i've just published on my website a new article: the "sign of the last days" and 2 timothy 3:1-5 (click to visit).
it contains a critical analysis of the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5 and a refutation of the connection with matthew 24:3, and therefore, of the expression "sign" + "last days".. the article is divided in the following parts:.
introductionthe composite nature of the expression "sign of the last days"the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5the message of 2 timothy 3:1-5two fallacies about the "last days"conclusiondue to its lenght, i won't post it in full here, only the introduction:.
Are you implying that Revelation was written before 70 C.E?Yes. I estimate that the first visions must have been received starting in 41 CE, and the last vision (the message to the seven congregations) must have been received around 62/63 CE. The book must have been compiled shortly after.
Eden
i've just published on my website a new article: the "sign of the last days" and 2 timothy 3:1-5 (click to visit).
it contains a critical analysis of the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5 and a refutation of the connection with matthew 24:3, and therefore, of the expression "sign" + "last days".. the article is divided in the following parts:.
introductionthe composite nature of the expression "sign of the last days"the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5the message of 2 timothy 3:1-5two fallacies about the "last days"conclusiondue to its lenght, i won't post it in full here, only the introduction:.
I've just published on my website a new article: THE "SIGN OF THE LAST DAYS" AND 2 TIMOTHY 3:1-5 (click to visit)
It contains a critical analysis of the context of 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and a refutation of the connection with Matthew 24:3, and therefore, of the expression "sign" + "last days".
The article is divided in the following parts:
Due to its lenght, I won't post it in full here, only the introduction:
----------
"The expression “sign of the Last Days” is a common occurrence in the literature of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, this is such a familiar expression that is a constant fixture in the ‘theocratic lexicon’ that the Witnesses use in their meetings, ministry and casual conversation. Here are some examples from recently published literature:
“While giving the composite sign of the last days, Jesus raised this question (…)” – The Watchtower 2009 6/15 pp.20 §1
“(…) as to other features of Christ’s sign of the last days (…)” - Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are They? What Do They Believe? pp.15-18
“ (…) a Christian may be conscious of the sign of the last days but (…) “ – The Watchtower 2011 10/15, pp. 3-5
However, using the search tool to search for this expression on the Watchtower Society’s own New World Translation of the Bible, available at the Online Library section of the official www.jw.org website, one can quickly realize that such expression cannot be found on the Bible.
What is its origin? And what does 2 Timothy 3:1-5 have to do with it?"
-----
I hope you find it useful.
Eden
so where are his buildings, monuments, in real life ?
why cant archeologists find them ?
where are the tourist attractions ?.
don't get me wrong, this forum currently has plenty of interesting discussions and posters, but, for those of you who weren't on the old jwd board in the early-to-mid-00s, man...i'm sorry but you really missed out on the glory years of this forum.
it was really a special, unique place then.
again, not dissing the current, but, that huge exciting wave of ex-jw internet activity that occurred in the early part of this century seems to have leveled off.
I was an intermitent curious lurker over the years, until I decided to come out and play earlier this year. Therefore, I don't recall much of the "old days". I do enjoy going back and reading threads where Leolaia has posted on. Having had my education on subjects related with History and Human Sciences, her historian approach to the subjects appeals much to me (not to mention I like her avatar...mmm :P). I also appreciate much the resourceful Blondie when it comes to research within the archives of the WTS.
I do notice a trend lately that people with an open belief in God are immediatly confronted - even bashed -about that very basic belief - as if everything they could argue becomes inherently devalued because of that original "flaw". I'm not complaining about it; But it's a fair observation. That is a trait of intolerance. Curious, heh?
In any case, I really like it here. Frank and open discussion never hurts.
Eden
although there is no explicit commandment or stipulation that ordains child sacrifice in the bible, there are nonetheless numerous passages that discuss it as if it was being practiced.
this post lays the query out.
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/firstborn-sons-redeemed-or-not/.
Abraham can't be used in the context of "child sacrifice". Isaac was about 25 years old when that trial took place. He was no defenseless child. He was a full grown adult that could have easily resisted and overpowered his elderly father if he chose to. His willingness to go through it was a prophetic drama pointing towards Jesus' own willingness to sacrifice himself to do his Father's will. You may like or dislike the very concept, believe it or discard it as folklore, but please be intellectually honest and don't use this episode as an example of Yahweh wanting "child sacrifices".
Eden
at the circuit overseer's talk last week he made the comment that some "of the friends" are finding it difficult to move ahead with jehovah's organization (tm).
the co said that a few had asked, "is it necessary to have 5 meetings a week, and a magazine every other week?".
"couldn't we do without one meeting a week, and have monthly editions of the watchtower?
I do believe that JW's will go down the route of mainstream. They have been already. Doctrinally, it will be a mess, and it will take a lot of re-writing of our own history to forget about our radical past. But the trend is clearly there since the passing away of FW Franz.
Eden
wiki: "william miller (february 15, 1782 december 20, 1849) was an american baptist preacher who is credited with beginning the mid-nineteenth century north american religious movement now known as adventism.
among his direct spiritual heirs are several major religious denominations, including seventh-day adventists and advent christians.
later movements found inspiration in miller's emphasis on bible prophecy.
Wiki: "William Miller (February 15, 1782 – December 20, 1849) was an American Baptist preacher who is credited with beginning the mid-nineteenth century North American religious movement now known as Adventism. Among his direct spiritual heirs are several major religious denominations, including Seventh-day Adventists and Advent Christians. Later movements found inspiration in Miller's emphasis on Bible prophecy. His own followers are known as Millerites."
I've once described the Jehovah's Witnesses as "children of William Miller". What I didn't realize until today is that, at some point, the WTS acknowledged just that, even crediting Miller for a role in the Bible prophecy. In a passage from "The Finished Mystery" book, page 163, there's a commentary on Revelation 9:14. Apparently, William Miller, between 1829 and 1844 is the 'voice from the golden altar before God'. He's also indicated as a member of the "little flock", which is, according to the book, "the consecrated Church". The whole thing is utter nonsense, but it's curious that at some point, William Miller was reckoned as a member of the "little flock" with a prominent role in denouncing the "Evangelical Alliance-Spiritism movement".
Eden
in the course of my continuing research on why believers insist that atheists are religious, i stumbled upon a website (link below) that proves beyond any doubt that atheism is a religion.
you can imagine my chagrin upon discovering that i, as an atheist, belong to a religion after all.
i'm not exactly a member in good standing yet, but i'll work on it as hard as i can.
Phizzy
Do share TTATT on meatballs, please ....
Eden
please don't make posts to inform people that you have sent them a pm..
Simon, it would be useful - not sure if possible - that the top right of the page would show some kind of indication that a new PM has arrived. This would eliminate the need for routine check up of the PMs. I know I don't do it that often.
Eden
how can the following be proved to be scriptural?.
what possible evidence supports these teachings and policies?.
1. jesus surveyed all christian denominations and chose the "anointed" under judge rutherford for his approved church in the year 1919.. .
Ok, Terry, I'll bite :P
1. Jesus surveyed all christian denominations and chose the "anointed" under Judge Rutherford for his approved church in the year 1919.
Unscriptural, unproven, unprovable.
2. Charles Russell predicted 1914 was date for the return of Christ rather than Armageddon.
The understanding that 1914 was the date of the return of Christ was only set after 1914. Until then, the expectation was that 1914 would be the date of the Armageddon.
3. There are two classes of saved christians and the majority will not have a heavenly hope.
There are indeed two classes, the "144.000" that will rule with Christ, and the "great crowd". However, both have a heavenly call. This was the pre-1935 understanding.
4. The bible is only written for the anointed and not the majority of christians who must, instead, turn to the Governing Body.
Unscriptural. Actually, anti-biblical.
5. Jesus is NOT the mediator between Jehovah and the great crowd of worshippers but the Governing Body itself is.
Unscriptural. Jesus is the mediator for all Christians.
6. Declaring apostasy when any member diaagrees with the men of the GB or the Elders who parrot their policies.
Over-zealous interpretation of the Scriptures. Such interpretation lacks love an mercy.
7. Branch committees and not local congregations decide who is a child molestor and who will be declared a predator. Notifying the police is not automatic procedure.
Abiding by the law of the "Superior Authorities" is paramount here, since child molesting is more than a sin, it's a public crime, and should be dealt accordingly and promptly, prioritizing the protection of the victim.
8. Declaring it a disfellowship offense for mothers to speak a greeting to DF'd children. Family must shun ex-members even if they aren't speaking out against the religion.
The only time "total shunning" ("do not even invite them in or greet them" - 2 John 10) is called for is when dealing with "antichrists", former Christians who turned their back on Christ and God, and who teach others to do so. As far as other common sins, Paul said "you must not associate with" (1 Cor 5:11) meaning, that social and spiritual close relationship with such person should be avoided. However, this doesn't rule out greeting, verbal or written communication when needed. This is not a command for total estrangement.
Eden
