Thank you Moggy Lover.
Your astute insight makes great sense to me.
I am told that in "The Golden Age" magazine, 1930 page 503, Rutherford wrote: "Jesus has been present since 1914".
I am also told that in 1932, in "What is Truth?" he wrote "The prophecy of the Bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfilment thereof, shows that the second coming of Christ dates from the fall of the year 1914".
I want to be able to see the actual citation for myself, in the context if possible.
I am writing a complex document and want to be absolutely certain there is absolutely no opportunity for someone to find a minor error to focus on.
Regards, Doug
Doug Mason
JoinedPosts by Doug Mason
-
12
Rutherford and 1914 "coming"
by Doug Mason ini have seen the 1929 book where rutherford stated that christ's parousia took place in 1874. .
in the course of my research, i have seen people claiming that during the 1920s, rutherford dated the "coming" of christ at 1914. .
i do not want to repeat hearsay, and would like to hear from people who have the original documents or verifiable photocopies.
-
Doug Mason
-
12
Rutherford and 1914 "coming"
by Doug Mason ini have seen the 1929 book where rutherford stated that christ's parousia took place in 1874. .
in the course of my research, i have seen people claiming that during the 1920s, rutherford dated the "coming" of christ at 1914. .
i do not want to repeat hearsay, and would like to hear from people who have the original documents or verifiable photocopies.
-
Doug Mason
I have seen the 1929 book where Rutherford stated that Christ's Parousia took place in 1874.
In the course of my research, I have seen people claiming that during the 1920s, Rutherford dated the "coming" of Christ at 1914.
I do not want to repeat hearsay, and would like to hear from people who have the original documents or verifiable photocopies. What did Rutherford actually say during the 1920s regarding either "Parousia" or "Coming"?
If during the 1920s, Rutherford states that the Parousia occurred in 1914, how can this be reconciled with his 1929 book?
Doug -
9
ROME on HBO
by Sasha inon sundays episode the camera panned past a man who had beeen crucified.
i noticed that he was on a pole, and not a cross.
is that because christianity had not been introduced yet?
-
Doug Mason
In the Appendix to their 1950 NWT NT (pages 768-771), 1969 Interlinear (pages 1155-1157) and the 1971 Large Print edition (pages 1360-1361), the WTS cites a rare 16th century book by the Catholic Scholar Justus Lipsius. They show a picture from Lipsius' book, showing a man suspended on a single stake. The WTS wrote that this was the manner employed by the Romans with Christ.
Fortunately for me, our library has a copy of that rare book and I obtained a photocopy of the whole chapter. The book shows any number of methods (St Andrews Cross, upside down, conventional cross with the victim upside down and feet spread on the cross beam, etc., etc.).
Interestingly, after conducting his research, Lipsius concluded that they used a cross with a cross arm, as conventionally shown.
If this is correct, and an archaeological find in 1968 suggests it could be so, the nails would have been inserted into the wrists or lower arm, not the hands, since the nails would have been ripped out under the victim's weight. On the 1968 archaeological find, the feet were also tied to the upright and nailed to it.
If anyone is keen to make a scan of the pages from the old book and make it available on the www, I can provide a photocopy of the pages. It includes a translation of some of the Latin text. There are probably 60 pages, or thereabouts.
If the WTS deliberately misrepresents what Justus Lipsius wrote on a non-issue, what does it do when the issue does matter?
Doug -
10
Is the Subject of Blood Covered in other early Christian writings?
by Clam indoes anyone know if the subject of blood is evident in any early christian texts?
in acts i understood the advice on abstention was more relevant to blood sacrifices at the time of writing.
over the first few centuries a.d. did any other writers feel it necessary to deal with a subject, which to the jws is of such paramount importance?
-
Doug Mason
You will find reference to several early church Fathers in my Paper: "The Watchtower's Handling of Blood" -- look at pages 33 to 36.
You can download it at http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/blood.html
Acts 15:29 is not speaking about the consumption of blood. As with every other use of “blood” in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, the word refers to “death”, usually a violent one.
The experience of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity under Nebuchadnezzar left them with a deep collective memory they never could erase. (The book of Revelation draws on this.) This memory was constantly reinforced every Sabbath when the Scriptures were read to them.
During the Babylonian Captivity, when Ezekiel heard that Jerusalem had been destroyed, he wrote to the Jews:
“Therefore say to them, `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Since you EAT MEAT WITH THE BLOOD still in it and look to your IDOLS and SHED BLOOD, should you then possess the land? You rely on your SWORD, you do detestable things, and each of you DEFILES HIS NEIGHBOR’S WIFE. Should you then possess the land?” (Ezekiel 33: 25 - 26 NIV, emphases supplied)
Note the parallels between this statement by Ezekiel and the statement made by James centuries later.
“You are to abstain from FOOD SACRIFICED TO IDOLS [“look to your idols and shed blood”], from BLOOD [“your sword”], from the MEAT OF STRANGLED ANIMALS [“eat meat with the blood still in it”] and from SEXUAL IMMORALITY [“defiles his neighbor’s wife”]. You will do well to avoid these things.” (Acts 15: 29 NIV, emphases supplied). See also verses 20 and 21.
When the issue arose again later between Christians of Jewish background (Acts 21:20, 24) and those of a Gentile background, the reasoning is repeated:
“As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should ABSTAIN FROM FOOD SACRIFICED TO IDOLS, from BLOOD, from the MEAT OF STRANGLED ANIMALS and from SEXUAL IMMORALITY.” (Acts 21:25, NIV, emphases supplied)
These passages in Acts are thus saying to the Gentile Christians that when they understand the importance that the statement by Ezekiel has to those Christians who had been Jews, they will understand the importance circumcision has for them.
This confirms that by “blood”, James is speaking of death, a point made by early church fathers. Those Gentiles will “do well” to know how seriously the Jews take their heritage, so they should make allowances and be tolerant. -
13
Is the "Kingdom" a "government"?
by Doug Mason inmy understanding is that the wts says the "kingdom of god/heavens" is a "government".
where do they get that idea from in scripture?
i presume that by "government" they mean "a system of exercising authority through an executive policy making body".
-
Doug Mason
The responses to my original question support the position that the WTS does mean "government system" when it says "Kingdom of God/Heavens".
As I asked: Where do they get that idea from in Scripture?
I have looked at the Scripture references given in that article “Kingdom of God” in the WTS book "Insight on the Scriptures", where it seems that the rationale is intuitive. Or have I missed something?
Doug -
13
Is the "Kingdom" a "government"?
by Doug Mason inmy understanding is that the wts says the "kingdom of god/heavens" is a "government".
where do they get that idea from in scripture?
i presume that by "government" they mean "a system of exercising authority through an executive policy making body".
-
Doug Mason
the WTS says the "Kingdom of God/Heavens" is a "government". Where do they get that idea from in Scripture?
-
12
When we quote from the bible to prove a point do we have any right?
by Qcmbr inone thing you'll see me and many others do is the good old bible bash with scriptures flying around.
i cannot move away from the idea however, that when we cannot agree on the interpretation of scripture how can we possibly claim our understanding is superior to anothers?
yet upon such topics hangs the supposed destination of one's soul.
-
Doug Mason
Jeff
Thank you for your comments, which are perceptive and well made.
You have decided you are agnostic, and I respect you for making a decision. And we must live in accord with our personal convictions, else we are hypocrites. Those in religious authority, such as the GB of the WTS, do not permit their followers to express their personal convictions, but I salute you for doing that. Our beliefs will differ, but we can still remain friends.
As I said, neither doctrine nor belief, nor any word from Scripture can save; only God can. He is the Judge, not any man.
Regarding Scripture, we must recognize that the writers were addressing their contemporaries. As you point out, this includes the writings I rely on to say that salvation is a gift (letter to the Romans, in particular).
These are old documents from a different time and cultures. So to understand their message and purpose, one must climb into the times and minds of the writers and their intended readers. We must smell the sawdust, hear the babble of many voices in the marketplace. How did they think? How did they express themselves?
Thus you can see that I believe “higher criticism” is a vitally important exegetical tool. It is far more important than trying to “score points” or to “prove” a doctrine.
Using higher criticism as an analytical tool helps to show me what Paul meant when he spoke of “wages” and “gift” regarding God’s offer to people – whether they belong to a formal group or not – Jew, Christian, Agnostic, Muslim or Calathumpian. God is the Judge, and he will do right, else he is not God.
Have you read “The Bible Unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (ISBN 0-684-86913-6, paperback)?
The WTS treats Scripture as some mystic document containing types and parallels that apparently point forward to their own history, such as in the 1930s. What a travesty!
Doug -
12
When we quote from the bible to prove a point do we have any right?
by Qcmbr inone thing you'll see me and many others do is the good old bible bash with scriptures flying around.
i cannot move away from the idea however, that when we cannot agree on the interpretation of scripture how can we possibly claim our understanding is superior to anothers?
yet upon such topics hangs the supposed destination of one's soul.
-
Doug Mason
God does not save a person based on the correctness of their theology, wisdom or eschatology. This is as it should be, since every one of us holds to erroneous understandings.
What matters is to accept that which God offers as a free gift. The offer needs to be continually accepted (see: "Life in the Son" by Shank). This gift of salvation cannot be earned as a wage, since the price has already been paid. This is too simple for many people and they resort to using Scripture as a hammer.
The books and letters that comprise the Scriptures were written to an immediate audience, using their contemporary speech, idioms and so on. They were not written to someone living in the 16th century, 21st century or the 26th century. They are records, not books of systematic theology.
Doug -
13
Is the "Kingdom" a "government"?
by Doug Mason inmy understanding is that the wts says the "kingdom of god/heavens" is a "government".
where do they get that idea from in scripture?
i presume that by "government" they mean "a system of exercising authority through an executive policy making body".
-
Doug Mason
Hi Moggy Lover,
Yes, I did write "Witnessing the Name", and I thank you for your comments. I wrote that some 20 to 30 years ago, when we had nothing like the www for research (mind you, some institutions place low esteem on a study based on the www, preferring the good old "library" technique.)
You will find a copy of it on the "NWT" page of my web site http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940 (follow the prompts, as they say).
I posed the question about "Kingdom=government" because I am in the throes of putting down some thoughts on the foundations and claims of the "Governing Body"
I have been deciding how to address the matter of "kingdom". I am coming to the decision that the issue deserves a separate document, and in this document I shall restrict my thougts to "kingdom" in the direct context of the overall topic.
Regards
Doug -
13
Is the "Kingdom" a "government"?
by Doug Mason inmy understanding is that the wts says the "kingdom of god/heavens" is a "government".
where do they get that idea from in scripture?
i presume that by "government" they mean "a system of exercising authority through an executive policy making body".
-
Doug Mason
My understanding is that the WTS says the "Kingdom of God/Heavens" is a "government".
Where do they get that idea from in Scripture?
I presume that by "government" they mean "a system of exercising authority through an executive policy making body".
Am I correct, or wrong?
Doug