Comments You Will Not Hear at the 10-24-04 WT Study
There isn't an official "association" list here in the US.
Many of the elders have made up lists of the names/addresses/phone numbers of the baptized members of the congregation, sometimes separated by book study groups. They have been cautioned not to give them out to the "publishers" since they have been used for sending out invitations to weddings, tupperware parties, etc.
I know that the elders have been told not to put it on their hard drive due to "security" reaons.
It does seem strange, jgnat, that they would give him a copy but not considered him "worthy" to be on it.
While my husband was a MS and elder, I made up one for him and kept it up to date. He made it a point to greet every new person and got that vital info and I updated his list. As a book study overseer, school overseer, and secretary, he needed this.
Do some congregations have an unofficial "list"? Sure, but I have never seen it in writing. It is passed along by word of mouth.
Great review again, Blondie,
Much guilt and blame seem to be what the WT is dishing out on their menu these days. Supporting those who are weak has turned to blaming and rejecting those who are weak. Why do so many leave the WT Org if it is such a wonderful spiritual paradise filled with a loving supportive brotherhood? Because plain and simple--IT'S NOT!
The truth is: Many have been downright traumatized by the mental and emotional manuipulation they experienced when under the control of this organization and then blamed in the end for their suffering. On top of that we face the slander and rejection by those (former friends and family) continuing to practice the rules of this Organization.
At first I was somewhat apologetic towards these people--trying to be respectful of their beliefs that I could no longer be a part of. This is a hard line to walk though and it seems for me any contact with them on any level is not a healthy experience. Sad to say I am now working on the loss of 20 years of friendships and some family still in there. But there are many good people in this world who have offered me love and support--something I could not count on coming from the WT Org.
Love and hugs to all,
Hey Blondie, another great review!
Say, I've got a question about the theme text. The lesson states that the "Lord" mentioned in Eph. 6:10, is Jehovah. However, when you look at other translations (that don?t force the name of God in places where it shouldn't be), I?m wondering if the "Lord" referred there isn't Christ Jesus? Take a look at chapter 6 in different translations, and you?ll see what I mean.
Good question, cyberguy. I was going to put that in the review and forgot.
In cases where the Bible writer is quoting from the OT, then we know he means God not Jesus. In this scripture there is no cross-reference given after the word Lord.
It is apparent to me that Paul meant Jesus if we look at the context of Ephesians 6:10.
In verses 7 and 8 we see that the WTS has inserted Jehovah although they are not direct quotes from the OT. Their reasoning is found in Appendix 1D of the large NWT.Rbi8 pp. 1564-1565 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures
To know where the divine name was replaced by the Greek words Κύ ριος and Θε ό ς, we have determined where the inspired Christian writers have quoted verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures and then we have referred back to the Hebrew text to ascertain whether the divine name appears there. In this way we determined the identity to give Ky´ri·os and The·os´ and the personality with which to clothe them.
Because the WTS has done that in verses 7 and 8, it implies that verse 10 must mean "Jehovah." But there are many cases where Lord is used in a passage yet not meaning that Jesus was meant in both, or God was meant in both.
But in verse 10, even the WTS is not bold enough to put Jehovah. But they have implied it by putting Jehovah in verses 7 and 8.
I don't agree with the WTS tactics. The WTS tries so hard to eliminate Jesus from their doctrine. It is as if Jesus is only an impersonal hammer that God uses. That is why they took the name Jehovah's Witnesses rather than something that indicates they are Christ's followers. Amazingly enough, for several years after 1935, the "anointed" JWs did not think that the "great multitude" were JWs. Only those who were spiritual Israelites could take that name. Even the administration thought that. Until 1938 the GM/GC were not even invited to the memorial or before 1935 were not even required to get baptized.
willyloman - right on!
I actually attended this "study" today. If you think it is bad here, imagine the eager comments for brother "toe the line" that conducted the study. What jumped out at me today was the ridiculous attibution of power to Satan. Whether or not you believe in Satan or a dark force, is he really responsible for all of the problems that this article portrays? Don't you get sick of this, and worry for the little children in the audience that are learning to fear that Satan will literally devour them??? I wonder where James is in all of this; he stated that each of us is drawn out and enticed by OUR OWN DESIRE!! Last I checked, Satan could not force anyone to do anything he or she didn't already premeditate; so why the OBSESSION with Satan? Hmmmm........maybe to keep us all in FEAR and needing to stay close to the ORGANIZATION?? This study really sucked to be at. I wanted to scream. And it was preceded by an equally illogical discussion of "acts of God" versus "disasters brought on by man". In this talk, no mention is made of "time and unforeseen occurence", ya know, everyday life just happening. BLONDIE..............just shoot me.
I am SO looking forward to next week's review. Not just anyone can get away with putting on "the complete suit of armor" Roman-style. But perhaps they have become forward thinking enough to allow room for a certain amount of individual choice in such matters...(sisters, once again, will be afforded slightly less protection. sorry. and children? forget about it. no junior's sizes available. so what's new?)
But perhaps they have become forward thinking enough to allow room for a certain amount of individual choice in such matters
Not this side of Armageddon!
I agree with you in your conclusion. However, regarding your statement, may I suggest you reconsider: ?In cases where the Bible writer is quoting from the OT, then we know he means God not Jesus. In this scripture there is no cross-reference given after the word Lord.?
From Ray Franz?s books, I learned that with many of the quotes or paraphrases from the Old Testament, the writer evidently projects YHWH to Jesus, not that the two are the same, but because Jesus was now placed in a position similar to YHWH, to the congregation, then in that way, Christ is now viewed in a similar fashion.
For example, Ray sites Romans 10:5-15. The Society says that almighty God is the one spoken of in verses 11-15, however, as Ray (I believe, correctly) points out, the base Greek NT-text uses Lord, and in the context, the quote was applied to Christ Jesus, as the ?name? that should be ?called on.? ? see
Anyway, I now feel that many/most of the quotes by Christian writers, quoting from old testament scriptures originally referring to YHWH, were projected onto Christ!
Just my 2-cents -- love your posts, blondie! I?m glad this board has folks like you! Cyberguy
cyberguy, I meant to put in that is the WTS reasoning. I'm no scholar. Ray's explanation sounds good.
I try to amuse and inform.