Watchtower Comments THE GENERATION CHANGE Featuring LEOLAIA

by V 221 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  slimboyfat

  What Christ’s disciples should do is what they did in the second century when they realized that the pa-rou-si'a was still not realized. THEY GOT ON WITH THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. Sure, they hoped and waited and were ready in case Judgment Day suddenly beckoned unannounced. But that did not prevent them from living normal lives. It is one thing to be ready in case it happens, it is an entirely different thing to falsely claim with certainty that it is at hand.

  Oh Lordy, Leolaia is this really the advice you would give someone on how they should respond to the material in Matt 24? Would it not be better advice to acknowledge that, since the author of Matthew made a mistake in stating the end would come in the first century, he was not an inspired writer after all and we would be better off not in any sense revolving our lives around what he wrote? Get on with our lives and - give up the idea of "readiness" for a never-coming-Jesus altogether!

  I can't help but see your advice as problematic whatever way I approach it. It appears (from indications in what you have elsewhere written) you are not yourself a "believer" in any sense in the objective truth Christian of the story. So is it not just a little presumptuous to be summing up "what Christ's disciples should do"? Much of your analysis was excellent on a textual level and I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I can do without the moralising about how believers should believe from someone who does not herself in fact "believe".

  And who is to say adopting a so-called second century "lack of urgency" approach would be the best thing for current believers anyway? It rather implies that the believer should simply accept that an inspired writer got it wrong, or that Jesus himself in fact got it wrong, and build a new understanding of Christian truth around that inconvenient fact. I know liberal believers are capable of all sorts of contortions and concessions in this and many other regards. But whether such reasonings are truly more "healthy" than a JW view of the word/world is a moot point in my view. It could be argued that the untra-imminent-expectation approach of JW's is at least more congruent with their stated belief in the Bible's inspiration, and to the extent they can psychologically maintain those beliefs, perhaps also mentally more "satisfying" than the liberal approach you advocate.
• 

  Mary

  And who is to say adopting a so-called second century "lack of urgency" approach would be the best thing for current believers anyway?

  Why not just take a look at the dismal track record of hundreds of thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses who were so convinced that The End was "right around the corner" that they forsook education, marriage, having children, paying into a company pension plan or having a normal life. Centralizing your life around the doctrine that Christ is going to return any second now, has prevented countless Christians from having a decent life----they all died in vain waiting for Jesus to come back. So yes, I think Leolaia's suggestion that we try to live our lives as normal as possible is far preferable to what the WTS has suggested.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Well it is not what I would choose myself either at this point Mary, but really who is to say that a "normal life" is objectively better than what Witnesses have chosen? If they really believe it right up to the end (of their lives or indeed of "the system of things", take your pick) then who is to say that was not a satisfying life? I personally recoil from the presumptuousness of that stance.

  Say I have a thoroughly "normal" (by societal standards let's say, but even here I am finding it extremely problematic - what on earth is/should be normal, who gets to decide? Is it a majority vote?) outlook on life. What good does that do me if I am miserable with it? And if a JW is thoroughly deluded, but happy with it, then who am I to denigrate that?

  Fundamentally I am simply not so confident that any world view is so correct that we all must aspire to it. And in the absense of a correct world view to measure the Witnesses against I find it hard to know on what basis I should label theirs defective.
• 

  Layla33

  Wonderful, V. Keep up the good work.
• 

  scholar

  AnnOmaly

  Amateurish it is, scholarly it is not but is simply a diatribe dressed up as scholarship against the Lord's people. For starters, there is no evidence of wide reading or research, there is no use of Lexica, Commentaries or Journal articles support her opinion. Further, many of the areas that she touches on are the subject of much varied opinion within scholarship which she fails to mention to the reader. She creates the opinion that all matters are black and white or true and false such as we are wrong but I/she is right which is deceit at its very best. Leolaia from her earliest postings has always shown a preferenc efor extra-Biblical sources which is OK but not at the expense of careful hermeneutics of the Sacred Text.

  Also, she implies that the use of Eisegesis is unwise or is misused but for the record I would contend that eisegesis is a sound hermeneutical practice and is most essential in understanding Bible prophecy and is necessary in the current interpretation of the Olivet Discourse,

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Mary

  Post 9247

  A quality typical of apostates is 'gulliibility' and when someone writes a piece against WT doctrine even if it is dressed up as scholarship then it is instantly accepted by all without a moment of criticism. I have printed out her opinion and have carefully examined here facts, logic paragraph by paragraph and it is simply fraudently and I have already posted my reasons for saying this. Further, I invite her to defend her pretensions with me and I expect that we will be debating these matters soon. I may be many things and there are many things that I am not good at but one thing I am good at and that is spotting a fraud either in the long distance or close up and this nonsense is deceptive and fraudulent, So there1

  So if you so smart and are convinced by this opinion of Leolaia then perhaps you could give me a simple reason why parousia means coming and not present in the context of Matthew 24. Come on and have a go.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  Post 11706

  I am fully aware of the scholarly opinion of Markan priority over Matthew and Luke but this is simply a form of criticism without any sound evidence. For starters, the matter of dating the Gospels is to be preferred in my opinion over the meanderings of scholars on this subject. Matthew is the longest book and Mark is the shorter so it is difficult to see that an abbreviated Gospel could somehow be antecedent to a much longer Gospel, Matthew. Further, Matthew was written in first in Hebrew rather than Greek which was not the case with the other Synoptics. Evidenced indicates that Matthew was also written first in the year 41 CE in Palestine with Mark composed in 60-65 CE at Rome.

  Therefore, there are at least 3 sound reasons for arguing against assumed Markan priority. I think you have lost yourself in the murky mire of higher criticsm.

  scholar JW
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Wow "Scholar", you took my thoughts exactly!!!... well almost. Let's say:

  Amateurish it is, scholarly it is not but is simply another Watchtower Study article dressed up as scholarship for the R&F. For starters, the WT article has no evidence of wide reading or research, there is no use of Lexica, Commentaries or Journal articles to support their opinion. The only references they use are their own publications, of rather questionable reliability as their latest version of "present truth". Further, many of the areas that the WT article touches on are the subject of much varied opinion within scholarship which they fail to mention to the congregation. They create the opinion that all matters are black and white or true and false such as whatever they published before wasn't really "lies" or "wrong" but were merely "untruths" or "previous misunderstandings that Jesus is now shedding new light on". Yet, as they change their "Bible based understanding" frequently, they still claim to be the only channel for divine truth, which is deceit at its very best.

  Oh, and they value the confidentiality of pedophiles above the protection of innocent children.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  A quality typical of apostates is 'gulliibility' and when someone writes a piece against WT doctrine even if it is dressed up as scholarship then it is instantly accepted by all without a moment of criticism.

  It sounds like you are describing the Watchtower study today...gulliibility [sic]...written doctrinal pieces dressed up as scholarship...INSTANTLY ACCEPTED BY ALL WITHOUT A MOMENT OF CRITICISM...
• 

  truthseeker

  Scholar,

  I'm sure that Leolaia could make her own defense, however I will make a defense for her.

  She is a very well read person who has amazing knowledge about issues and subjects I never knew existed or considered.

  She is very articulate and I find it easy to ready and understand what she says without having to keep re-reading it.

  At times when I still believed the organization had the truth she did write things that disturbed my own reality - but I had to face my own reality

  and accept that maybe they and I were wrong.

  I'm not saying Leolaia is the best scholar out there, I know little of her background but I do know that she takes the time to research things well.

  Using extra-biblical resources is a good thing rather than just accepting that every single word in the Bible was directly transmitted from God to the 40 writers.

  I had to accept that if Jehovah allowed his name to be removed from the Bible then he was quite willing to allow other changes to be made.

  Other than the 10 commandments and utterances of Jehovah, there is very little that God has asked man to record directly.