Posts by PetrW

28

Could this be the end of JWs? What are the consequences if it is?

by Teddnzo in

multiple very serious allegations against tony and then huge efforts to remove him from all pictures and videos, have to admit it doesn’t look good.. once the pennsylvania investigation becomes public knowledge and front page news it will be very very hard for 8 million pimis.. is it possible that this could be the largest problem the branch has ever faced?

larger than 1975, the overlapping generations or any other ‘test of faith’.

many will feel heartbroken and betrayed.

PetrW

Is there any way to estimate the number of ex versus in? If there are approx. 8 million in, then how many ex are alive? Is there such an estimate?

32

Sagely advice of a CO

by Vidqun in

“a circuit overseer started out by saying that on this last round of the circuit, the one thing he noticed the most...is that everyone is physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually drained...and that cuts across all barriers and demographics within the truth.

he then said that the one common thread that ran among nearly everyone was this: we feel guilty for feeling bad.

he said because we are told to endure with joy, our minds can cause us to feel enormous guilt over feeling this way...and then, my dear brothers and sisters...he proceeded to blow our collective minds.. he asked us to turn to daniel 8:27….

PetrW

@Phizzy

Also, I think CO unwittingly(!) described endogenous depression in JWs. I know from past experience that many of those I knew suffered from depression and my wife, as a doctor, has several JWs who have a psychiatric diagnosis...

And just like you, after a while, I stopped feeling the beginner's enthusiasm. Spiritual food turned into spiritual hunger

Or else still: it was as if I were still in, say, the third grade of elementary school. Where you go over the same things over and over again. I'm not saying that JWs celebrate success anywhere - especially where they substitute for the school system - but for the average educated European or American, JW theology must be clear in, say, half a year of study. And if no further stimulus comes, it becomes boring. Complemented by being permanently kept in fear.

JWs may have theologically gotten rid of the fear of hell, but they have replaced it with the fear of Armageddon - whether they will survive Armageddon.

9

Faded then apostate?

by Teddnzo in

if someone has faded so they are not known as a jw for a few years there is no need to be disfellowshiped or announced that they are no longer a jw.. so they wouldn’t need to be shunned the same way as if they did a hard exit like writing a letter or something.. so if evidence arose that such a faded person was sinning there still would be no need to announce that they were no longer a jw the same as if they were known as a jw.

family members and members of the congregation would not shun them?.

what would happen if such a faded person became apostate?

PetrW

@Teddnz

"we always sat in the group still in, but I guess next time we will sit in the group who are out. I don’t know any of them but it will be interesting to see if those still in will talk to us"

I think patience with relatives is the only way. I made the mistake, two or three years ago, of deliberately provoking. The consequence was that the elders of that congregation probably warned the relatives that: not like that...

Today I regret it and I probably wouldn't have done it, I would have tried to be more quiet and not provoke conflict... certainly not discuss JW theology with them and somehow contradict it. My bad.

9

Faded then apostate?

by Teddnzo in

if someone has faded so they are not known as a jw for a few years there is no need to be disfellowshiped or announced that they are no longer a jw.. so they wouldn’t need to be shunned the same way as if they did a hard exit like writing a letter or something.. so if evidence arose that such a faded person was sinning there still would be no need to announce that they were no longer a jw the same as if they were known as a jw.

family members and members of the congregation would not shun them?.

what would happen if such a faded person became apostate?

PetrW

From my own experience, especially relatives who know about your real relationship with JW-org will keep in touch with you if there is, for them, some advantage 😁 and at the same time, if you are not from the same ward with them in the past, so contact with you does not compromise them in any way.

But if you make yourself known in some way (I for example in emails read by elders from the congregation), then it will force, even after 20 years, your relatives to cut off any contact with you. Without any trial.

The Roman Catholic Church, as far as I know, has a sort of "excommunio latae sententiae", which is popularly "firing" without question, just on the basis that you did something wrong. For JWs I think, unwritten, it works too.

I was very amused for those 20 years or so by the question of whether I appeared - as a number, of course 😁 - in the JWs yearbooks, as a member?😁 Because, I was never expelled, and nowadays nobody would even make me go somewhere and explain something to somebody...

But even after 20 years, the sect indirectly "cuts you off" from your relatives, even though they, too, are not JWs who belong on the front pages of WT 😁 I try not to dwell on it, but when that relative is your last sibling, sometimes it hurts. On the other hand, in almost every family, the relationships between relatives are damaged in some way and don't even need JW.org to do it - whether parent-child or between siblings...🤔

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

PetrW

A quick glance at the NT Greek dictionary (see Bauer) for the verb απεχω, confirms that this verb, has the meaning of: 1. "terminus technicus" of the business world, expressing the receipt of a sum of money (see Matt 6:2: "they have their wages")... 2. expressing a geographical/physical or abstract (see Matt. 15:8) distance from something to something (Lk. 24:13: "a village 60 stadia from Jerusalem") and 3. to keep away or abstain from something (1 Tim. 4:3: "...abstain from the food that God has created...").

The meaning of απεχω in Acts 15:29, as abstaining from eating blood, is well attested, both in the NT and in extrabiblical literature (cf. απεχω in Joseph Flavius).

I will now deliberately avoid examining what abstinence from "blood" means, or what abstinence from blood meant in ancient Judaism. I commend to all the excellent commentary on the NT by Strack-Billerbeck (Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash) on the passage Acts 15:20.

If I look at the context of chapter 15, from the beginning (Acts 15:1) it was about circumcision according to the Mosaic custom, without which - according to some - no one can be saved. In Acts 15:5, the argument of the Pharisees who became believers is repeated, who argued that it was necessary(!) for new Christians to be circumcised. The Pharisees demanded that the Law(!) be kept as well.Peter takes up the word and finds that God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, for He has given His Holy Spirit, both "to them...and to us" (Acts 15:8). Circumcision, like the requirement to keep the Law(!), is evaluated by Peter as a burden (a yoke on the neck) that neither the forefathers of the Jews nor the Jews themselves who became Christians were able to keep (Acts 15:10). It is only by believing in the grace of Jesus that the Jews, as Gentiles, can be saved (Acts 15:11).James speaks last and judges that they are not to make trouble for those who, as Gentiles, have turned to God and formulates four areas from which Gentile Christians are to keep their distance (Acts 15:20). He adds the argument that the Law of Moses is read everywhere and every Sabbath - my understanding is that James was referring those possibly interested in the details of the Law of Moses to a local synangogue where they could learn what all Christ had delivered them from.
Transferred to the JWs, who draw their position from Acts 15:20ff: to fulfill James' request, then the BG would have to repeatedly urge its members to go to a Catholic church from time to time, if they wish, and hear a Latin Mass, and thereby learn that this, is not for them... The covering letter of the Apostles from Jerusalem to Antioch and other cities, declares again - for the third time (Acts 15:28) - that the aim was to avoid additional, unnecessary burdens for Gentile Christians, outside those four necessary areas. The original controversy over circumcision and other requirements for keeping the Law is no longer explicitly mentioned in the letter. That is, the original requirement about circumcision and other rules of the Law, is reduced to four "tolerable" requirements, and anyone could see for themselves in any synagogue among Jews who wanted to continue to keep the whole thing...
I understand the temporariness of the whole ordinance from the meaning of abstaining from a "strangled" animal. This is commonly explained using the OT, where the animal, whether it died by accident or predator, or was ritually killed, had to be bled. Strack-Billerbeck, in my opinion, correctly reason that the prohibition against eating a "strangled" animal must have applied to a dead or torn animal, since the rabbinic requirements for bleeding an animal were beyond the OT, and certainly those requirements, in themselves, were a burden.

The NT describes (Mk 5:13) the case of the 2000 "strangled" pigs who threw themselves into the sea. These drowned pigs, according to the literal interpretation of Acts 15:20ff, would have been inedible. But if you look more closely at the Greek NT, you will find that the verb "to strangle"/"to choke" does not refer only to animals. In Mat 13:7, the term "choked" plant appears. If I were to update - in the JW sense - also the prohibition of eating "strangled" to plants and their fruits, then I would have to examine whether, for example, an apple, grew on a tree that was not girdled by some weed. A must, compote or even cider, made from apples I picked from old apple trees that were covered with creepers, would be as serious a sin as having a blood transfusion...

For me, Christ is the end of the Law (Rom. 10:4) and the Law is as dead as dead can be (Rom. 7:2-4).

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

PetrW

@aqwsed12345

Very nice! Mercy glorieth against judgment!

Just a note: in discussions with Adventists regarding Sabbath-keeping, I have found a similar "explanatory formula". Both Adventists and JWs collectively claim that the Sabbath/blood command was given before the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law affirmed the Sabbath/blood command. And both Adventists and JWs find support in the NT for the continued uncompromising necessity to follow the commands given. More dangerous and life-threatening, of course, is the blood issue than the Sabbath issue (but even that is not entirely without problems).

Any discussion on the subject of Christ being the end of the Law, and thus of the Sabbath and blood, is met with stiff resistance from these groups. It is part of their creed, and to deny these articles of faith is to break with that church.

6

How to stirr up the poor into digital online business

by Gorb in

jw
friends

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-november-2023/hulda-reached-her-goal/.

what about this watchtower article?

in my jw time i felt not comfortable about this kind of "devine education".. poor sister works above her self to get a device.. jw.org hypocrisy for going full digital.. g..

PetrW

@enoughisenough

As you write: there is pressure.

But there could also be her own motivation: the sister wanted to see all the Tony Morris videos... and now they've deleted it ✌️😁 No, end of sarcasm.

However, a more likely scenario would be that a person with such energy and desire to change something (like her) will sooner or later "break" the JW-stone to gravel too...

If, as an ex-JW, she stays with Christianity, and endures the taunts of her surroundings and the hatred of JWs, then she will be a true heroine.

In terms of salvation, I think Christ will save her, and one day tell her: everything you thought when you read the Bible was true. What you just accepted, you know it wasn't about me and from me....

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

PetrW

@menrov

I think you are capturing the essence of the recommendation of Acts 15:29.There are a great many works on the internet, from dissertations to commentaries, that discuss Acts 15:29.

If I were to express my opinion, Jesus affirms the statement that one is to love God and love his neighbor. That these are the greatest commandments of the Law. Everything else, of subordination, is just an elaboration of the Law and these two commandments.

My understanding of the Law is that it is a masterpiece of law, built on principles. Where it was(!) necessary to stick to the literal meaning, there it is clear. Where reasoning is needed, for example, a kind of analogy is used. I, for example, do not take the command of Ex 23:19 "not to cook young goat in its mother's milk" as a dietary command (see Ibn Ezra's very interesting Jewish commentary on the Torah), nor some culinary recommendation on how to cook the meat of a goat or not to spoil the milk by cooking it...

My understanding of the verse Ex 23:19a is this: God wanted the best(!) of the first fruits to belong to him. They were to bring it to God's house.

If an Israelite of that time heard this, he must have said to himself. OK, I'll bring the best of the first fruits of my field. And then what? Will it stay with me? Or he said to himself: I'm going to put it all in a fancy wagon and bring it to the house of God and let it be trumpeted before me for all to hear and see...

And then, when I have given it all away, I will milk the goat, and on the milk, I will cook young of the goat....

And this is exactly what God had written against, that man should not be greedy. Even though he is obligated to surrender the best of the firstfruits to God's house, he is not to be tempted to be greedy and "cough up" what none of mankind can see and evaluate.

I honestly don't know - quite specifically - even today what the apostles' recommendation in Acts 15:29 means. I would have to look into it in more detail and that means reading a great deal of literature (see above). But if I were to consider what Acts 15:29 might mean, I would still venture to say that the apostles summarized the content of the Law so that Jewish and Gentile Christians could coexist at different stages of their faith (see Paul and his refusal to eat meat if it was a hindrance to a brother weak in the faith).

The apostles did not create a second law. They, through the Holy Spirit and prior teaching from the risen Jesus Christ, understood the nuances of the Law perfectly. And they transformed literal interpretation into permanent, eternal meaning.

A final note: in Lev 21:1-4 there is a command for the priests (see Rev 5:10) that they must not defile/ritually pollute themselves with any soul of the people. Most modern translations, including the NWT, understand this to mean a corpse. I don't think so, specifically Lev 21:1-4 is not about corpses. The Hebrew text, or also the LXX, says only the soul (of the people), but then lists close relatives who - even if they themselves are unclean, the priest does not become unclean.

My reading of this is that no prescription of purity that would make the relatives in the family somehow unclean can prevent the priest from making excuses that might prevent him from contact (see Jesus and the sacred gift and refusal to help parents...).

I'm referring to situations where JWs-parents have prevented from giving blood to their children(!) in hospitals as part of saving or prolonging life.

No statement of Christ can lead to letting others be ritually "executed" if they are delivered into your power...

6

How to stirr up the poor into digital online business

by Gorb in

jw
friends

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-november-2023/hulda-reached-her-goal/.

what about this watchtower article?

in my jw time i felt not comfortable about this kind of "devine education".. poor sister works above her self to get a device.. jw.org hypocrisy for going full digital.. g..

PetrW

Mrs. Hulda, all honor. Not everyone can smash so many rocks with a hammer that several trucks have to haul it away! If he ever picks up a hammer afterwards, he must see rocks everywhere. ✌️😁

On the other hand, I'd say she violated God's warning not to let anyone make an "image" of God in the form of silicon, plastic, copper, tin and steel when she says "it helps her in her service (to God)"... I suspect the tablet has become "God" to her that she has sacrificed so much to it. She must have hit herself once or twice with a hammer on the finger; as a woman, she may have carried heavy loads, which she might not have done elsewhere in a proper job; a piece of stone may have gone into her eye...

To me, she is a symbol of religious heroism, which is, of course, completely unnecessary...

24

A divorced single sistet

by TxNVSue2023 in

it was an opinion of someone that to be a divorced, single sister i. the organization was the lowest social standing you can have.

why are they dispised?

( what if was a scriptural divorce where husband cheated?

PetrW

@TonusOH

You mentioned one more important thing: whether the local congregation and its leadership have the right to interfere in marriage and solve its problems. Of course, we know the NT case where Paul writes about someone living with his father's wife and Paul's solution is very harsh...

But I want to make another point: should a Christian congregation be put in the position of having to resolve marital disputes? I don't think a Christian congregation should (ideally) have to deal with this, and other things, at all. But many will say that this is impossible. Yes, I affirm that. Sociology clearly demonstrates the patterns that arise in a formal group (starting with the "iron law of oligarchy" to the next...).

But if I stay on the plane of the Bible, I, for one, take my cue from this: Paul says the church is to care for widows over 60. What if - because of the war - many widows will be as young as 55? Are they to be told that they have to wait 5 more years? Or will there be no widows in that congregation - are they to "manufacture" a widow to fulfill the Bible's command at any cost? Probably not either. I understand the commands in the sense that Christians are to do so if such a situation arises - but if it doesn't, then they don't have to address it or even create such a situation.

The main way out of this, I see, is what the Lord said: if two or three come together in my name, I will be among them.

Two or three does not solve the lists of widows, it does not solve the question of whether a woman teaches or does not teach, whether she is veiled or shorn. They don't address the funding of the congregation - if they meet once a month, everyone can handle the fact that the two or three, go to the bathroom and flush. It's not 20 or 50 or 100 people and twice a week.

My "ecclesiology" is not against large churches. They have their place and their importance. But my point is that until the Lord, and he alone, begins to form a true church (note: many will come in my name...), then a "congregation" of two or three, will more easily avoid interfering with the marriage, of those two or three, in some quasi-judicial process. And again: not idealizing "two or three", just as destructive processes can occur there, as between 50...but between 50, it's only a matter of time before it starts.