i often read posts on here citing some km school or wt article and the comment that "now they are tightening their grip" or "they will now go after faders" etc, etc.
my perception is that the vast majority of jws, including the elders, are suffering from apathy and fatigue.
most simply don't care anymore.
Emery:
JWs used to brag that they had to teach the trinity to church members in order to then debunk it.
From what I see, most don't care about the particulars. And they are only 'sharp eyed' with regard to anything they detect that is contrary to WT SOP.
this concept just always caused a conflict in my mind.
i can remove the idea of predestination with knowing something in advance, why would the watch tower insist that god chooses not to know something?
is that even possible for god?
Satanus:
Yea. It reminds me of a division by zero error or an error where Windows runs out of "resources."
In VB if you weren't careful you could acidentally write unending event-loops (they were called event-cascades, if memory serves) that would first cause the program to stall and then after a few seconds you would get some random error message. They were sometimes very hard to trace an error like that.
this concept just always caused a conflict in my mind.
i can remove the idea of predestination with knowing something in advance, why would the watch tower insist that god chooses not to know something?
is that even possible for god?
Part of the problem with the WT idea is that it pre-supposes that God could know every exact detail about the future.
So the reasoning would go thusly:
God can know everything about the future.
But He has shown that He doesn't know everything
So there must be a reason why He doesn't know everything
And the only reason that we (the WT) can think of is:
He must have chosen not to know that thing
The paradox resides in the fact that you have to know about a thing in order to choose it as an item that you will not know
The problem is that everything in the future is related to everything in the past and present. This truth can be seen in Scriptures such as Galatians 6:7 - 'Whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.'
If you knew everything as it exists at the present, theoretically, you should also know every possible perturbation that the present could result in (the future). So if you blanked out a piece of the future, your knowledge of the present should enable you to reconstruct it. Since that is how you knew about the future in the first place.
Then would start the never-ending cycle of choosing to forget something in the future. Then reconstructing that future knowledge based on your present knowledge. Then remembering that you did not want to remember that particular piece of future knowledge. Then on and on. . .
the following comment taken from the march 1st 2013 watchtower, is nothing new.
to witnesses the world over it's a basic teaching which even the kids understand; "humans with heavenly prospects have been baptized in water and with holy spirit and are thus spirit-begotten disciples of jesus.
" (john 3:3, 5) (both at the same time??????).
EP:
I am designing an object based storage array. Is it better to combine an object and it's metadata into a single discrete object or to use a linkage mechanism to associate an object with it's metadata?
You made me curious. What language are you programming in? (Obviously, I'm not omniscient)
(This also serves to bump this thread for something else)
we got our list of hotels available for our convention in the greater seattle area and there are only 3 hotels willing to have a watchtower block.. my mil thinks its because "as the society warns us to not do, people book rooms and then end up being a no show or cancel on short notice".
maybe its because they realize the jw's really arent the "most outstanding patrons" as they claim to be.
lets not forget that all wordly people that stay.
Our list was shorter too. Maybe about 10 hotels. I didn't see where there was any discount to speak of. The Best Western that was listed had a convention rate of $62.00. I went online and checked their normal rate without any discounts: $62.00
the following comment taken from the march 1st 2013 watchtower, is nothing new.
to witnesses the world over it's a basic teaching which even the kids understand; "humans with heavenly prospects have been baptized in water and with holy spirit and are thus spirit-begotten disciples of jesus.
" (john 3:3, 5) (both at the same time??????).
AGuest:
I'm going to focus only on Cornelius. The reason being, if he is a Gentile, it dismantles the whole idea that water baptism is not for Gentile converts (even if Samaritans were considered Jews).
Here are some excerpts from the New American Commentary on Acts (John B. Polhill, 249-251) This is an academic commentary and its comments are this topic are typical of other commentaries.
These first few paragraphs are an initial summary of the pericope:
The Gentile mission was not an easy step for the Jewish Christians to take. It involved two major issues. One was the question of whether Gentiles had to become Jews in order to become Christians, i.e., should they undergo Jewish proselyte procedure when they were converted to Christianity? This would have required the circumcision of male converts and the adoption for all converts of such Jewish legal distinctives as the kosher food laws. Because God granted the gift of the Spirit to the Gentiles in Cornelius's home without their proscribing to proselyte procedure, Peter became convinced that such Jewish conversion procedures were not necessary for the Christian mission to the Gentiles (cf. 15:7-11).The second major issue involved the question of table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Since Gentiles did not follow kosher practices, Jewish Christians like Peter were exposed to a real situation of compromise when they associated with them. It is not by chance that Peter's vision at Joppa involved the question of clean and unclean foods. His association with the Gentiles in Cornelius's home raised that question acutely. Both questions were answered for Peter in the experience with Cornelius because he was convinced that God accepted Gentiles without circumcision and that he could himself in good faith enjoy table fellowship with his Gentile-Christian brothers and sisters. . .
Acts 10:1-11:18 is the longest singl narrative in all of Acts. This is itself witnesses to the great importance Luke placed on the incidentThe narrative begins with the vision of Cornelius (10:1-8) and immediately follows with a corresponding vision of Peter (10:9-16). The two visions link together and rsult in Peter's journey to Cornelius's home (10:17-23). Three scenes take place at Cornelius's house. Peter's initial encounter with Cornelius involved their sharing their visions with each other (10:24-33). This was followed by Peter's sermon to Cornelius and his associates (10:34-43). The sermon was broken off by God's intervention when he sent the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles (10:44-48). The final scene takes place in Jerusalem, where Peter defended his conduct with Cornelius before the Christians there and convinced them of God's intention to reach the Gentiles for Christ (11:1-18). There is considerable duplication between the scenes. Cornelius's vision is told four times (10:3-6, 22, 30-32; 11:13-14). Peter's vision is given in detail twice (10:9-16; 11:4-10). In fact, all of 11:3-17 is basically a summary of chap. 10.
This device of repitition serves a two-fold function. First, it makes for a vivid narrative; it is related in dialogue, which gives the reader a sense of "being there." Second, and more significantly, it underlines the importance of the event. It will be repeated yet a final time in Peter's testimony at the Jerusalem Conference (15:7-11).
Polhill continues a little further stating that "Cornelius was clearly a Gentile who worshiped God and supported the Jewish religious community."
The whole narrative, its length, its repitition, Peter's having to explain himself (11:1-17) in which he describes the man as a Gentile, all of this proves beyond any doubt that Peter considered Cornelius a Gentile.
Instead of trying to go way out in left field to assemble some obtuse evidence that he was somehow not a Gentile, you should try to stick with the context within which Cornelius is spoken of. Peter and the Jewish Christians that he had to explain himself to all took Cornelius and his household as Gentiles.
I know it is hard to let go of possibly cherished ideas. But those ideas are hindering you, like roadblocks, from gaining increased understanding of God's will.
Even so, I respect your right to believe what you want. But as far as I'm concerned, your idea that Cornelius was not a Gentile, and that Gentiles did not need water baptism does not hold water at all.
Take Care AGuest
can anyone explain the jehovah's witness eschatology surrounding armageddon and the second coming of christ?
i realize the church teaches that jesus came "invisibly" in 1914 and is ruling from heaven, but if he is ruling, why does evil still exist?
if satan and his angels were cast out of heaven to earth, how was man tempted before 1914?
Cold Steel:
I've never seen an article that references the scriptures having to do with Armageddon as an event.
Revelation 16:16 says "Armageddon" is a "place" (Greek topos, from which we get topography).
Even so, I always get dumbfounded looks from JWs when I point that out to them. I think the media has alot to do with the idea that it is an event.
the following comment taken from the march 1st 2013 watchtower, is nothing new.
to witnesses the world over it's a basic teaching which even the kids understand; "humans with heavenly prospects have been baptized in water and with holy spirit and are thus spirit-begotten disciples of jesus.
" (john 3:3, 5) (both at the same time??????).
AGuest:
I can see that on a couple points I was not understanding how you defined your terms.
If I understand correctly now, you see -
Cornelius as an Israelite.
Samaritans as equivelant to the ten-tribe kingdom.
And I will say that, IF these definitions were correct, I could see how you could possibly arrive at your conclusion that water baptism was for Israel only. I wouldn't agree with it, but I could see a framework from which you are basing the idea.
However, I don't see how you are arriving at Cornelius being of Israel, or the Samaritans being the ten-tribes (other than simply occupying their former territory). Certainly, the Jews of the first century didn't seem to include them.
If I may ask, what evidence do you feel proves this about Cornelius and the Samaritans?
Take Care
the following comment taken from the march 1st 2013 watchtower, is nothing new.
to witnesses the world over it's a basic teaching which even the kids understand; "humans with heavenly prospects have been baptized in water and with holy spirit and are thus spirit-begotten disciples of jesus.
" (john 3:3, 5) (both at the same time??????).
I wanted to comment on three points from page one of this thread:
(Note that the numbered points 2, 3, and 4 are copied as is)
2. John (the Baptizer) said that although HE would baptize with water, there was one coming after him, the sandals of whom he wasn't fit to tie, who would baptize in fire and spirit. Matthew 3:1, 11; Mark 1:6-8; Luke 3:16; John 1:19, 25-31
I think this statement is implying that John baptized with water but Jesus and his disciples did not. But that is not the case:
(John 3:22-26) . . .After these things Jesus and his disciples went into Ju·de′an country, and there he spent some time with them and did baptizing. 23 But John also was baptizing in Ae′non near Sa′lim, because there was a great quantity of water there, and people kept coming and being baptized; 24 . . . 25 . . . 26 . . . came to John and said to him: "Rabbi, the man that was with you across the Jordan, to whom you have borne witness, see, this one is baptizing and all are going to him.. . .
(John 4:1, 2) . . .When, now, the Lord became aware that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John- 2 although, indeed, Jesus himself did no baptizing but his disciples did-
3. Cornelius and HIS household... Israelites (by means of being from among the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel, the "Samaritans", and so not a Jew)... received holy spirit FIRST... and THEN were baptized in water. Acts 10:1-4, 24, 44-48
This statement, even if accepted as is, contradicts the main point of the post that it was made in. Even if baptized with spirit first, they were baptized in water afterwards.
But notice Acts 10:46-48, especially verse 47: ". . .Then Peter responded [after seeing they received holy spirit]: 47 "Can anyone forbid water so that these might not be baptized who have received the holy spirit even as we have?" 48 With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. . . ."
Peter's words themselves indicate that water baptism was normally first. And that spirit baptism of Cornelius and his family made water baptism an obvious follow on. Compare also these translations.
Additionally, the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17 were baptized with water first. And I don't know of any instances where Jews during the time og Christ and afterwards are singled out due to being of the 10 tribe Northern kingdom.
4. About 12 men... who had been water baptized ("in John")... did not receive holy spirit until some time later, when they ran into Paul, who "baptized" them by laying his hands on them. Acts 19:1-7
But again, notice the context:
(Acts 19:2-7) . . .and he said to them: "Did you receive holy spirit when YOU became believers?" They said to him: "Why, we have never heard whether there is a holy spirit." 3 And he said: "In what, then, were YOU baptized?" They said: "In John's baptism." 4 Paul said: "John baptized with the baptism [in symbol] of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the holy spirit came upon them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 All together, there were about twelve men.
They got baptized, then had hands laid on them and received holy spirit.
this is a sincere request to any brothers or sisters who are fearful of websites such as this; .
please imitate the beroeans who carefully examined the scriptures to see if what the apostle paul said was the truth.
they were described as being "noble minded" for doing so!!.
Phew, alot of ground was covered since the opening post. But anyway, I wanted to address a thought that was made on page 1 of this thread:
The original Greek does not have Luke saying he wrote in "logical" order but in "chronological" (successive) order. The Greek states:
"... to write to you in order..."
The Greek word here is "kathexes", which means:
"one after another, successively, in order".
That the account WAS written in successive (and thus chronological) order is important
Here is what the Baker Exegetical Commentary on Luke (Vol I, pp.62-3) has to say in connection with "kathexes" [Strong's 2517] in Luke 1:3:
But to what does kathexes (an orderly account) refer? Is the order (1) "broadly chronological" (2) "a literary systematic presentation" [see Acts 11:4], (3) "a salvation-historical linkage", [ it goes on to list 4 other possibilities].
. . . The first three views all have merit; but each by itself is inadequate. Luke is broadly chronological in its flow, but there is some rearrangement of material (e.g. Luke 4:16-30 from Mark 6:1-6; Luke 4:1-13, where the order of the temptations differs from Matthew; and the placement of John the Baptist's imprisonment by Herod in Luke 3:19-20). These rearangements and others rule out a strictly chronological arrangement, though a general chronological arrangement is present . . .
There is a geographical arrangement to the material as well. This movement is from Galilee to Samaria, Jerusalem, Judea-Samaria, and then Rome. This arrangement is not artificial, since it represents the broad geographical sweep of Jesus' ministry and the church's growth. . .
Luke's order is also salvation-historical in that it shows the progress of salvation under God's direction. The growth starts from its founder and continues with one of the most representative messengers of the faith, Paul. It runs from Israel to the Gentiles. It moves from promise in the infancy material to fulfillment in Jesus and the church. . . Thus, the order of Luke's account works on many levels. It is broadly chronological and geographic, and deals with sacred history.
The commentator (Darrell L. Bock) is actually commenting on the flow of both Luke and Acts. But as he points out, Luke is not strictly chronological in every detail. Nor does the Greek word kathexes demand such an understanding. BDAG defines it as, "pert[aining] to being in sequence in time, space, or logic."
The point is that kathexes does not, by itself, have to mean chronological, especially in the strictist sense. There are other ways to order an account.
