Posts by Doug Mason

2

Signs of the Times

by sass_my_frass in

hi all, i haven't been around a lot, mostly due to study commitments.

the course is going well although i got very stressed out last year at the workload and have decided to take more breaks and take longer to finish it.

i'm looking at seven years at the mo!

Have you seen the book "The Sign of the Last Days - When?", Jonsson and Herbst, Commentary Press (ISBN 0-914675-09-5)

More to the point is to read Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 VERY CAREFULLY, and you will see that Jesus was protecting his disciples from deceivers who would use signs as indicating the "end of the age" was near.

Jesus was saying to them, do not listen to these false prophets, because there would be wars, since nations would fight.

Jesus NEVER points to the size, length, number of casualties, and so on. No, he was pointing to the deceivers who were, even as Jesus was speaking, attempting to use these events as indicators.

Do not interpret the Bible through the use of contemporary history. Look down the centuries and you will see so many examples of people who have done this, to their complete downfall. The WTS is no different from these ancient soothsayers.

The only one important thing is to KNOW that God offers salvation as a gift. Accept that gift, whether you stay in one organization or another, or in none.

Doug

58

How do JWs explain John 20:28?

by Zico in

much is made of john 1:1 in trinitarian discussions and there's a lot of debate over how it should be correctly translated, depending on your particular bias on the jesus god issue, but surely there is no scripture more clear that jesus is god than the one where thomas directly calls him god in john 20:28?

27next he said to thomas: put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing.28in answer thomas said to him: my lord and my god!

how do jehovah's witnesses deal with this scripture?

Doug Mason

I think it is important to separate "nature" from "role".

Firstly, "nature":
What are the innate attributes that make the Father to be "God"? I am still waiting for the semi-Arian WTS to provide its understanding.
In what way is the nature of the eternal Son different from the nature of the Father? This can be answered at the human level -- a human child has the same human nature as its father.

Regarding "role" (as in subordination, for example):
The essential attributes of the nature possessed by a person are not altered by the role they assume. For example (again at the human level), a person might hold a position of high office, but they possess only the very same attributes of human nature that are possessed by every other person.
Jesus obeyed and prayed, but he did not divest his pre-existent nature when he added the attributes of perfect human nature.

It would be surprising if it were possible to understand God, for He is on an infinite plane. Only Jesus is in completely unity with the Father, so much so that one can look at Jesus and know the Father.

We must ensure we do not make God in our image.

Doug

29

Who really was The Great Lawgiver!!

by Gill in

following up from a thread i was reading yesterday, there seemed to be a beilef that the bible was the source of much of the laws and principles followed and enforced around the world nowadays.. however, 500 years before moses supposedly climbed the mountain and came down with the stone tablets, hammurabi, the babylonian king and also know as the 'great lawgiver' climbed a 'high place' and came down with a copper scroll and laws from god which still serve a basis of law all over the world.

it was hammurabi who introduced fines for law breaking, instead of the usual barbaric life taking!.

hammurabi elevated women, who although still not at 'full rights' of men, were allowed to divorce and treated fairly in the law.. so, the laws of the world are not based on the bible, instead the israelites attempted to follow the humane example of hammurabi who really was the great lawgiver!

Doug Mason

Regarding the accounts of Hammurabi and Moses going into a high place to gather God’s Law, I think there are two issues that should be kept apart: the “process” of bringing the Law down and the “content” of the Law.

The Bible writers did not operate in a vacuum. Each writer was a product of their own times; they reflected their own culture. Each wrote for a specific local purpose.

The writer who described how Moses received the Law from God was probably aware of the story that told how Hammurabi climbed a 'high place' and came down with laws from God. If so, the people would have been equally aware, thus allowing the writer to build on their knowledge, and turn their minds to his True God.

One would expect the contents of each set of Laws would be different, given the polytheistic worship that the Hebrew writer was trying to make the people drop. There are few monotheistic religions: three that owe their origins to Abram, Jews, Christians and Moslems, which were preceded by the Iranian religion of Zoroaster. So one should not be surprised to see similarities from that earlier source, which the Hebrew writer could draw on, rather than drawing on Hammurabi.

One should be very conscious of the role played by the Jerusalem priests during the compilation of the Scriptures during the 6th century Babylonian oppression and captivity. The priests had agendas as they combined their sources for the Law of Moses and other writings. Hence their discovery of the Law at an appropriate time during Josiah’s reign.

For example, they placed the prohibition on the contemporary practice of cutting flesh from a living animal and eating it while it still dripped with blood by placing the prohibition at a point in history that was common to them all: the story of the Flood. Their opponents would have understood their intention, since they too had a story of a universal flood.

Matthew’s Gospel provides examples where a known story is taken and is then molded into a later setting, such where Matthew collects similar sayings and forms them into the Law delivered by Jesus from the Mount.

Doug

7

Will Earth's Rulers Ever Serve Jehovah? (Rev. 21:24)

by bjc2read in

does bible prophecy show earth's rulers will serve jehovah?

(revelation 21:24).

have you ever wondered about the expression "kings of the earth" found in revelation 21:24?

Doug Mason

Will the Governing Body ever serve Yahweh?

Doug

10

A little help from you bible brainiacs ;)

by rassillon in

i wanted to throw this out there just to make sure i got my facts straight.

i have been researching this but i am still trying to weed out those thoughts planted during a life as a jw.

i will just ask the questions and not cloud with my own view but would like the input from you guys....girls too!

Doug Mason

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” (Rom 1:16, 17, NIV)

The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” (Gal 3:8, NIV)

Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal 1:7-9, NIV)

16

a little confused

by emilyblue in

i think my head is a little messed up from my recent relationship with a man who is a jw.

i attended a few meetings and bible studies with an older woman who i met at the first meeting.

i am not going to become a jw because i can't give up holidays and birthdays, but i do have a few questions.

Doug Mason

asleif_dufansdottir,

You are absolutely correct.

JWs believe everything the Governing Body (aliases include: 144,000 and FDS) because of WHO it claims to be.

Doug

10

moral decay

by Borgia in

i was just skimming through the awake magazines we got on last sunday.

the cover story is about morals.

the thing that immediately caught my eye was the explicite standpoint that the morals of this world went into decay in 1914. .

Doug Mason

Read what Paul said about moral decay IN HIS OWN DAY! Writing to Timothy, Paul warned him:

Mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God — having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.

Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth — men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone. (2 Tim 3: 1 – 9, NIV)

Doug

2

Resolving differences

by Doug Mason in

the following is edited from a book that provided me with a solid grounding when i was a new christian.

that book provided me with principles i have carried into my older age, and i would like to share one of those principles with you.

resolving differences of opinion .

Doug Mason

The following is edited from a book that provided me with a solid grounding when I was a new Christian. That book provided me with principles I have carried into my older age, and I would like to share one of those principles with you.

RESOLVING DIFFERENCES OF OPINION

Concerning the great fundamental Biblical truths there can be no major difference of opinion. But, owing to the finite limitations of the human intellect, there may be sincere differences among believers of equal consecration, competence, and experience on other points.

Absence of controversy is not to be construed as evidence that we are holding fast to sound doctrine. Differences of opinion tend to spur men to a more diligent investigation of the Scriptures. When these differences are approached in the right spirit, and the fallacies of non-valid positions are revealed, truth shines forth more clearly.

The more a person learns of truth, the more closely they are expected to reflect the spirit and character of the Author of truth in their dealings with others. Truth makes a person more humble, less critical of others, and less inclined to feel that others must conform to their own pattern of thinking. Truth will not make a person egotistical, arrogant, contentious, or intolerant of others who may prove to be equally as sincere, even though they may err in judgment.

Candid and fair-thinking people consistently apply the golden rule in a patient attempt to resolve differences.

When Bible principles are conscientiously followed and when differences of opinion are left on the intellectual level, they need never become the occasion of personal differences.

The search for truth is in no way concerned with personalities. Peter and Paul were not always in perfect agreement, even on vital issues; yet both were mighty men of God and outstanding Christian leaders.

More often than not it is pride of opinion that separates Christians. They should value the bond of fellowship above individual concepts of truth, and will accord those who honestly differ from them the same confidence and respect they themselves expect of others. They will seek above all things to preserve the bond of Christian fellowship.

All sincere believers are our companions in the quest for truth, and we should avoid giving the impression, or even surmising, that we are certainly right and that those who differ from us are certainly wrong. Their concept of truth might prove to be right after all.

Pride of opinion is most reprehensible. We should put forth as sincere an effort to see things from the other person’s point of view as we desire them to make in seeing our point of view.

Truth is the important objective, not what we think about it, whether we be right or wrong. Those who think they will never have occasion to give up cherished views or change their opinions are sure to be disappointed.

God has entrusted to no person the duty of making others see things just as they do. Even Christ did not seek to silence his avowed enemies. No person is obliged to accept our conclusions, and we have no reason for disappointment when they do not see light in them.

The sincere seeker for truth will never consciously misrepresent an opponent, speak disparagingly of them, or make light of their opinions, either in their presence or in the presence of others. Theological intolerance is a most contemptible form of narrow-mindedness.

To reconcile differences of opinion, the following procedure will prove helpful:

* Approach the problem with an open mind. The objective is not to determine who is right but to discover what is truth.

* Most words have more than one meaning, and the impression they make on one mind may be entirely different from what they make on other minds of different temperament, education, experience, and habits of thought.

* Examine the evidence submitted and the conclusions drawn from it, applying sound principles of interpretation.

* Analyze points of disagreement that still persist and ascertain the basic reasons for them. Find common ground. Discover areas of agreement and seek to extend them. Avoid the tendency to magnify differences, particularly when these are of minor importance. Seek to minimize and eliminate points of disagreement.

* Freely acknowledge points for which evidence is inconclusive, and which may be in need of further study. Avoid affirming more than Inspiration has clearly stated.

* Points on which agreement cannot be reached should be dismissed for a time and made the subject of prayer and further study. Avoid everything that would tend to arouse controversy and the spirit of bitterness.

18

The first time Jesus was on Earth

by purplesofa in

i have been thinnking today, where in the bible does it say that christ will come the first time.

and i really wonder why there was such a long wait for his arrival.

what purpose did it serve?

Doug Mason

I do not think you will find the expression "second coming" in the Scriptures. When speaking of the future manifestation, I think it only says "coming", without "second". Perhaps this indicates that the future manifestation is a continuum of his earthly ministry 2000 years ago?

Also, we need to be very careful when referring to Paul's use of "Law" (nomos). For example, I believe that the expression "faith apart from law" is not speaking about faith apart from Moses or the Hebrew Scriptures (two meanings for "law"), but is speaking of using obedience ("legalism") to earn favor from God. In other words, Paul is using "law" qualitatively.

His intent can be indicated in the Greek by his use of the definite article ("the") or not with "nomos". There are nuances in the Greek that are most difficult to transfer into the English idiom.

Doug

25

Inspired? Spirit Guided?

by unique1 in

my fathers arguement is always that the fds is not inspired so their humanity causes them to get things wrong.

they are merely spirit directed.

i realized a main flaw in this arguement last night.

Doug Mason

Witnesses who excuse the Governing Body's mistakes do so because of whom the GB claims to be. This is far far more important than anything it says.
(This should be addressed with the help of the neo-Babylonian chronology, since it shows the Governing Body's underhand tactics and removes the basis for their existence.)

But even more so, these Witnesses know full well the draconian consequences of saying anything against the Governing Body, even within the home.

So they say things they have to say, rather than what they would say if they were free to do so.

So, rather than feeling anger, I have such deep deep sorrow for them.

(I think that "draconian" is named after a Greek guy Draconius who said that any crime, no matter how small or how large, should receive the identical punshment. That's going by memory, so you would need to check whether I am correct.)

Doug