Bobcat

Joined

• started 21 topics
• posted 2,187 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Bobcat

• 
  12

  What do you think about Nehemia Gordon theory regarding "Yehovah" as God's name pronunciation that never got completely lost?

  by psyco in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  nehemia gordon, in his book "shattering the conspiracy of silence", argues that "yehovah" is god's name pronunciation and it has never got completely lost, giving a linguistic explanation.

  what do you think about that?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  Have you read the book? If so, I was curious what you think about it.

  What is the gist of his argument about the Name?

  Curious posters want to know.
• 
  13

  The parable of the trees! (Judges 9:8-15

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  do you recall reading this passage before?

  i came across this it yesterday while preparing a bible presentation on trees.

  i had no idea this passage existed.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  For any interested, here (off-site) is a page (with links) that shows the literary structure of the book of Judges. The account about Abimelech can be found in the "E^" portion.

  Constable's Notes has this to say about the parable:

  Jotham’s fable was a parable with a moral (cf. 2 Sam. 12:1-4; 2 Kings 14:9-10). It is generally recognized as the first parable in the Bible. The olive and fig trees and the grape vine represented productive human beings, oil, figs, and wine being among the most important products of Canaan. Brambles bore no fruit and offered no shelter or protection. They only injured those who got too close to them. Moreover they spontaneously burst into flames in hot weather and sometimes caused much damage consequently (v. 15). Obviously the bramble represented Abimelech, the trees and vine more noble individuals, and the cedars of Lebanon the upright leaders of Shechem.

  There are some elements in Jotham's parable that are used in other portions of the Bible. But there is no clear connection or reference to the parable with any other portion of the Bible (based on a search thru The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament).
  
  
• 
  17

  Another one that Jdubs miss

  by HawayMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  Hi John,

  Yes, I don't agree with WT. I used to. But that was before I started doing my own study.

  Thanks again for bringing up the thought of comparing erchomai with parousia.
• 
  17

  Another one that Jdubs miss

  by HawayMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  Maybe I am misunderstanding you but are you saying his 'presence' and 'coming' are two different events?

  I said:

  The first difference between these two words is that erchomai is a verb; parousia is a noun. Erchomai expresses movement, parousia is an event. And thus, the two words can be used in the same context, such as at Mt 24:36-44. The verbs in the context describing Jesus' "coming" (vss. 37, 42, 44) are all part of the event, his parousia. (vs. 39)

  I made a mistake in the above quote. Mt 24:37 uses the term parousia. The NET renders it as "coming." That is why I thought (without checking) that erchomai occurred there. But my point is the same. Erchomai is a verb. It expresses action. Parousia is a noun. An event is a noun, a thing. Since erchomai is a verb it cannot be an event, which is a noun. But erchomai can be something that happens during an event.
• 
  17

  Another one that Jdubs miss

  by HawayMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  Hi John,

  I'm glad you brought this up. I have a post (here - off site) devoted to the word parousia. But the focus of the post is on whether the NT ever associates Jesus' parousia with his enthronement (as the WT does).

  When I get a chance I am going to have to add a post discussing the differences between erchomai and parousia.

  The first difference between these two words is that erchomai is a verb; parousia is a noun. Erchomai expresses movement, parousia is an event. And thus, the two words can be used in the same context, such as at Mt 24:36-44. The verbs in the context describing Jesus' "coming" (vss. 37, 42, 44) are all part of the event, his parousia. (vs. 39)

  Parousia means "presence," but the way it is used in the NT and anciently gives it an added flavor that, to me, "presence" does not convey. It is more like an official state visit, with all that such a visit would include.

  In the NT (as my link shows), parousia is associated with Jesus rewarding his faithful servants and punishing the others. Mt 24:27 associates it with sudden and widespread effects. And with death, such as one might find on a large battlefield. (Mt 24:28 - for which, see footnote # 38 in the NET Bible here.)

  To me, "advent" much better encapsulates how the NT uses parousia. "Presence" doesn't carry any of those overtones. But I would say that "presence" much better encapsulates what the WT teaches about Jesus' parousia, that is, an invisible presence that only a few know about, something much different from how the NT presents it.
• 
  17

  Another one that Jdubs miss

  by HawayMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  who do you think Jesus Christ (whether he was a real being or only a literary character) meant by the term "faithful and discreet slave"?

  At this link (off site) I have a number of links and references to research into various aspects of the F&DS parable. I posted this also for the sake of lurkers.
  
• 
  51

  PIMO elder

  by Reservations in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i’m reservations, pimo elder.

  i’m in no position to leave the organisation, maybe some people will see that as weak or whatever, but we have to all go down our own path in life.. i would like to be able to wake people up in my congregation, how do you think best to do this?

  any ideas?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  Hi Reservations,

  This is just my opinion, but as an elder, you won't be able to help anyone to wake up. In my experience, people wake up when they are ready to, often for personal reasons rather than anything doctrinal or organizational.

  I think what is more likely is that, as an elder trying to wake people up, you will be outed in some way and end up out of the organization - the very thing you were wanting to avoid. The WT has built in just too many layers of mind control. Someone will see that your thinking is out of line with the WT and will expose you.

  For peace of mind (and again, my opinion) your best bet would be to resign as an elder, get off the school, and stop commenting at the meetings. And give them no reason whatsoever. NONE. This will catch people's attention. Will it wake them up? In my experience, only when they themselves are ready. But you will have the peace of mind knowing that you are no longer supporting something you no longer believe in.

  If you give your real reason for stopping everything that I just mentioned above, that in itself may become their reason to put you out. The mind control is just that pervasive. But you may get some satisfaction in withholding your reasons, just like the WT withholds information from the R&F. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

  Well, that's my opinion.
• 
  16

  2700 years ago Jews ate pigs

  by fulltimestudent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from haaretz newspaper:.

  what does a pig skeleton discovered in jerusalem say about first temple era jews?.

  the argument here is that sanctions on eating pork were only introduced in the 2nd temple era.. so what does that tell you bout biblical accuracy.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  I have a thread on the topic (of the swine, with related links): Here.

  One of the things I have wondered about is the demons requesting Jesus to send them into the swine, and then they immediately drown the swine. What was their logic?

  My speculation: The promised land was set apart for the descendants of Abraham. The rest of the world was given to the nations (at the tower of Babel). (De 32:7-8) As such, (I'm thinking) the demons could only trespass when they had a legitimate reason (such as some idolatrous practice, etc).

  In the case of the demoniac, Jesus was about to take away their reason for trespassing. So they ask to be sent into the swine, something they think Jesus might agree to (considering the Law), but from their standpoint allows them to stay in the area.

  From Jesus' standpoint, he knows the Law Covenant is about to be superceded and that the barriers differentiating the Jews from the nations are soon to be removed. (Eph 2:14-16) So it makes no matter regarding sending the demons out of the country. (Mk 5:9-10) From Jesus' standpoint, a source of Jewish disobedience to the Law is removed.

  But like I said, "my speculation."
• 
  46

  Please how do someone become an Anointed Christian in Watchtower Organization.

  by bola in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  please how do someone become an anointed christian in watchtower organization.

  i informed my elders in my congo that i am an anointed christian..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  If you are interested, here is a collection of research I posted regarding the use of the term "anoint" in the NT. It is surprising how the NT usage differs from WT usage.

  And regarding the following of Jesus' instructions on the Lord's Evening Meal, this post (and thread) shows that there is quite a difference between NT practice and WT practice. Some have seen some similarities between WT practice and a black mass. There are a growing number of JWs who hold the Memorial privately because of what they see as heavy handed WT efforts to prevent JWs from following Jesus' simple command about partaking.
• 
  46

  Please how do someone become an Anointed Christian in Watchtower Organization.

  by bola in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  please how do someone become an anointed christian in watchtower organization.

  i informed my elders in my congo that i am an anointed christian..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  Hi Bola,

  I suggest being careful about what you tell your elders about this.

  Jesus indicated that being "born from above" was a basic concept of being one of his disciples. (Jn 3:3-5) Jesus chided Nicodemus for not understanding this. (Jn 3:9-10) The reason he chided him was that the giving of the spirit was foretold to be a part of a new covenant. (Ezek 36:26-27) Nicodemus, as a teacher in Israel, should have expected this turn of events.

  The WT teaches that only the 144,000 are anointed with spirit. But the two passages about the 144,000 (Rev 7:1-8 & 14:1-5) say nothing about this. WT teaching on this matter is a contradiction to basic Christian teaching as presented in the NT. And as one of the posters above pointed out, WT teaching on this is more related to WT's authority over its followers. Silencing you might be the easiest way for them to solve the possible problem you present to them. (Compare Jn 11:47-48)

  So the problem you may face is that your new found realization might contradict current WT teaching. Depending on your elders and CO, putting you out may be the easiest way for them to solve the possible problems your view presents.

  Since you can't prove you have been "born from above" (other than scripturally - Acts 2:38-39), and they can't disprove it, it might be best to leave your understanding to yourself. They will assume that you are claiming to be anointed when you partake at the Memorial. They will even say that YOU are claiming that when you partake. But they are assuming that you accept all their teachings about the topic. If you don't want to become controversial to them you might want to leave the matter as something you understand, but something they can take it or leave it if they question you about it.