Bobcat

Joined

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

Posts by Bobcat

• 
  18

  Historical evidence for Christmas and Christs birthday

  by DS211 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just read this feom 4jehovah.org.

  there is a historical basis for the december 25th date of christs birth.

  justin martyr (100-165 a.d.) wrote marcus aurelius that jesus was born at bethlehem as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  I posted some research on the "magi" aspect of this discussion here (several posts).
• 
  66

  New 1975? Jan 1st WT 2014

  by notsurewheretogo in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this post was taken from reddit exjw but makes a very good point:.

  these are two paragraphs of the watchtower of january 1st 2014.... .

  i don't know about you guys, but in my mind, i'm seeing a deja vu of the articles before 1975 i've read.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  They sound like they are patching old software.
• 
  55

  Marriage In The New World

  by Cold Steel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  okay, here's the issue.

  some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.

  jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  Did anyone mention John 5:28, 29?

  Jesus said the resurrection would include "those who practiced good things and those who practiced vile things."

  The Society gets around that by saying the things "practiced" (good or bad) are practiced after being resurrected. But the verb tenses used by Jesus do not support that idea. The most natural reading of those verses is that those practicing said things are those who would be resurrected, either to life or judgment.

  The Society's understanding of that verse(s) derives from their insertion of "[his]" into Romans 6:7.
• 
  10

  "THE WATCH TOWER" 1865 - Volume 1 - Downloadable PDF 417 pages

  by jwleaks in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the watch tower 1865, published by j.f.

  shaw & co., for the proprietors of "the watch tower", 158 fleet street, london.

  sold at all booksellers and railway book stores during the mid to late 1860's.. this volume of the watch tower was first published on march 29, 1865, for the benefit of learned members of the anglican church.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  I'm curious, like Searcher, what is the connection to the Society's Watchtower magazine? Did the first one go out of print and sound like a great name for CTR's new magazine? My PDF's of the WT go back to 1878. Is that the first year?
• 
  55

  Marriage In The New World

  by Cold Steel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  okay, here's the issue.

  some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.

  jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  No offense taken. In a way I'm glad to have an attitude check.

  Take care
• 
  55

  Marriage In The New World

  by Cold Steel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  okay, here's the issue.

  some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.

  jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  Dis-Member:

  Let me ask this. Do you think it's possible to 'know' God and Jesus without having an extensive theological library and being able to quote from it with ease? Is it all about reading and study? More endless dead intellectualism.

  How do blind people find God and Jesus, or deaf people, or people with severe mental problems, or people that are just not very smart.

  Is God only really only for the educated? Is the only way to know God and Jesus by reading a book that is so massively open to being misinterpreted and twisted out of shape?

  You'll have to ask someone in those situations. I use the tools I have acquired because I want to know. And I share what I've read for the benefit of anyone else who wants to know and doesn't have access to such tools. That is what the internet is about, in theory at least. And this is supposedly an open forum, allowing for diverse views.

  I do agree that the Bible is "open to being misinterpreted and twisted out of shape." (2 Pet 3:15, 16) You'll have to decide for yourself how you want to respond to that possibility. And perhaps you already have. And the same goes for me. And, like you, I make no apologies for my choices.

  I will also say this: Anything I write here is not necessarily intended for everyone that posts, such as yourself. There is a much wider audience on this forum than just those who post here. And among them are some who do not share your viewpoint.

  But thanks for stating your views. It's good to have an idea of where you stand. If I direct a reply to you, I'll take your views into account in my reply.

  Take care
• 
  55

  Marriage In The New World

  by Cold Steel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  okay, here's the issue.

  some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.

  jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  I thought the OP asked, "How do you think this all will work out?" So, I gave my answer.

  And yes, the essence of Christianity is summed up in John 17:3, '. . . coming to know the true God and the one He sent forth, Jesus Christ.'
• 
  47

  The GENERATION explanation is now a BOLD FACE LIE

  by scotoma in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i first heard about the new "generation" explanation i was confused because i didn't see clearly how they were explaining it.. now it looks like they finally figured it out for themselves and it is no longer confusing.. it is now a simple, ignorant, bold face lie.. this is from the january 1st watchtower.

  (and i hope to hell someone from writing gets wind of this).

  paragraph 15 page 31 blue stands for the exact words in the watchtower.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  DATA:

  I'm not sure if you understood me correctly (or I you). I was saying that in the context of Matthew 24:34, "this generation" is a reference back to "this generation" that Jesus referred to in Matthew 23:36.

  In 23:33-39 Jesus says that judgment was coming upon "this generation," the then current generation of Jews that he was describing. This prompts the disciples, when they have the next opportunity alone with Jesus, to ask, "When will these things be?" (24:3) There is some question about why they also asked about Jesus' parousia and "the conclusion of the system of things." It could be that, in their minds, the destruction of the temple (which was the center of their world) must also coincide with the ending of the whole world order. If so, Jesus set them straight that this was not the case.

  In answer to the question about "When will these things be (the destruction of the temple & Jerusalem)?," Jesus gives the prophecy from 24:4-31. Verses 32-35 then form a sort of summary conclusion that points out that "this generation" would see all these things unfold, which answers the question, "When will these things be?" This logically ties "this generation" of 24:34 directly to "this generation" of 23:36.

  To make "this generation" of 24:34 refer to anything else requires some imaginative interpreting. But you only need to stick with the context to see that it refers to the 1st century Jewish nation of Jesus' time.

  Note also that Jesus gave instructions in the prophecy for how his disciples could survive the then coming catastrophe. (24:15-20) So "this generation" could not refer to them. They were hoping to be survivors. It was the contemporary Jews who were going to "pass away." This also makes it plain that "this generation" could not refer to Jesus' followers. (The distinction between Jesus' disciples and "this generation" can be seen even more plainly from Luke 21:29-36.)

  The answer to the second question of the disciples (about the parousia and the end of the age) begins at verse 36 where Jesus says, "But concerning that day and hour . . .," where "that day" is a short hand reference to "the day of the Lord" (or "the day of Jehovah"; e.g. compare Mt 7:22) and "hour" is idiomatic, referring in modern lingo to "time." Rephrased, Jesus says, "But concerning the timing of the day of Jehovah . . ." (Ekeinos, "that" in vs. 36, is also a reference marker to something previously said. Compare its use in Luke 12:45, "But if ever that slave . . .," referring back to the "faithful steward" just mentioned. In Matthew 24:36, "that day" refers back to the question about the parousia and the end of the age. This links Jesus' parousia to a sometime-in-the-future cataclysmic end of the world, not to the end of the Jewish system.)

  Verse 36 begins with peri de ("but concerning" or "but about") which marks a change in subject. (Note that the NWT leaves the "but" untranslated.) Peri de is used to mark a change of subject or a change in the aspect of a subject already under consideration. Compare its use in Matthew 22:31; See Paul's use of it in 1 Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12 where he uses it to move from one issue to another. Its use in Mt 24:36 breaks Jesus' answer into two parts, 24:4-24:35 and 24:36-25:46.

  Jesus' statement that 'no one knows that day or hour' is in direct contrast to "these things" in 24:34. He plainly tells them "when" "these things" (about the destruction of the temple) will occur. They will occur within the lifespan of "this generation." "But concerning that day and hour, no one knows . . ."

  If one sticks with the context, "this generation" can ONLY refer to the one Jesus was referring to in his time. And it CANNOT be a reference to his disciples.

  *************

  The GB ignore (intentionally, in my book) all that context. "We understand it [this way]" is simply a literary way of bullying anyone who might dare to think differently from them. They know many find this explanation incongruous, or even downright silly. They are simply digging their heels in. 'It's our playground, and if you don't want to believe it our way, you can go someplace else.' The OP is right. It is a bold-faced lie. And they will, eventually, have to pay for it. Like the religious leaders of Jesus' day, they are selling their future to have their way now. (Jn 11:45-50)

  Take care
• 
  47

  The GENERATION explanation is now a BOLD FACE LIE

  by scotoma in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i first heard about the new "generation" explanation i was confused because i didn't see clearly how they were explaining it.. now it looks like they finally figured it out for themselves and it is no longer confusing.. it is now a simple, ignorant, bold face lie.. this is from the january 1st watchtower.

  (and i hope to hell someone from writing gets wind of this).

  paragraph 15 page 31 blue stands for the exact words in the watchtower.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  The referent to "this generation" of Matthew 24:34 is Jesus' description of "this generation" in Matthew 23:33-39, which prompts the disciples question of, "When will these things (another referent to the same antecedent) be" in 24:3.

  In WTspeak, "we understand" is a referent to the thought that 'This is what we believe.' If you don't, you are not one of US.'
• 
  55

  Marriage In The New World

  by Cold Steel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  okay, here's the issue.

  some people, even some jws, believe that in the new world they will be reunited with their spouses.

  jesus, however, said that in the resurrection there would be no marriage or giving in marriage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bobcat

  Quarterback:

  Concerning future human population expansion, see my post on this thread.