if anyone is interested, i have a question about baptism.. i know that in the bible jesus told his disciples to go and gather up all people .
who were willing to listen and make disciples of them baptizing them etc..etc..etc... so basically there would be a kinda pyramid effect taking place from that moment.
in time and on until the end of this system of things.
... But I have always had a problem with the idea that it has to be done only at a convention of witnesses and only under their rules and regulations.
The good thing about conventions is that there are no rules. Sit on the front row on Saturday, rise, yes, yes, and take the plunge. No one will or can stop you. I've seen it happen.
---
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
can ya believe it?
another memorial!!!
who's going to do the talk, the prayers over the emblems, prayer before meeting.
I shall never forget how as a little boy I was so totally baffled: my parents were helping cleaning up the hall after the memorial, so we children had to wait. I saw an elder pour all the wine into a bucket used for cleaning, tipping in the matzes, carry the whole thing to the mens room, and flush it. He left the door open, so I could watch it all from point blank. In all memorials I've sat through since I couldn't stop wondering how they would dispose of it this year.
---
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
what is your favorite movie line?
please mention the movie line and why it is the best.. my favorite movie line:.
"ever since i was a kid...i always wanted to be a gangster.".
Villager: We should defend ourselves! An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!
Tevye: Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.
--- Tevye the milkman, from "Anatevka - Fiddler on the Roof"
This movie is part of JW-folklore from my youth. I remember how in several congregations we went to this movie in large groups. Similar in the UK or USA?
---
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
today's watchtower lesson instructs witnesses not to think for themselves when it comes to bible understanding:.
augest 1, 2001, p. 14, par.
first, since "oneness" is to be observed, a mature christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned.
While we're at it: I'd still like to receive a scanned image of this page. I recently leafed through the translated copy and it still has this little yellow Post-IT sticker on to remember me.
Anyone care to put it under a scanner and mail it to me?
---
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
yoyo says:.
i wanted to prove to myself that what the watchtower says about apostates is true.. now what a refreshing idea!
am i correct in assuming that you did this also for other topics the watchtower has opinions on?.
I have no further comment regarding the 607 BCE and the 539 BCE date. I will have to do some more research on that subject.
This is indeed worrying. You stated that this was an easy subject. And now it isn't so easy after all. What it shows is that the depth of your research most certainly hasn't resulted in PROOF TO YOURSELF that what the Watchtower and the organisation publishing it, has taught, and still teaches, you and many others.
Yet you want to discuss topics that are even more complicated than this one. And your comments reflect that you do not understand how 539 is just one of the lower cards in Watchtower doctrinal house-of-cards and what its effect might be on for example the teachings about 1914. You don't grasp that by understanding the REAL TRUTH about 539 and the derived datings, almost all Watchtower time-magic goes up in puff of real truth, and that it for example invalidates all doctrines that they have tied to the events that supposedly happened, visible or invisble, in 1914, whether it is Daniel 2, Malachi 3, Matthew 24, or the whole Revelations-shebang.
You might conclude that your beloved anointed friend or relative isn't living in the heaven. You might conclude that there is no paradise waiting around the corner. And since the Watchtower made you believe that your religion is not some hat for Sundays but a way of life, you might conclude that you've lived a lie. It might even make you conclude that the GOVERNING BODY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE WHO THEY CLAIM THEY ARE since their sheer existence is based on the 1914 doctrine. If that is somehow invalidated the whole organisational part of the WTBS turns out to be a fraud, not to speak about their sometimes damaging doctrine for millions during the last fifty or sixty years, or their shameful treatment of so many. These are very serious conclusions, and they may shock you profoundly. They will probably change your life completely once you accept them. They will bring freedom but accompanied with tremendous pain caused by the shunning of your former friends and loved ones.
Many here have gone this path. At first we turned our heads in disbelief, we branded it 'apostate' and we brushed it all away. Yet some of us recognized the logic and truthfulness of some of this so called 'apostate' material. We started to do some research, we asked questions to those whom we respected for their knowledge and wisdom. Yet we didn't get any answers. Our honest questions were brushed off, we were told to wait for Jehovah or similar claptrap. Some of us indeed decided to wait, to wait for long years and continued to be loyal. But the answers never came, yet more questions arose. Some decided to write to the org it self or contact some org brass they knew or met. That didn't help much either. Instead some were accused of not being loyal and having no respect for holy things. Some were disfellowshipped, others decided to disassociate.
There's nothing 'easy' in this topic, Yoyo. Actually it is only the first step on a probably sad path to freedom. If you decide to walk it you can find a lot of help and comfort here. If you don't and just continue to ridicule and fight those that have more respect for real truth than you, that's okay too. There are enough worthy opponents here for that.
You had --- and far as I am concerned still have --- an excellent opportunity here to prove your beliefs and to back up your bold statements. Answer questions 5) and 6) and I will continue spoonfeeding you more truth about 'the truth'. Until then you're no longer a credible and worthy discussion opponent, especially not in more complex doctrinal issues than just this 'simple' one --- this according to your own saying.
---
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
yoyo says:.
i wanted to prove to myself that what the watchtower says about apostates is true.. now what a refreshing idea!
am i correct in assuming that you did this also for other topics the watchtower has opinions on?.
What sets 539 apart from other dates agreed on by mainstream historians?539 is an absolute date. 539 is also a date where sacred and secular historical events coincide. Other dates, like the 586 date for the fall of babylon does not fall into that category.
I take it that you mean by 'absolute' the meaning 'Not to be doubted or questioned' (which is how my dictionary defines it). By itself that doesn't explain anything about why 539 would be an undoubtable or unquestionable date. By calling it absolute I think it should be obvious and completely clear why this date is undoubtable or unquestionable. It is also interesting that the Watchtower society stopped using the term 'absolute date' in 1971. But we'll get back to that later.
So far you have provided two reasons:
1) the Nabonidus chronicle;
2) secular historians, of which you mentioned Diodorus, Africanus, and Eusebius.
You statement that '539 is also a date where sacred and secular historical events coincide' is not relevant to this question since the arrival at is only 'absolute' in secular sense and not in sacred sense. There's nothing in the sacred history that by itself gives us an 'absolute' reference. The sacred history refers to a secular person, in this case Cyrus. The timeframe within secular history for this person is subsequently derived from secular data alone. Once this datum has been established it is assumed to be valid as well in the sacred history, and by some called 'absolute'.
But it is very important to understand that the fact that 539 may be called 'absolute' IS COMPLETELY BASED ON SECULAR DATA. Therefore your statement "It is the Bible or historians" leaves a lot to be wished for. Your 'Bible' by itself doesn't carry a single absolute datum. Events from its history can at best be called 'absolute' due to SECULAR DATA. So a more accurate description of your choice would be 'it is historians or historians'. But I digress.
Do you know how 539 BCE is calculated? You mentioned the Nabonidus chronicle. Exactly HOW does the Nabonidus chronicle point to this year?The quoted translation (of ANET) by itself is interesting. It mentions the Babylonian months of 'Tashritu' and the month 'Arahshamnu'. The part you quote however, doesn't contain any reference to years, but only to months. The number 539 is not mentioned anywhere, which is logical since it refers to a calendar that was invented ages after that point in time. So there needs to be some kind of reference on this Nabonidus chronicle that refers to something astronomical. Well, I can be short about that: there isn't.The date is calculated by astronomical observations.
The part that describes the year for the month of 'Tashritu' is damaged and illegible. If 539 is correct there should have been a reference to the seventeenth (17th) year of Nabonidus. But let's assume that this text was indeed legible, what would the Nabonidus chronicle by itself tell us? It tells that Babylon was captured on the 16th day of Tashritu in the 17th year of Nabonidus. Period. There are no astronomical observations on the Nabonidus chronicle.
However, it is very important that The Watchtower has told its audience from 1952 onwards the following:
This date is made Absolute by reason of archeaological discovery and deciphering of the famous Nabunaid Chronicle, which itself gives a date for the fall of BabylonThe Watchtower February 1, 1952, p. 94.
That the above statement is misleading, not to say untrue, was acknowledged some twenty years later when the Watchtower conceded that the Nabonidus chronicle by itself could not be used to derive 539. You can find it in The Watchtower of May 15th, 1971 on page 316. The Society from that point on didn't call 539 an 'absolute date' anymore, but instead used the term 'pivotal date'.
Therefore YoYo, I must ask you again, how does the Nabonidus chronicle point to 539? I gave you some clues above unless you want to challenge them of course. My next question for you therefore is:
5) Where can we find the 'astronomical observations' you mentioned in your answer?
If you've answered that one, I'll come back to the answers you gave on my questions 3) and 4).
Now I should address the historians you mentioned. I had a hunch which ones you'd be referring to and I was correct in my hunch. This gives way to my next question.
6) How can Eusebius, Africanus and Diodorus (or their works) be used to derive 539?
After being asked by me, you brought these up as credible historians. So you should know about their work and how it can be used to prove the correctness of 539. If you indeed looked up the Watchtower of May 15th, 1971, you will find a clue there. It's called olympiads. But be careful... if you just parrot the WT you may find yourself in trouble real soon now. I also advise you NOT to mention Ptolemy's Canon. If you intend to do so, you'd better be aware of what the WT says about it in other places, such as when they discuss Artaxerxes. But again I digress.
---
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
yoyo says:.
i wanted to prove to myself that what the watchtower says about apostates is true.. now what a refreshing idea!
am i correct in assuming that you did this also for other topics the watchtower has opinions on?.
LPH, some here are under the impression that YoYo is a thruthful honest person. I am trying to find out about that by having a sincere discussion that doesn't smell apostate all over the place. I might be feeding a troll after all, but I'm willing to invest some effort.
Let us see how well he can back up his statements and proof his beliefs. There are many here, including myself, who could easily torch him but what's the use? He has already started dodging simple questions so if he proves to be another YK-styled coward it'll show soon 'enuf.
---
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
yoyo says:.
i wanted to prove to myself that what the watchtower says about apostates is true.. now what a refreshing idea!
am i correct in assuming that you did this also for other topics the watchtower has opinions on?.
The Nabonidus chronicle stone points to the year 539 BCE as the fall of Babylon. This is just one of the proofs. There are many historical sources that support the year 539 BCE as the fall of Babylon.
So I understand that the Nabonidus chronicle is one of the most important proofs you accept. You claim however that 'there are many historical sources'. Can you mention at least two that you consider the most important of the 'many' and why?
So it is an "accepted date" without any question.Please note that I nowhere challenged this. I just want to understand to what extent you have proven for yourself the truthfulness of this date, since it plays an important role in Watchtower theology. Since you seem to be aware of its important role in time reckoning it is utterly important to be correct and to fully understand the how and why.
It is with sadness that I see that you haven't answered all of my questions. Let me rephrase them once more:
1) What sets 539 apart from other dates agreed on by mainstream historians?
2) Do you know how 539 BCE is calculated? You mentioned the Nabonidus chronicle. Exactly HOW does the Nabonidus chronicle point to this year?
3) Why do you accept the Nabonidus chronicle as a truthful archeological artefact?
4) Are there other archeological artefacts you do or do not accept and if so why?
As said before, you yourself indicate that the date of 539 BCE is pivotal. So once more I'd like to draw your attention to the four questions above and ask you to answer these.
---
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
yoyo says:.
i wanted to prove to myself that what the watchtower says about apostates is true.. now what a refreshing idea!
am i correct in assuming that you did this also for other topics the watchtower has opinions on?.
There is a pivotal date that historians agree on and that is 539 BCE as the year Babylon fell to the Medes and the Persians (this according to the Nabonidus Chronicle stone).
Thanks for your answer. I'd say however, that we haven't reached the level of 'proof' yet. Let's dig a bit deeper:
Do you care to explain any further why you do accept the date of 539 BCE? The fact you mention 'that historians agree on' it, is easily countered by the fact that you appear to reject other dates that these same historians agree on as well. So what sets 539 apart? By the way, do you know how they got at 539 at all?
I'd like to ask a similar question about the Nabonidus chronicle. Why do you accept it? Are there other archeological artefacts you do or do not accept and if so why?
---
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
... http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html.
uo
*** w85 1/15 16-17 A Government That Accomplishes What Man Cannot ***The mind has a huge potential for learning, even in man’s present imperfect condition. But this is only a fraction of what it will be able to learn in the New Order, where sin will not block its functioning. In The Brain Book the author states: “Within our own heads lies one of the most complex systems in the known universe. Its power and versatility far surpass that of any man-made computer.” He adds: “It is frequently stated that we use only 10 percent of our full mental potential. This, it now appears, is rather an overestimate. We probably do not use even 1 percent—more likely 0.1 percent or less.”
It is interesting that the Watchtower has no problem in explaining this supposed inhibited brain function: a human does this himself since he is sinning! And the initial 10% wasn't enough for the boys in writing and they could get it down to one tenth of a percent. But 10 years later things get better:
*** g95 10/22 8 Designed to Live Forever ***No references this time, but they diminished our brain power once more by an order of magnitude!Neuroscientists say that during our present life span, we use just a small part of our potential brain power, only about 1/10,000, or 1/100 of 1 percent, according to one estimate. Think about it. Is it reasonable that we would be given a brain with such miraculous possibilities if it was never to be used fully? Is it not reasonable that humans, with the capacity for endless learning, were actually designed to live forever?
An interesting statement comes from the more skeptical minded:
One reason this myth has endured is that it has been adopted by psychics and other paranormal pushers to explain psychic powers. On more than one occasion I've heard psychics tell their audiences, "We only use ten percent of our minds. If scientists don't know what we do with the other ninety percent, it must be used for psychic powers!" ...http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.htmlThe most powerful lure of the myth is probably the idea that we might develop psychic abilities, or at least gain a leg up on the competition by improving our memory or concentration.
By attributing this myth to human sin the Watchtower tries to enhance the 'reward' or 'the prize', when according to them there is no more sin. They also use it in the context to explain away some of the objections against everlasting life, such as a per definition limited brain potential which is likely incompatible with infinities of any kind, especially time.
---
Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
