Rex B13

Joined

• started 49 topics
• posted 695 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Rex B13

• 
  26

  HELP - Elders want to talk about Disassociation

  by Steven in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i thought that this was all out of the way when 2 weeks ago my wife & i handed in letters of disassociation.. we have been since then trying to adjust & just when i thought i was getting somewhere - starting to feel normal again - i got a phone call 1hr ago from our presiding overseer saying that they haven't announced it yet & wanted to talk.. he is a very nice guy & i was caught totally unprepared so i put him off - said i would ring back later - 2pm'ish uk time.. now i have that horrible feeling in my stomach again - help!.

  basically, when it comes down to it i don't think we want them to come over - it will open us up too much & i don't want that.. also, though, i want to sort it out; so i am thinking of just chatting to him for a bit on the phone.. i didn't really want to do this since it could knock their faith & also i am not fully ready to argue all of the facts with elders.

  however it looks like i will have to.. anyway when it boils down to it they can argue away all of the facts like the un thing etc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Hey Steve,
  Get a hotmail or yahoo account. Don't use your home e-mail address. Too many crackpots and salesmen looking for valid addresses.
  Rex
• 
  39

  jan H and Daniel

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jan. you said on a recent post that the book of daniel is meant to be dated a lot later then thought.

  have you any info on this please?.

  uo

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  The evidence about the book of Daniel has two sides to it.
  When was the book written?
  Most modern non-conservative scholars believe that Daniel (or at least the second half of Daniel, the section containing the passages in question) was written by someone other than Daniel either DURING these events or shortly thereafter. This view was first developed by the anti-Christian Porphyry in the 3rd century AD. The history of this view is given by Archer in EBC:
  "The Maccabean date hypothesis, a widely held theory of the origin and date of the Book of Daniel, was originally advanced by the third-century A.D. Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyrius of Tyre. According to the relation of his opinions by Jerome (who spent much of his commentary on Daniel refuting Porphyry's arguments), Porphyry contended that the remarkably accurate "predictions" contained in Daniel (esp. ch. 11) were the result of a pious fraud, perpetrated by some zealous propagandist of the Maccabean movement, who wished to encourage a spirit of heroism among the Jewish patriots resisting Antiochus IV. The discomfiture of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as related in Daniel were intended to be prophetic of the defeats and downfall of the hated Epiphanes.
  "Following Jerome's refutation of Porphyry, he was more or less dismissed by Christian scholarship as a mere pagan detractor who had allowed a naturalistic bias to warp his judgment. But during the time of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, all supernatural elements in Scripture came under suspicion, and Porphyry's theory received increasing support from J.D. Michaelis (1771), J.G. Eichhorn (1780), L. Berthold (1806), F. Bleek (1822), and many others after them.
  (Bias before evidence rears it's ugly head here.) They all agreed that every accurate prediction in Daniel was written after it had already been fulfilled (a vaticinium ex eventu) and therefore in the period of the Maccabean revolt (168-165 B.C.). Also some of them were inclined to question the unity of the book on the ground of internal evidence and language differences; certain portions of the book--particularly the narratives in chapters 2-6--were thought to come from third-century authors or even earlier. Essentially the same position is maintained even to this day by liberal scholars throughout Christendom. " (Jan's favorite, 'reputable' scholars!)

  Collins [ABD, "Daniel, Book of"] cites Jerome's description:
  "Quite apart from the historicity of the figure of Daniel, the authenticity of the book had already been questioned by the 3d century Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry. We are informed by Jerome that: "Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel, denying that it was composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judaea at the time of that Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes; he further alleged that 'Daniel' did not foretell the future so much as he related the past, and lastly that whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future."

  The alternative view, of conservative evangelicals, is that Daniel was written in the late 6th century BC, long before these events. EBC gives a summary:
  "As to the date of the composition of Daniel, the narrative of the prophet's earliest experiences begins with his capture as a hostage by Nebuchadnezzar back in 605-604 B.C. and according to 1:21 continues certainly till the first year of Cyrus (c. 537 B.C.), in relation to his public service, and to the third year of Cyrus (535 B.C.), in relation to his prophetic ministry (Dan 10:1). Daniel seems to have revised and completed his memoirs during his retirement sometime about 532 or 530 B.C. when he would have been close to ninety years old (assuming his birth c. 620 B.C.). The appearance of Persian-derived governmental terms, even in the earlier chapters composed in Aramaic, strongly suggests that these chapters were given their final form after Persian had become the official language of government."

  The issue--was it written BEFORE the events or NOT?
  Notice carefully that our task is much more simple than would first appear. We do NOT have to demonstrate that the Book of Daniel was written according to conservative theories--in the 6th century BC. ALL we have to do (in this first part) is to demonstrate that it was written BEFORE 167 BC! If the prophecies were uttered even ten years before the event, then they constitute 'prophecy proper'.
  Strictly speaking, all that is therefore necessary to do is to demonstrate that the material/content in the book of Daniel was in existence by the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. We don't even have to show that the book was in its current form at all-if we can even find references or close/obvious allusions to the images/languages in Daniel, we will have ante-dated the events, and hence, have encountered 'real' prophecy. [If we find data to support a MUCH earlier, perhaps 6th century provenance, then 'so much the better'.]
  And this is a much simpler task...

  1. Do we have any copies of the Book of Daniel that either date BEFORE 167bc, or even somewhat later ones that virtually require the existence of the Danielic material before that time? [The Dead Sea Scrolls data]

  Go here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3a.html

  2. Do we have any literary references or clear allusions to the Book in other pre-Maccabean extra-biblical literature?

  Go here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3b.html

  Check it out for yourself. No use in me doing a paraphrase of the info.
  Rex
• 
  39

  jan H and Daniel

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jan. you said on a recent post that the book of daniel is meant to be dated a lot later then thought.

  have you any info on this please?.

  uo

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Here it is, Unc:

  >It is a very obvious rule for textual criticism that a book writing about certain events are written after the events took place.

  Just like 'science' they ignore evidence in order to prove their point. That statement proves the bias towards the skeptical view and the 'evidence' above can make no claim to being the Final Result Conclusive. Citing Catholic or Anglican (Bishop Spong comes to mind) literature does not make it any more valid as far as being trustworthy.
  Some of the best ammo for Satan is the apostasy that has developed in 'alleged' churches that claim to follow the teachings of Christ.

  What am I saying? I urge you and others to get that second opinion from those who can tell why they believe the Bible is literally the Word of God.
  Rex
• 
  39

  jan H and Daniel

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jan. you said on a recent post that the book of daniel is meant to be dated a lot later then thought.

  have you any info on this please?.

  uo

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Hi Unc,
  Jan pays much credence to the typical "higher critic" rendering of all scripture, which assumes that "no real prophecy or miracles can happen" from the very start. I see that as bias that ignores important evidence.
  That's Jan and he believes it for good reasons in his mind. I urge you to see what he has but then also to see the other side.....

  Mere Christianity.........C.S. Lewis
  Christianity: a Witness of History......J.N. Anderson
  the New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?......F.F. Bruce
  Evidence That Demands a Verdict........Josh McDowell
  History and Christianity........John Montgomery
  Basic Christianity..........John Stott
  Bible Explorer's Guide......John Phillips
  Born Again.........Chuck Colson

  Rex
• 
  21

  Our Kingdom Ministry October 2001

  by Kent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  thanks to friends here, the our kingdom ministry october 2001 is now published on the watchtower observer.. http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?site=wo&date=20011018&category=doctrine4&artno=110180002&ref=ar.

  yakki da.

  kent.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Hi Kent,
  Mind-numbing mind control. Meetings that bore people to tears, bringing on the hypnotic state. Constant repetition of the same mantras: Jehovah's organisation; obedience; God's people; anointed remnant; faithful slave; publications.
  Then there's the discussion of tactics, "pick out a news item of a horrible event", on page eight, which is page I'd like to see Hassan analyze for signs of a cult.
  No wonder my family is so screwed up!
  Rex
• 
  6

  Baptist in the name of F, S & HS

  by LittleToe in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  one of the (many) things that started me questioning the borg related to the baptism questions, talk etc.. anybody notice how matt.28 isn't mentioned, even though that is down as the primary reason for field service?.

  maybe it's just the assemblies that i've been to.. what's your experience?.

  does that invalidate the baptism?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Hi Jeff,

  >, I was baptized as an infant in a Lutheran church and my wife was baptized as an infant in a Catholic church. So, when we started attending the Christian church that we attend now, they viewed our infant baptisms as legitimate and the JW baptism as invalid. If my wife and I had never been baptized as infants our current church would have recommended to us that we be baptized

  Of course, we know that baptism is not what saves. It is only a outward sign of our calling. Salvation is by grace through faith....
  Take care,
  Rex
• 
  5

  The Mind of the Fanatic

  by Dogpatch in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the mind of the fanatic.

  steve k. dubrow-eichel.

  [this column appeared in the "perspectives" page of the wilmington (de) news journal, on 9/23/01.].

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Randy,

  >A person who is free enough of baggage to look for the greater love is the one that will find it. To me, Christ represents that surpassing love. When one is truly comfortable in that, nothing is taboo.

  Agreed

  Flip,

  >quote]Salvation is by grace through faith yet we are admonished to show evidence of this by our good works. [/quote]

  >This ideology is certainly inspiring to others as well and most likely the last thought on the minds of the clowns in control of the aircraft that plowed into the WTC, etc.

  Flip

  You nailed it~

  Tdogg,

  >When you hear phrases like "those people" and "you people" you can bet that some wild, blanket accusation will follow. And that type of thinking leads to fanaticism.

  Rex, I have noticed the change. Kind,well written posts as of late.

  Thanks, many thanks and wise words above.
  May the Lord Bless all of you,
  Rex
• 
  15

  Making sense of sex and the bible

  by Leander in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the bible clearly states that fornicators will not inherit god's kingdom, but the question is "what is a fornicator"?

  if i remember correctly the word fornication is derived from the greek word "porneia".

  the problem is there are different defintions of that word porneia.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  For Bboy,
  Here we go again. When are you going to actually study the subject you so love to talk about? You know, the apparent contradictions in scripture.
  First of all, the scriptures from the N.T. that you quoted were the requirements for elders (pastors) and deacons, the two Biblical offices for church leadership.
  In Genesis, God joined together a man and woman as the ideal but not the law as such. This continued into the Law Covenant dispensation (do you remember that term?) though it is obvious that God did not ban polygamy. Men were allowed to have more than one wife, it was not adultery. In the N.T, Paul much recommended the single life but he of course did not stand against even polygamy, nor can I remember anywhere that it is considered 'adultery'.
  Incest is another necessary thing that was not harmful to man who was much closer to original creation, You should also notice that this was rarely full brother/sister incest after a few hundred years. It was more often cousins or halfs, which is not technically incest.
  Now it is a traditional thing and often it is a law in societies. It's all a thing of balance with excesses either way being harmful. Just like most other endeavors in life, eh?

  Hi Jan,
  You're very much missing the point on sexuality. Unbridled sexuality leads to these things (in general):
  1) Unplanned pregnancies, which leads to abortions and more disfunctional families. There is no question that the traditional family is the most stable environment to raise children to become resposible adults.
  2) Abortions or we have situations like the woman recently who was having her fifteenth child by several different men and we, society in general, get stuck with the bill.
  3) Children basically raised on the street when their father is nowhere to be found and mom is a drunk or druggie. 9 out of 10 of these offspring get into trouble with the law.
  4) Rampant illnesses and disease related to promiscuity, which is a big reason that one whould avoid this.
  5) Devestation of solid families by one party or the other who is disloyal to his or her mate.
  Even humanism teaches that some sexuality is destructive.

  BTW, the terrorists who worked for Bin Laden went to stripper bars and prostitutes the nights before their suicidal rampage. Odd, isn't it, if they were so dedicated to Islam why did they essentially do things that led them to hell (according to their own teachings!).
  Hey, I absolutely enjoy a healthy sexuality but I could fall at any time by being overconfident and not leaning on God. This is my 'achilles heel' and I love assertive, confident, attractive women.
  Rex
• 
  21

  my letter to WTS - RE: the UN problem

  by badwillie in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  for anyone who's interested, here is what i wrote:.

  watchtower bible & tract society of new york.

  25 columbia heights.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Hey Badwillie,
  I am near Pittsburgh. What part of Pa. are you from?
  Now's the time to get out of the congo. We can offer you a Christian forum where you won't be clubbed over the head with Jeeesuuus.....
  [email protected]
  Rex
• 
  15

  Its the Whole Premise that Gets Me

  by pettygrudger in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  #1 - original sin: supposedly all this stuff is going on because adam/eve "ate the fruit" (type of fruit still under question).

  because of this, god let billions & billions of people, "his children", suffer imperfection, pestilence, plague, wars,death, etc.

  & let his "true followers" throughout bible history be persecuted because of this "original sin".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex B13

  Seeker4,
  'J'dubs are skewed in their view because they do not understand the immortal soul and election. I did not understand until a year and a half ago.

  >'Death' is literally, 'separation from God' and this indeed happened: spiritual death occured, for from the moment that they rebelled they started to die physically. Allowing mankind to procreate in the imperfect state is actually the first grace offered by God. Any idea that anyone here would have passed the 'test' is laughable due to the 'hindsight is 20/20' principle. He gave us what we wanted, FREEDOM to run our own affairs within his soverignty.
  BTW, you have not proven that Genesis is a 'myth'. In fact, the resurrection of Christ, Him voluntarily laying down His life and picking it up again within three days is confirmation that regardless of what any man THINKS, Genesis is literally true.
  God also did know completely...does know completely the whole of history of time on earth. He is by very nature, outside of time and therefore He says, "I Am" is His name (as also Jesus proclaimed Himself).
  He is entirely just and loving, for He provides a means for us to escape the spiritual death we have inherited by simply believing in His son, salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2.8,9). He has the complete right to demand our souls since we are all sinners, none are 'good' (Romans 3.23; 6.23).
  Romans 10.9-11 and John 3.16,17 proclaim the gospel. John 14.6 points us again toward the way to life. Paul explains the theology of the church throughout Romans and John confirms the deity of Christ in his gospel.
  Whining about this cold cruel world is entirely a moot point. None of us would even be drawn to God without the Father calling us, the Son redeeming us and the Holy Spirit sealing us.
  Rex