Posts by Magnum

56

Is There Anything About The Witnesses That You Like?

by minimus in

jw
friends

anything??

?.

Magnum

OK, I was kind of thinking, as was said above, that maybe some of the individuals are nice people and I like them, but right now I can only think of two that I like, one current elder and one former elder. The former one is honest, asking good questions, and doing deep research. I have some indications that the current elder might be waking up. So that's why I like them.

Individual JWs make we want to puke. They're so self-righteous, delusional, and smug. I'm thinking right now of one friendly, seemingly caring, seemingly humble elder, but I can't say I like him because he's so delusional, lacking in intelligence, passive, etc. He lacks the backbone and strength of the former elder and current elder I mentioned.

So, I like very few individual JWs. If they leave the org, I might like them.

I honestly right now can't think of anything I like about the org. I have sentimental & nostalgic feelings about old times in it when I really believed it all. But all those things that make me feel that way are gone..... the old exciting district conventions when we thought the end was imminent and we thought we might get new info at them.... going out of town to them and putting Watchtowers & Awakes where they were visible in the rear window so fellow JWs passing us on the road would recognize us & blow at us..... the old fruit bags at the conventions..... they way the teachings seemed to make sense..... the admiration/adulation I had for higher-ups (elders, COs, GB, etc).... all gone.

56

Is There Anything About The Witnesses That You Like?

by minimus in

jw
friends

anything??

?.

Magnum

I'm thinking, too. Let's see.... Hmmm...

Will get back with you if I think of something.

51

So Spill the Beans, Brothers: Were There More or Fewer At this Year's Bore-Fest

by steve2 in

the jw date-worshipped memorial has just completed its bleak worldwide commemoration.

that wasn't a dust cloud you saw; it was a millionfold hearts limply beating themselves into another round of great tribulation expectations.

i was knocked into a deep, deep sleep by the imagined experience of being at several thousand consecutive kingdom halls as the platformed drones spat forth the predictable sludge that, once released, hits and stains white clothing and bleach is useless.. we know that memorial attendance worldwide has dipped for two consecutive years since 2011 when it reached a high of 19,374,737 and for the promised land, obama's usa, the all time memorial attendance high was also 2011 when it hit over 2.5million (2,563,518) but shrunk in shame back to 2,502,055 in 2012 and spluttered upwards a handful or two to 2,504,114 last year.. so, what was attendance at the date-obsessed bore-fest this year in your neck of the woods?

Magnum

Crazyguy:

The most important thing was that all the new ones at least at this hall looked like complete losers.

I noticed that they all looked like losers at the one I went to, also. There were some rough-looking visitors. I even saw a toothless lady in flip-flops (and it wasn't the cool kind like a cool surfer dude would wear). I don't mean to be cruel. I'd really help any of these people if they were deserving, but it's just indicative of what some of us have been saying - the days of JWs' attracting normal people with common sense and some education are largely over. The failed dates, ever-crazier doctrines, and ever-increasing availability of knowledge have contributed to that.

44

OMG!! Andre from the YPA video gave our Memorial talk.. My thoughts:

by BU2B in

jw
friends

our memorial was held at a music hall with roughly 1300-1400 in attendance.

there was a guest speaker from bethell, guess who??

andre!

Magnum

We had JW.org mentioned at the end. Wife & I looked at each other in disgust. When we left we agreed that it was so tacky & cheap. It just didn't feel right. Seemed disrespectful for the solemn, serious occasion. Seemed commercial.

77

Did You Go To The Memorial?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i didn't and i don't care about it..

Magnum

Just got home from it. Upon first driving up at the Kingdom Hall, I was extremely irritated at seeing the nutters in the parking lot. Then the opening song (one of the few slow, pretty ones) almost made me cry because I so wish it were all true; I miss the times when I really believed it and had a hope. But as soon as that opening song was over, it was like being splashed in the face with cold water as I heard the voice of the chairman - a clueless dimwit who sounds like an old-time Baptist preacher.

I like JWs better when I'm not around them. Meetings do not encourage me or make me feel spiritual at all. I told my wife on the way home that I don't see why any visitor with a stable life and any education and common sense would want to go back after being at that meeting. Just the overall look and feel and presentation would lead him to have no desire to go back.

15

Factual, false, or phenomenon?

by stillin in

this strikes me as strange.

in the last few years i have met four newly associated, and in a couple of cases baptized, brothers in the congregations who say that they did long stints in secret branches of the military and that they were behind the lines, "wet work" operatives.

i might have considered it exceptional that one person who served in such a capacity would even go to church, let alone join up with the likes of jehovah's witnesses.

Magnum

It could be some macho self making myth

That was my first thought. A few years ago there was a brother in his 50's in a nearby congregation who went to nursing school. He was bragging saying that he was so smart, etc. that the school was telling him he ought to go to medical school. A few months later, he was no longer in nursing school. I was wondering why. His wife told a close associate of mine that he couldn't handle nursing school; it was too hard for him.

This brother makes up other stuff about his abilities, background, etc., too.

5

"Gospel Writing" -An Excellent Book

by metatron in

jw
friends

"gospel writing" by francis watson is an excellent book that examines (across 600+ pages) the process by which the gospels were written and the process by which they came to be accepted as canonical (as holy writ).. that's really a main point of the book - that there were many written gospels used and quoted by early christians and the 4 we have today were only accepted as 'word for word' inspired thru time as believers came to think of them that way.. a quote: "no religious, philosophical, or literary text enters the world with the label "canonical" already attached.

canonical status is a matter not for authors but for readers; it arises not from composition but from usage.

" (page 3).

Magnum

Thanks for the recommendation. Will get the book. This is the kind of stuff I'm interested in researching now.

if apostasy took off with the death of the apostles, then the "apostates" selected the books that make up the Bible - and there were lots of books and Gospels to choose from

I actually want the Bible to be true, but that's a hard point to get around.

12

Any new partakers this year???

by DATA-DOG in

i just wondered if anyone was going to partake this year?

when i learned ttatt, it became obvious that the wtbts was not god's organization.

it became obvious that if the bible was true, the wtbts's teaching on the "anointed" were false.

Magnum

It became apparent that I could devote my entire life to the study of ancient scrolls written by other humans and NEVER get any real answers.

I'm just strarting a real study of the Bible (outside of JWdom) and of religion in general, but I'm sort of feeling that I'm going to reach that conclusion, too.

I simply cannot devote energies to deciphering something that GOD could plainly tell me BEFORE I DIE, if he wanted to.

Why, if there is a creator, does he hide? I can understand making the search or quest a little difficult in order to test individuals to see who cares enough to put forth the effort. But I've been searching and questioning and begging in prayer for answers for decades, and instead of getting anwers to questions, I get more questions and I find more things that don't make sense. Why would a loving God not answer me when I have literally begged him on my knees in the middle of the night in an open field under a starry sky to answer me, and I've done that for years??? I get complete silence as an answer - nothing to indicate that he hears me or cares or even exists. Unless maybe my learning TTATT is an answer. I had been specifically praying for an answer as to whethers JWs were what they claimed to be. I already had a good idea, but I just wanted to make 100% sure.

20

Trinitiarian "proof-text" John 20:28 has some problems for "Trinitarians"

by booker-t in

all through my years as a jws and after i have always wondered about john 20:28 where thomas says "my lord and my god" to jesus.

i just could not find a suitable answer for this text to disprove the trinity doctrine.

i really never swallowed the jws intrepretation of "shock" by thomas something like "oh my god" but at the same time i had a gut feeling trinitarians were hiding something about this verse.

Magnum

I don't know what his being a teacher of Hebrew would have to do with his abilities in koine, but in any event...

I was thinking the same thing. And was it modern Hebrew or Biblical Hebrew?

In the case of John 20:28 the o kurios mou may not be intended as a direct address (and, therefore, would not be in the vocative).

However, the use of the nominative in exclamations can be used as "'a sort of interjectional nominative' (Robertson, p.461) and is a device for emphasis." Also, "[m]any grammarians call attention to the nominative 'in place of' or 'as' a vocative." (Vaughan and Gideon Greek Grammar of the New Testament p.25.)

I also agree with that.

20

Trinitiarian "proof-text" John 20:28 has some problems for "Trinitarians"

by booker-t in

all through my years as a jws and after i have always wondered about john 20:28 where thomas says "my lord and my god" to jesus.

i just could not find a suitable answer for this text to disprove the trinity doctrine.

i really never swallowed the jws intrepretation of "shock" by thomas something like "oh my god" but at the same time i had a gut feeling trinitarians were hiding something about this verse.

Magnum

I do not agree with him. We can't tell from the Greek to whom the words were being "directed", but we can tell that nobody, neither Jesus nor Jah was being addressed.

He is correct in saying that when one was being addressed as "Lord" the Greek word "kurie" was used. That's the vocative case.

English example: "Joe, bring me the hammer." "Joe" is vocative. Joe is being addressed as "Joe". It's different from "Joe brought me the hammer." In this case, "Joe" is nominative case. It's the subject of the sentence. Joe is not being addressed as "Joe".

Greek example: "My lord [Kurie], you are the one that knows." The elder is being addressed as "lord", so "lord" is in vocative case.

At Joh 20:28, the vocative case "kurie" is not used, so, in my opinion, no one is being addressed. Jesus is not being addressed, and neither is Jah. I used to think that maybe when John realized what was going on, he looked up to heaven and referred to Jah as bing "my lord", but I don't think the Greek allows for that. As I said, since "lord' is not in the vocative case, I don't think anybody is being addressed.

What case of the word "lord" was used at Joh 20:28? "kurios". Nominative case, the cased used for subjects and predicte nouns. Examples: "Joe brought me the hammer" (nominative case - "Joe" is subject of sentence). "My cousin is Joe" (also nominative case, but here "Joe" is not the subject, but is a predicate noun).

So, main point: At Joh 20:28, evidently nobody is being addressed since "kurios" is nominative case, not vocative. It seems that the word is serving as a subject or predicate noun. I tend to think it was serving as a predicte noun and that John was actually saying "you are my lord [kurios]" with the words "you are" not stated, but understood.

It would be like this. Suppose I live in medieval times and there is some dispute as to who is the king in the land in which I live. I witness a man perform an act that proves he's the king. I look at him in awe and simply say "my king". I'm not addressing him as "my king"; I'm meaning something like "you are my king".

So I think John was saying, in effect, "you are my lord". Now, we are still left with the issue of at whom he was looking or to whom he was directing the words. My first guess would be Jesus. But I believe it is possible that he could have, at the moment of his realization, looked up and said to Jah "my Lord and my God", meaning "Jah, you are truly my Lord and my God".

However, the latter doesn't seem as logical because as far I know John wasn't doubting whether Jah was Lord and God; it was Jesus he was doubting. If John had questioned the existence of Jah and had seen Jesus perform a miracle, then I feel that the latter could have made sense. Seeing Jesus perform a miracle could have increased his belief in Jah. But again, I'm not aware of his doubting Jah.

The JW's point about Peter is not even relevant as far as I can tell. Peter was being addressed as "Satan". The Greek word was "Satana" (vocative case). But nobody believes Jesus was saying that Peter was literally Satan. What's the guy's point? I'm not seeing it. Peter was addressed as "Satan" but I agree that he isn't Satan, so what? What's his point? Nobody was being addressed at Joh 20:28. The Greek word under consideration is nominative, not vocative. I see no relevance.