Posts by Bobcat

40

Why did Satan want to kill Jesus?

by FaithfulBrother in

why would satan have wanted to kill jesus if jesus' death would defeat satan and save mankind?

why would satan enter judas at the last supper and get judas to betray jesus, leading him to his death, if this death is what defeated satan?.

Bobcat

Here is how the three gospel accounts put it (Jesus' wilderness temptation that is):

Mt 4:1 - 3: "Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2 After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry. 3 Also, the Tempter came and said to him: ..."

Mk 1:12, 13: "And immediately the spirit impelled him to go into the wilderness. 13 So he continued in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan, and he was with the wild beasts, but the angels were ministering to him."

Lk 4:1 - 3: "Now Jesus, full of holy spirit, turned away from the Jordan, and he was led about by the spirit in the wilderness 2 for forty days, while being tempted by the Devil. Furthermore, he ate nothing in those days, and so, when they were concluded, he felt hungry. 3 At this the Devil said to him:..."

Together they allow for the idea that Jesus was tempted all (or part of) 40 days. And in fact, they state that was the purpose of his being sent into the wilderness. Luke's account ends with this statement: "So the Devil, having concluded all the temptation, retired from him until another convenient time." (4:13) So this was not the end of Jesus being tempted by Satan. In fact, he (Jesus) saw Peter's words as a form of Satan's temptation in Mt chapter 16:21-23. Not that Satan had necessarily 'entered' Peter like is later said of Judas, but the context says that Peter was influenced by 'the thoughts of men,' who had themselves been influenced by Satan.

I thought Tec (Tammy) made some good comments about Satan's tempting of Jesus and about whether he wanted him dead or not. I had some thoughts on this as well but unfortunately I have to go (not to the bathroom) at the moment.

41

Alteration in the German Watchtower about spousal physical abuse

by slimboyfat in

i noticed that the german edition of the study watchtower for today didn't include the phrase about the husband "hitting" the sister.

instead it just says that he became ferociously angry, which need not imply physical abuse.

i wonder if the german translator altered it off his own back or was instructed, and how other language editions compare.

Bobcat

I think that the differences between languages are not all that significant. What is more significant is the conversation between "Selma" (name has been changed) and "the sister" who is "the Witness that studied with her."

Compare the counsel this "Sisiter" gave with the counsel the Society gives elders in par.21 of the recent BOE letter on legalities. What the par. in the WT says is legally safe for the Society since they are only reporting a supposed conversation. They want readers to get the point without the Society actually making the point.

Par.21 in the legal BOE letter has a wording that is ___________ . There is a word for this but I can't think what it is right now. Its like trying to make a point by going in the back door. You leave yourself free of actually having said what you want others to do. It fits the Society's MO in other ways were they want you to be willing to suffer, but they are above that. Matthew 23:4 has the idea I'm thinking of.

Here is that par.21 from the BOE letter: "In addition, elders should immediately call the Legal Department for legal direction whenever they learn of an actual suicide, a threatened suicide, or an attempted suicide, since legally this is also defined as self-murder or felo-de-se. Whether a family member or close friend with knowledge of the suicide threat or suicide attempt reports it to authorities is a personal decision for him to make. (Gal. 6:5) Elders should not discourage anyone from reporting the matter. Family members who are aware of the suicide threat or attempt should be encouraged to take positive steps to prevent the person from harming himself."

If "the Witness that studied with her" followed the counsel in the above paragraph, the experience (if actually true) would probably be quite different. Of course, the R & F aren't normally allowed to see such things.

On the other hand, if a Sister tried to make some point with her "unbelieving" husband, and was slapped, this would be an assembly experience. But if the slapper was a believing husband, the sister would need to do like "Selma."

9

WHAT EVIDENCE DOES THE W.T.S. USE TO PROVE THE RANSOM IS INDIRECTLY APPLIED TO THE OTHER SHEEP?

by Bubblegum Apotheosis in

jw
friends

.

does the watchtower really teach jesus christ's ransom is not directly applied to the "great crowd?

"?.

Bobcat

Part of the problem is there are layers of lies masquerading as WT "light." The very subject of this thread speaks of the "other sheep" (from Jn 10:16) as if they are (or could be) some subordinate class of Christians. (As opposed to their becoming "one flock, one shepherd." Not that the OP necessarily believes it that way, but the WT presents it that way.) And, from one perspective, that makes sense. If one misapplies 1 Tim 2:5, then such a one would be forced to misapply other verses to make the first misapplication try to stand. (Starts whistling "Blinded By The Light" at this point.)

Many of these things require passive aceptance, which the WT constantly encourages. Anyone caught analyzing WT doctrines is to be shot (sorry) dealt with on sight.

13

In veiw of the future prospects for the remnant of the 144000 still living,wouldnt you think they would have a greater role in the running of a congregation ?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

i just commented on another thread about the 144000 and thought it deserved a thread of it`s own seeing how important their appointment is .. those who are selected to rule with christ jesus in heaven are given immortality.

if you or i were selected to survive armaggedon we would not be given immortality , so obviously they are considered a cut above the rest of humanity.. so my question is ,why doesnt jehovah`s spirit directed organization on earth give these people the respect and dignity that jehovah god is going to bestow on them in the future , while they are yet present on earth , instead of ignoring them , and treating them as a lesser class of person than a pioneer ,ministerial servant, or elder.. and suggesting they may be influenced by prior beleifs or have mental problems doesnt say much for their bible education instruction , after all these are dedicated baptized publishers who are counted as the annointed remnant.. smiddy.

Bobcat

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then, it is a duck!

The WT leadership is interested in holding onto their power and position. This, of course, is typical of (nearly) all humans in positions of power. Everything else is subservient to that agenda. It was typical of the Pharisees in Jesus' day. (Compare Jn 11:45 - 50)

If the WT can teach Bible truth AND hold onto their position, well and good. But if the facts threaten their position and power, they will hold onto their position and let Bible truth (and anyone else) fall by the wayside. You can see that in a number of other teachings, 607 and blood being just a few that come to mind. You can see that when they talk about loyalty. You MUST be loyal to them. But they have no need to be loyal to you. For the WT leadership, loyalty is a one way street.

When counting memorial partakers served their purpose, they did it. When it ceased serving that purpose, they cast it by the wayside. It should not be surprising that they "flip-flop" on various things. No matter what sort of vaneer they try to present, the real value they place on truth comes thru, in one way or another. "Truth" is only a flexible and changeable tool to them.

What the WT teaches about who should partake at the Memorial is a bald faced lie. What the WT teaches about Jesus' parable of 'the faithful slave class' and the "little flock" is a twisted, bald faced lie. What they teach about "the ohter sheep" is a twisted bald faced lie. What they teach about the so-called "Governing Body" is stretched way out of proportion to anything the NT says about leadership in the Christian congregation. And, naturally, anyone who dares question any of these things is immediately marginalized or silenced thru shunning. This is exactly as you would expect IF the real issue for them was their power and position.

You would think that if the above things were self evident, they could just let the facts stand. Jesus could present truth, and if you accepted it, fine. If not, he wasn't threatened. (Compare Mt 12:18 - 20) The WT is obviously not like him.

Whoever used the comparison of the WT with the Wizard of Oz made a good comparison. The 'man behind the curtain' hid behind the large, smokey, and fearful image of 'The Wizard of Oz.' The WT leadership hides behind an equally large and smokey idea of 'The Anointed Remnant' and 'The Faithful Slave.' Everyone else is relegated to the subservient 'other sheep class.' When you see them for what they really are, there is nothing surprising about any of this.

If there is a God of justice who sees everything, and I believe there is, then, their day must eventually come.

27

Universal Sovereignty Doctrine, re-examined.

by Knowsnothing in

hey all.

what do you guys think about the issue of universal sovereignty?

that was one of the doctrines i thought i would never doubt in, but looking into it more, there are a lot of holes in it.

Bobcat

Before getting to the tower of Babel, I thought this point might be addressed:

Dagney said: If god is the universal sovereign, why would it matter what anybody else did? Either he is or he isn't. Why would he have to prove anything to Satan?

This is not to pick on Dagney; he brings up a valid point. If God is "Almighty" and "knows all things" (1Jn 3:20), then, He is not personally threatened in any way by a rebellion. Also, he would already know, even before a rebellion broke out, whether it had any chance of succeeding.

From that point, it would be possible to look at a couple of alternatives:

1. God knows it is possible that a rebellion could succeed, given enough effort. And from that, whenever he interjects himself into human affairs it would be to foil progress. From this perspective, the tower of Babel episode would be seen as interference in man's progress. This basic line of reasoning is what the serpent presented to Eve in Eden.

2. God knows a rebellion, in any form, cannot work. Like a mathematical formula that always comes up short in some way, even if it might seem to work for a while.

If you take the number 2 perspective, the question then arises: Why allow it to happen in the first place? It would have been easy enough for Jehovah to head it off before it ever happened. For example, knowing Satan's intentions in his heart, before he acted, send him off to planet X to pick daiseys for a few millenia.

Allowing the rebellion to go forth would not be for God's enlightenment or to prove how strong he is. It would have to be to teach a lesson or prove a point to others. From this perspective, the tower of Babel incident might have some purpose, even if that purpose is not readily apparent.

Here is where I see a difference with what the WT currently teaches. On the one hand, they would be correct that the purpose in allowing the rebellion is to teach others (not God) a lesson. On the other hand, they focus solely on humans. But if it is a "universal issue," then, humans are only part of the picture. Also, if this is God's agenda, then, He would have an active interest in seeing it completed. That is, He wouldn't just let the rebels go about their business, but rather, He would be intervening to make sure that the various facets of the issue get acceptably taken care of. (I have a further thought on the tower of Babel, but in the interest of brevity ...)

_________________________

If I could add an observation about the Bible's narrative: The Flood of Noah's day provides and interesting demarcation. (Arguements about whether it happened aside.)

Before the Flood: The curse on the ground, No human kingdoms, large numbers of angels rebel.

After the Flood: The curse is lifted, human kingdoms soon begin appearing, no further (new) rebellions of angels

Also, right at the rebellion there is a promise of a saving "Seed," who, as is later revealed, would come from among those in heaven. But then, no further information about that Seed is given until after the flood - after those in heaven have decided which side of the fence they will be on.

I'll stop here for the time being.

27

Universal Sovereignty Doctrine, re-examined.

by Knowsnothing in

hey all.

what do you guys think about the issue of universal sovereignty?

that was one of the doctrines i thought i would never doubt in, but looking into it more, there are a lot of holes in it.

Bobcat

If I could interject a thought or caution: If you are truly interested in an answer to that subject, it would be good to allow for the possibility that the Society doesn't fully understand all the issues involved. By that I mean that the idea of a universal sovereignty issue shouldn't necessarily be confused with the Society's explanation of it. From a purely academic point of view, it would be possible for the issue to be real but for the WT Society to only understand it partly - or not at all. As you pointed out already, there are apparent holes in the logic of the WT explanation.

Just to re-pinpoint some of the illogic:

The curse on the ground would have required more effort for humans just to survive. Thus, taking away from their ability or opportunity to set up some form of just rulership. On the other hand, the curse was lifted at the flood. Is it possible it served some temporary purpose from God's standpoint?

The existence and interference of Satan and the demons could also be cited as an impediment. Also, if he has been the ruler of the world since Adam's fall, how could you blame humans for the governments that have since come into existence. The proverbial "buck" would stop with Satan, not humans.

Imperfection (with ensuing disease and death) - Maybe, maybe not. For example, if you had a good job with benefits and then quit, you really couldn't blame your former company for your current lack of benefits. From your former company's point of view, you've now taken responsibility for that.

I know not everybody on this board believes in God or the God of the Bible or even the same things about that God. But in order to have a discussion about this issue, you would have to assume a few things about God. For example, he would have to exist, otherwise the issue would be moot.

I've given a good bit of thought to the same questions you brought up. And I intentionally kept undogmatic about the thoughts above to keep the discussion open. But in order to keep my post brief, I'll stop here for the time being. (Besides, where I'm at its late - Eastern US)

Thanks for bringing up a good/thoughtful topic.

10

Carefully Stepping Around Jesus as the Mediator FOR ALL (Comments on CO Talk)

by LostGeneration in

well my stomach was feeling especially strong today, so i decided to listen to a bit of the stuff posted by mindnumbed (thank you!).

now i don't feel so good.

anyway, here is the one that was especially disturbing, even from my perspective as a non-christian.. god's "will is that all sorts of men should be saved" (circuit overseer talk).

Bobcat

I posted this on one of Blondie's WT summaries a couple of weeks ago. It seemed to fit in with your thread. (I copied it - I'm lazy today!)

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

[end of copy]

I might add, it is understandable that they would skip around verse 5 since their application of it is contrary to the context. An additional point to show their misapplication is in the phrase in verse 5; "... between God and men." In the Greek text, "men" is without the definite article. You would think if Paul meant a small, select, and limited group of men, he would have used the article to define them (as in "... between God and THE men") The lack of the article before men would give it the sense of 'men in general', that is, humans, not just males. (Of course, implied in that is that they would be believing humans.)

I was at the one day a couple of weeks ago and I listened closely to this discussion. The CO did the same as in your recording. No doubt sticking closely with his Society provided outline.

My grandaughter just got on my lap, so I have to quit typing now.

26

Who has "reverted back to apostate [Christian] doctrines"

by biometrics in

if you were a jehovah's witness have you "reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by christendom"?.

"from time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of jehovah's people those who, like the original satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...they say that it is sufficient to read the bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home.

but, strangely, through such 'bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago...".

Bobcat

biometrics said: "reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom"

I agree with the thoughts that some others have mentioned. The terms "Christendom" and "Christendom's commentaries" and the like are simply WT loaded language.

Whenever the WT sites some non-WT reference (and of course, they don't usually give where it comes from), but if it agrees with what the WT is saying, then, it is from a "Bible scholar" or a "Bible researcher." But anything disagreeable comes from "Christendom's commentaries" or "worldly publications" and the like.

The fact is, most WT publications come from Christendom's commentaries. For example, the historical information in the current Book Study (Acts) follows fairly closely with the NAC commentary on Acts (Polehill is the author of that one). What you will get in a decent academic commentary, that you won't get in a WT commentary is: alternative views and the reasons for those views, copious notes with references to other books, and, generally speaking, a complete lack of the "we know best" smug arrogance that is typical of WT pubs. When there are possible alternative views, WT pubs tend to pick one that they go with and never mention any others, or glibly dismiss them as unreasonable.

For example, within the last few years, the Society has come up with "new light" on some of Jesus' illustrations in Matthew chapter 13. Many of the old understandings were based on W. E. Vine's understanding of these (although the Society never owned up to that). But if you compare the "new light" explanations with recent academic commentaries from "Christendom," you will see that for the most part, they now agree with what "Christendom" has been teaching for many years. How about that! Even the Society has reverted right back to Christendom's "apostate doctrines."

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

I should have put my conclusion in my first post above. The Society, in the early days, probably thought having a Passover Memorial made them Biblically correct and different from the churches. But now (in addition to that), it establishes the 'proper' pecking order, namely, "We, as the privileged enlightened class, partake. You, as the worker slave class, watch." (Compare Luke 17:7 - 9)

Having it just once a year means that everybody can then put it out of their minds afterwards. If they thought about it too much they might just start questioning things. (Compare John 6:53, 54)

By the way, in "Letters of St. Ignatius of Loyola", p.46 par.1, there is an interesting comment made on the bad effect reduced communion taking had on church goers. (Can be read on Google Books.)

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

Concerning "as often as," the Zodhiates Greek Dictionary defines as "however often, as often as (1 Cor 11:25, 26), 'each time that you do so.' There is no implication of urgency or frequency. It rather means that each and every time you do so, no matter whether frequently or otherwise, ..."

Kind of like saying: "As often as you wash your car, you should use such-and-such soap." There is nothing in the phrase that implies any certain frequency.