Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses is available from ElihuBooks.
[url]www.elihubooks.com[/url]
Current price is $14.95
back in the 1517 the catholic priest martin luther posted his "95 theses" on the door of a church in wittenberg and began the protestant reformation.
martin luther did not mean to start a revolution, though he attacked certain legalistic doctrines of the church and questioned the authority of the pope.
called to recant, he replied, "unless i am convinced of error by the testimony of scripture or by clear reason, i cannot and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience.".
Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses is available from ElihuBooks.
[url]www.elihubooks.com[/url]
Current price is $14.95
back in the 1517 the catholic priest martin luther posted his "95 theses" on the door of a church in wittenberg and began the protestant reformation.
martin luther did not mean to start a revolution, though he attacked certain legalistic doctrines of the church and questioned the authority of the pope.
called to recant, he replied, "unless i am convinced of error by the testimony of scripture or by clear reason, i cannot and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience.".
P.S. The title should have been "Three Dissertations" - The Witness Reformation?
back in the 1517 the catholic priest martin luther posted his "95 theses" on the door of a church in wittenberg and began the protestant reformation.
martin luther did not mean to start a revolution, though he attacked certain legalistic doctrines of the church and questioned the authority of the pope.
called to recant, he replied, "unless i am convinced of error by the testimony of scripture or by clear reason, i cannot and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience.".
Back in the 1517 the Catholic priest Martin Luther posted his "95 Theses" on the door of a church in Wittenberg and began the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther did not mean to start a revolution, though he attacked certain legalistic doctrines of the church and questioned the authority of the pope. Called to recant, he replied, "Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture or by clear reason, I cannot and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience."
In his "Three Dissertations," Witness apologist Greg Stafford similarly questions certain legalistic doctrines of his "church" and questions the doctrinal authority of his "popes." He defends his position as being honest and conscientious.
Are we at the beginning of the Witness Reformation? Already young Staffordites are rushing to defend their mentor against charges of disrespect for authority. Martin Luther did not intend to break with his church, nor does Stafford with his. But if the rank and file of Jehovah's Witnesses feel as oppressed by legalism as the rank and file of Europe's 16th century Catholics felt oppressed by church dogmatism, who knows what can occur?
today i received greg stafford's new book three dissertations on the teachings of jehovah's witnesses.
for those who don't know, stafford has been a staunch defender of the watchtower society's teachings for at least six years, on the net and in print.
his previous book, jehovah's witnesses defended (1998, 2000), is a milestone in pro-jw literature.. the new book is a radical departure from stafford's previous book in that he strongly questions the society's doctrines about blood transfusions, the basis for the claim of spiritual authority by jw leaders, the necessity for christians to believe the society's 1914 doctrine, and issues of "legalism" including the propriety of requiring "time" in the field ministry to be reported, and even the supposed scriptural basis for the society's ban on celebrating birthdays and christmas.
So you think someone with a Divinity Degree would make mincemeat of Mr. Stafford?
Don't you know that even scholars with Doctorial degrees have differences of opinions on Greek and Hebrew grammar?
A degree does not necessarily make anyone more competent to deal with the Biblical text.
today i received greg stafford's new book three dissertations on the teachings of jehovah's witnesses.
for those who don't know, stafford has been a staunch defender of the watchtower society's teachings for at least six years, on the net and in print.
his previous book, jehovah's witnesses defended (1998, 2000), is a milestone in pro-jw literature.. the new book is a radical departure from stafford's previous book in that he strongly questions the society's doctrines about blood transfusions, the basis for the claim of spiritual authority by jw leaders, the necessity for christians to believe the society's 1914 doctrine, and issues of "legalism" including the propriety of requiring "time" in the field ministry to be reported, and even the supposed scriptural basis for the society's ban on celebrating birthdays and christmas.
Is Greg Stafford saying anything different from what Ray Franz said (originally)?
Hopefully, the times have changed and the passing years have brought in a dose of humility to the organization, and Mr. Stafford will not have to suffer the fate of Mr. Franz.
ok, this post isn't out to prove anything, other than i've got too much time on my hands, which alot of you know that already.. over my morning coffee this morning i decided to read the section of the bible dealing with nimrod and the tower of babel.
i have two bibles at home the nwt and the new american standard.
heres what th nwt says at gen 10:9.
The examples cited are not mistranslations by the NWT, since they deal with logical possibilities within the meaning of the Hebrew words cited. And any translation, whether literal or not, should take context into consideration. Further, a literal translation from one language to a completely different language family -- for example from the Semitic branch of languages (Hebrew) to the Germanic/Indo-European branch (English) -- will have to merge its literalness with explanatory terms to bridge the differences. Otherwise, you do not have a translation, but an interlinear.
Jewish commentators, who certainly understood the Hebrew language, have long explained Genesis 10:9 to mean that Nimrod was a "mighty hunter before [literally, "in the face of"] YHWH" in the sense of a rebel against God. According to the classical Jewish commentator Rashi, "lifnei YHWH, it was his intention to provoke Him to His face. He captured the minds of people with his words and misled them into rebelling against the Omnipresent."
"In opposition to" is a legitimate rendering of the Hebrew preposition[lifnei, since the grammars demonstrate plainly that it can have a hostile sense (Exodus 20:3; 1 Chronicles 14:8; 2 Chronicles 14:9, etc.), implying defiance and opposition. (Brown, Driver, Briggs; Koehler & Baumgartner, etc.)
do you want to read this year's memorial talk outline?
of course you can, and you can naturally find it on the watchtower observer :).
yachyd da.
No, Jesus did not say 'keep doing this until I return.' Paul said something similar to that at 1 Corinthians 11:26, but he did not use the word 'parousia,' which Witnesses believe occurred in 1914. Paul used a form of the word 'erchomai' [elthe], which simply means "to come; to arrive." This could well mean when Christ arrives/comes in judgment at the end of the world.
So, you think all pedophiles go to church? Do you think that religious organizations are the only places where pedophiles lurk? It is a human problem, not a religious one. Most religions condemn preying on children, and this sort of activity is prevalent as an ignoring of religious principles, not a practice of them.
The same is true of Jehovah's Witnesses. Where is the proof that they are a "pedophile's paradise," as Silent Lambs said? Where is the proof that any religious dictum of Jehovah's Witnesses condones pedophilia? The last I checked, Jehovah's Witnesses are stringently against all sorts of illicit sex, including incest and pedophilia.
That some individuals among Jehovah's Witnesses have been found guilty of pedophilia does not make the organization a pedophile's paradise, nor does the fact that a few have found a loophole in the Bible requirement of two witnesses to a crime, do so. There are many laws in general society that criminals find loopholes in; this does not make the laws wrong or "protective" of criminals. Would we wish to do away with Miranda Rights and other Constitutional protections, just because some enterprising crooks misuse them?
Pedophilia is a grave sin and an abhorrent crime. But where is the fairness in painting with too broad a brush, in condemning an entire group of people for the bad acts of a few who are in violation of the norms of the group?
Unlike Catholics, Witnesses have no official requirement of celibacy for ministers (which may contribute to unnatural desires), no official boarding houses or camps where child abuse may run rampant, no official policy to shield lawbreakers or unrepentant sinners. On the contrary, the "official" policy is to expel such ones.
That there have been individual breakdowns in the system, and individual shameful, aberrant acts by individual Witnesses, is just what it is, individual acts, and no more.
People with no ax to grind will see that.
in the watchtower magazine on page 7 it is claimed in postings on this site that there is the image of a cross in some artwork.. i'm holding a watchtower magazine (4/1/02) and on page 7, upper-right, is the tetragrammaton.
this is a good "control" image to compare in scans that might appear on the internet because it is too faint to reliably reproduce with a high-resolution scanner.
the background is faint yellow, and the tetragrammaton itself is white (the same white as the page itself).
I don't see either a cross or a tetragram on the crown.
Curiously, it looks a bit like the "all-seeing eye" of Masonic fame. But only slightly so.
Is there a bigger copy of the pic somewhere else?
i don't believe in re-inventing the wheel.
arguments about atheism, chronology, trinity, evolution can go on forever.. i like to bring up positions that are unpopular on this forum because most of the people here have given up their examination of certain issues assuming that they have "now" got the real truth.. the lack of critical thinking that is the cause of involvement in off-beat religions can lead to gullibility in other areas.
the stupid knee-jerk accusations i got when i attacked the molestation issue is typical.
Interesting reading! It appears that the theology of the anticultists is just as loaded with hype and hypocrisy as is the theology of the cultists. No need for facts and logic; just paint every enemy with the same broad brush. A strategy convenient and simplistic. And filled with holes.