief - Der Judasbrief, HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1980), 210.

The reason I posted this was, (1) To show the various ideas that have been put forth about "glorious ones." And, (2) There are several references that I do not have access to that others here might, that may be able to expand on the topic.

The Society definitely says they refer to "church leaders," their own only, since they have no qualms about denigrating any other religious leaders. And I believe they will use this as a reason to disfellowship.

Incidentally, the NAB commentary uses the NIV for the Bible text and I tried to preserve the exact formatting from the commentary quotes above.

Thanks for bringing the subject up.

Take Care

10

According to today's JW standards, would Jesus be considered an apostate or opposer?

by I_love_Jeff in

what rules in the elder's manual would jesus be charged with if he were here today?

.

Bobcat

All (almost) from the Sermon on the Mount:

Speaking against "glorious ones." (Because of speaking against his religious leaders - Mt chap.23)

Apostacy - Not accepting the current 'food at the proper time.' Mt 5:21, 22, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33 - 37, 38, 39

(Notice all the 'you heard what was said' vs 'however, I say to you ...')

(That would also qualify him as an 'independant thinker.')

Can't be an elder because he might be willing to report pedophile directly to the police. - Mt 5:41

Not treating disfellowshipped one correctly. - Mt 5:43 - 48

Not being exemplary. - Mt 6:1

Not using God's name in his prayer. - Mt 6:9 - 13

Therefore he can't do congregation prayers.

Not permitted to pioneer because he wouldn't allow them to announce his name to the congregation. - Mt 6:16 - 18

Disloyal. Wouldn't call the GB "faithful and discreet slave." - Mt 7:6

Did not say we should trust in "faithful and discreet slave. - John 14:1

7

I need help finding something in the Watchtower PLEASE... I don't have the CD Library

by Greybeard in

i feel curtain that there was a watchtower article/articles that state christ blood only covers those of the anointed class, 144,000. they go on to say the "other sheep" are saved by association with the anointed/fds.

am i wrong here?

i thought for sure i read that a long time ago and it rang my bell then... please help me find this if you can or set me straight on it.. thank you!.

Bobcat

Analysis of the w79 4/1 31 quoted by Cedars: (Continued)

The "great crowd" of "other sheep"

For discussions about the "other sheep" see: here and here

There is no phrase in the Bible "great crowd of other sheep." It is a WT concoction from John 10:16 and Revelation 7:9.

"is not in that new covenant"

According to Jesus, the "other sheep" become "one flock" (John 10:16) with Jesus' earlier sheep (John 10:2-4).

The great cowd "wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev 7:14)

Other verses in the NT describe this about Jesus sacrifice:

(Matthew 26:27, 28) . . .Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: "Drink out of it, all of YOU; 28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,' which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. . .

(Revelation 1:5) and from Jesus Christ, "the Faithful Witness," "The firstborn from the dead," and "The Ruler of the kings of the earth." To him that loves us and that loosed us from our sins by means of his own blood-

(Revelation 12:11) And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death.

(Romans 3:25) God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was in order to exhibit his own righteousness, because he was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past while God was exercising forbearance;

(1 Corinthians 6:11) . . .And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

(Ephesians 1:7) By means of him we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of [our] trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness.

(1 John 1:7) However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

According to the WT, all these verses are describing how Jesus' sacrifice affects the 144,000. But how do they differ from what Revelation 7:14 describes of the great crowd? They don't. Jesus' blood has the very same effect on both.

So what basis is there for saying the great crowd is not in the new covenant? NONE

"by their associating with the "little flock" of those yet in that covenant"

No where does the context of Luke 12 say anything about a covenant or that only those mentioned in Luke 12 are in it. This is pure WT assertion.

No where does the NT say anything about the need to associate with a "little flock" in order to benefit from the new covenant. This is a WT assertion.

No where does the Bible say "the little flock." Jesus described his desciples in Luke 12:32 as a "little flock," as in "have no fear little flock." The context says he was speaking to "his disciples" (Luke 12:22) and that they would be 'given the kingdom.' (vs. 32)

The "sheep" of Matthew 25:34 are told " 'Come, YOU who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for YOU from the founding of the world. . .' "

So where is there any difference between the "disciples" in Luke 12:32 and the "sheep" in Matthew 25:34? There is none.

This was provided for use the WT citation above. The entire WT citation is an example of disjointed phrase-mining and unsupported assertions, whilst citing verses that do not actually say what the surrounding discussion claims. Yet written with authority, as if it were beyond questioning. WT style at its best.

Take Care

7

I need help finding something in the Watchtower PLEASE... I don't have the CD Library

by Greybeard in

i feel curtain that there was a watchtower article/articles that state christ blood only covers those of the anointed class, 144,000. they go on to say the "other sheep" are saved by association with the anointed/fds.

am i wrong here?

i thought for sure i read that a long time ago and it rang my bell then... please help me find this if you can or set me straight on it.. thank you!.

Bobcat

Analysis of the w79 4/1 31 quoted by Cedars:

Christ, though, is the "mediator of a new covenant" between Jehovah and spiritual Israel, the "Israel of God" that will serve as kings and priests in heaven with Jesus. (Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; Gal. 6:16)

No where do any of those cites verses make any connection with "the Israel of God" and 'serving as kings and priests in heaven.

Heb 9:15 says that the New Covenant is for "the ones who have been called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance."

Gal 6:16 equates "all those who will walk orderly by this rule of conduct" with "the Israel of God."

Paul wrote that Christ was the "one mediator between God and men." (1 Tim. 2:5) ... So in this strict Biblical sense Jesus is the "mediator" only for anointed Christians.

No, in the "strict Biblical sense" Jesus is the "mediator between God and men." "Men" here is an anarthrous plural version of anthropos. It means "humans," or "mankind." The lack of the article means it is not specifying a particular tiny select group.

The new covenant will terminate

(Hebrews 13:20) . . .Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep with the blood of an everlasting covenant, our Lord Jesus. . .

This verse says it is an "everlasting covenant."

More to follow, I just ran out of time.

12

Another point about "between the evenings"

by WontLeave in

according to the footnote on page 28 of bearing thorough witness about gods kingdom:.

prayers were offered at the temple in conjunction with the morning and evening sacrifices.

the evening sacrifice was held at the ninth hour, or about three in the afternoon.. this sacrifice is the one ordered in exodus 29:38-42:.

Bobcat

Searcher:

First of all, good to hear from you. I always enjoy your posts.

I was starting to think along the same lines as you with regard to being born with water and spirit (from Jn chap.3) and the term 'anointing."

It had started to occur to me that the WT uses the term anoint/anointed a whole lot - but only in connection with certain Christians (the 144,000 of course, which to the WT refers either to early Christians, the GB or to a mysterious "faithful slave class, which effectively means , the GB). But as you pointed out, the Bible doesn't use with regard to Christians except for a few (4x) times. And one of your threads had gotten the thinking wheels starting to spin about this.

But, we might have to take this up on another thread. I hate to hijack this one which dealt more with the Nisan 14/15 issue. "Anointed" is related to the Lord's Evening Meal and the Nisan 14/15 issue, but somewhat indirectly.

I had been mulling this over. But now, this encourages me to do a little more earnest research on the subject.

Take Care

39

For Recovery: A discussion about the Great Crowd and the Other Sheep

by Londo111 in

recovery,.

as requested, a discussion on the great crowd and the identity of the other sheep.. .

first question: where are the great crowd rendering sacred service day and night?.

Bobcat

Londo111:

(John 10:16 NWT) . . .And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. . .

Another point in favor of your conclusion involves a subtle mistranslation of John 10:16 in the NWT.

"Of" in 10:16 is the Greek preposition ek. The NWT regularly translates this as "out of." (There is a diagram inside the front cover of the KIT that also shows this. An example of the NWT practice of translating it as "out of" is Rev 7:4-8.)

Jesus is saying that the "other sheep" are not "out of" the sheepfold (or courtyard) that his earlier sheep came "out of." By changing "out of" to "of," the NWT wants you to think that the "other sheep" are not "of" (i.e. 'part of' or 'members of') the earlier sheep that the good shepherd "leads ... out." (Jn 10:3, 4)

The reasoning you used works fine. But it would be alot easier to see this point if the NWT didn't try to deceive.

(Concerning the NWT on this point: Other Bibles also translate "of" on this point. But the NWT is very consistant about ek otherwise. I can't help but think this was intentional. It is also pared with "fold" in verse 16, which is translated "sheepfold in verse 1. The word refers to an in-town courtyard where sheep are housed (when used in connection with sheep), as opposed to a wilderness pen. But the Society wants you to think that "fold" in verse 10 is equivelant with "flock," that is, the flock that was brought out in verse 3.)

And in connection with naos, Rev 11:2 is a good point because it clearly differentiates naos from the courtyards. And it is contextually close to Rev 7.

And I think you just gave me something to think about in connection with "anointed" from this thread.

Take Care

12

Another point about "between the evenings"

by WontLeave in

according to the footnote on page 28 of bearing thorough witness about gods kingdom:.

prayers were offered at the temple in conjunction with the morning and evening sacrifices.

the evening sacrifice was held at the ninth hour, or about three in the afternoon.. this sacrifice is the one ordered in exodus 29:38-42:.

Bobcat

WontLeave:

Some other issues with the JW "Memorial" are:

- Jesus had other followers, but only partakers were invited to the Last Supper.
- JWs have no sound basis for their insistence that all 1 st -Century Christians were "anointed", whereas the vast majority now are not.

I appreciate all your comments. Just as a sharing of thoughts, I wanted to throw out some of my thoughts on the two points above from your comments.

On the 1st point, it was the apostles only that were invited. (I'm sure you already knew that) It was probably impractical to try to have all the disciples in one meeting room for the Passover. But I'm thinking that Jesus had just the apostles as a way of representing all the twelve tribes of the Israel of God. From that, the question of partaking would be a matter of who is represented by those twelve "tribes." (Cmp Mt 19:28)

On the other point about the anointed: I have a thought. It is just theoretical at the moment. But I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that all Christians are "anointed." As I said, the idea is still in the research phase, but if this were the case it would basically close the one last loose end in my mind about matters relating to the New Covenant, being born again, etc.

The idea is that all Christians are anointed to tell good news like Jesus said of himself when he was reading from Isaiah 61 in Luke ch.4. In effect, all Christians would serve as a sort of priestly class to the rest of the world in a manner similar to how the entire nation of Israel was to serve as a witness to the other nations.

I think the Society is caught up in the idea that kings were anointed. The high priest was also (I think). But other priests were not (I think). So the Society imagines that "anointing" can only be for that purpose, and none other. Isa 61 proves otherwise. But as I said, it is still in the research phase. Still, so far, I haven't found anything that would rule out this possibility - so far, anyways. That's why I'm being tentative at the moment.

At any rate, take care and thanks for your comments.

12

Another point about "between the evenings"

by WontLeave in

according to the footnote on page 28 of bearing thorough witness about gods kingdom:.

prayers were offered at the temple in conjunction with the morning and evening sacrifices.

the evening sacrifice was held at the ninth hour, or about three in the afternoon.. this sacrifice is the one ordered in exodus 29:38-42:.

Bobcat

Although you present some good points about the 14th vs. 15th argument, I've personally concluded that it is somewhat of a moot point. Even the Reasoning book admits that ...

"Jesus did not specifically state how often it was to be done. He simply said: "Keep doing this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) Paul said: "For as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives." " (1 Cor. 11:26) [p.269 p.1]

Of course, they then go on to explain why their opinion about Nisan 14 is the only "right" one. But that is all it amounts to, an opinion. If Nisan 14 or 15 were really that important for the Lord's Evening Meal, why would it be left to figure that out. The dating for the Passover is specific. But the words about the Lord's Evening Meal are specifically non-specific, "keep doing this," and "as often as" you do this. And with no Christian explanation, how would the large numbers of Gentile Christians later be able to figure out when Nisan 14 (or 15) was, being far removed from the Promised Land, and no easy way to communicate with that area, and not even having the same calendar. (The Society today uses a sighting of the moon from Israel to figure Nisan 14.)

(Personally, I think this non-specificness was a way to allow keeping the commemoration despite persecution and other problems that Jesus knew was coming upon the disciples. In a similar vein, the writer of Hebrews said about meetings, ". . .not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the custom. . .", rather than 'do not miss meetings.' The wording allows for difficult schedules and lives without imoposing a heavy burden on the disciples. But again, you will never hear the Society admitting to that. [Mt 23:4])

The fact is, the admission in the Reasoning book that "Jesus did not specifically say," is only there for public consumption. You will never find the WT telling an only-JW audience that. As far as the R & F are concerned, from the WT viewpoint, it is only Nisan 14 and only once a year, and nothing else. Any JW that does differently is subject to disciplinary action.

But looking at it from the viewpoint of what Jesus (and Paul) actually said, once-a-year and on Nisan 14 would not technically be wrong either since it also could be said to fall within the instructions of 'keep doing this" and 'as often as you do this.'

What really condemns the Society about this is the judgmental way they view other opinions in connection with it, and the ludicrous ritual they have turned it into, and the making of it into a public spectacle, when Jesus meant it as something between himself and his disciples, and their turning it into a spectacle of class distinctions among his disciples.

The GB, as the authors of this unique WT farce, eat and drink judgment upon themselves when they commemorate it, just like Paul said (1 Cor 11:29).

Having said that, your write-up is well written. Appreciate your contribution.

Take Care

37

Did you know that God will terminate your supervisors employment, and give you their old job?

by Theocratic Sedition in

jw
friends

according to the wt study yesterday, that's what happened.. 16. by allowing jehovah to instruct us and lead us in the path of uprightness, we will have no cause for fear.

when a regular pioneer in the united states applied for a job that would help him to keep his entire family in full-time service, his supervisor told him that he would never get that position without a college degree.

had this happened to you, would you have regretted pursuing full-time service to the exclusion of seeking higher education?

Bobcat

One I found downright strange (in this week's study article):

A women with three children. She was progressing towards baptism. Then the man she was living with left her.

The paragraph presents the man leaving her as a challenge, which it may well have been (supposing the story is true, of course). But if she was progressing towards baptism, eventually she would have had to leave him. It was curious. It didn't say her husband, it said the man she was living with. It left me scratching my head.