Posts by Disillusioned JW

8

FOLLOW the MONEY : Pastor Russell makes it rain

by Terry in

pastor russell: follow the money.

charles t. russell, age of 13, joined the congregational church (dumped presbyterian).. he went (like girl scouts are sent out with cookies to sell) door to door to raise money for the church.. russell hated fundraising.

he had to ask poor people to part with their money.

Disillusioned JW

Or instead of them going to local churches, maybe it is time for them to become atheists and philosophical naturalists instead. See https://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911 .

36

Converted Greek Philosopher Explains Christianity in 125 AD

by Sea Breeze in

i ran across a pretty early treatise.

we were all taught that "real" christianity was lost to history and was only restored once russell and then rutherford restored it so that the wt could be appointed as god's "mouthpiece".

but, aristides wrote to the emperor hadrian and gave a pretty good synopsis of core christian belief in 125 ad.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, I was asking for your source of the Apol. 2 (namely what Aristides wrote to the Emperor Hadrian), not your source for the quotes of Ignatius. Though I see numbers at the end of your quotes of Ignatius, I don't see numbers in your first post at the end of the quote of what Aristides wrote to the Emperor Hadrian. I do however see a link to a book on Amazon called Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church. Is that your source? If it is, which manuscript did that source use for the translation? There are ancient manuscripts in at least two languages of the text and thus one of those manuscripts is likely less accurate than the other. [Update: I now see you made a post in which you provided the link of https://www.michaeljkruger.com/one-of-the-earliest-and-clearest-summaries-of-early-christian-beliefs/ as the source for the quote of what Aristides wrote to the Emperor Hadrian. Thanks, however I still don't know which manuscript was used for the translation quoted from by the author of that book.]

The translation posted by Terry says that Jesus was "was pierced by the Jews" but according to the Bible Jesus was pierced by the Romans (by the Romans nailing him to the stauros), though at the urging of some of the Jews, and according to the Gospel (accredited to) John a Roman soldier pierced Jesus by a sword. If Aristides really said that Jesus was pierced by the Jews then either that statement of his was incorrect (perhaps to avoid angering the Roman emperor), or the gospel accounts in the Bible are inaccurate in that matter, or both accounts are wrong (for example maybe Jesus never even actually existed - see https://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911 for example). Either way there is a problem in using that specific translation of the text of "THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES " to support your argument.

Terry, what is your source for the English translation of the full text of "THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES"? Is it from the book called Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church?

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

minimus, I have a confession to make to you. I don't want to ever have to be a juror. I don't want to risk making the mistake of convicting an innocent person, or of declaring a guilty person innocent. If I did end up as a juror I very probably would have a very hard time making a decision. When I first received a notice saying I was preliminarily selected to be a juror, I wrote a letter trying to get excused from jury duty. Fortunately the case was settled out of court (or my potential jury duty was postponed to another case). I didn't start getting jury summons notices until after I became a registered voter. See what happens when JWs (and former JWs) disobey the Governing Body? Fortunately all of the jury cases, that I received notices to serve jury duty for, have been settled out of court.

You nailed it, that is, you nailed me. But did you nail me to a cross or a stake? I'm not sure, since it is so hard to decide. To be safe I will just say it was to a staurous. (By the way the book mentioned at https://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911 probably is a good book to read.)

pistolpete, it is very possible that the cat was framed. It would be very easy for someone who hates the cat to have torn up the roll of toilet paper, then placed it in front of the cat, and then made the photograph. Just saying.

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

minimus, when I said I need to "do more reading about the matter" I primarily had in mind the reading of the sources referred to in this message thread. Thus far I have only skimmed the content of those sources. My view of Rutherford's character is not as favorable as my view of Russell, Knorr, Fred Franz, and Raymond Franz. My less favorable view of Rutherford is thus far primarily due to what I have read of what he said in some of his books.

Regarding the photo of Rutherford holding a glass containing a beverage, I don't know if the beverage was wine (or other alcoholic drink), unfermented grape (or other fruit) juice, or some other dark colored nonalcoholic drink. I don't know if the photo was taken when prohibition laws were in effect or at a different time. In looking at Rutherford I can't tell whether he was drunk or not. His facial expression looks happy to me, but other than that I can't tell from the photo what Rutherford's mental state was when the photo was taken.

36

Converted Greek Philosopher Explains Christianity in 125 AD

by Sea Breeze in

i ran across a pretty early treatise.

we were all taught that "real" christianity was lost to history and was only restored once russell and then rutherford restored it so that the wt could be appointed as god's "mouthpiece".

but, aristides wrote to the emperor hadrian and gave a pretty good synopsis of core christian belief in 125 ad.

Disillusioned JW

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/Introductory_Note_to_the_Epistles_of_Ignatius says (note, I added the bold face for emphasis):

"The following is the original Introductory Notice:—

The epistles ascribed to Ignatius have given rise to more controversy than any other documents connected with the primitive Church. As is evident to every reader on the very first glance at these writings, they contain numerous statements which bear on points of ecclesiastical order that have long divided the Christian world; and a strong temptation has thus been felt to allow some amount of prepossession to enter into the discussion of their authenticity or spuriousness. At the same time, this question has furnished a noble field for the display of learning and acuteness, and has, in the various forms under which it has been debated, given rise to not a few works of the very highest ability and scholarship. We shall present such an outline of the controversy as may enable the reader to understand its position at the present day.

There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelæ, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnæans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.

It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.

But after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains sufficiently complex. Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and

scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius. This was the opinion generally acquiesced in, from the time when critical editions of these Epistles began to be issued, down to our own day."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/Title_Page/Preface says (note, I added the bold face for emphasis) "The American Editor has performed the humble task of ushering these works into American use, with scanty contributions of his own. Such was the understanding with the public: they were to be presented with the Edinburgh series, free from appreciable colour or alloy. His duty was (1) to give historic arrangement to the confused mass of the original series; (2) to supply, in continuity, such brief introductory notices as might slightly popularize what was apparently meant for scholars only, in the introductions of the translators; (3) to supply a few deficiencies by short notes and references; (4) to add such references to Scripture, or to authors of general repute, as might lend additional aid to students, without clogging or overlaying the comments of the translators; and (5) to note such corruptions or distortions of Patristic testimony as have been circulated, in the spirit of the forged Decretals, by those who carry on the old imposture by means essentially equivalent. Too long have they been allowed to speak to the popular mind as if the Fathers were their own; while, to every candid reader, it must be evident that, alike, the testimony, the arguments, and the silence of the Ante-Nicene writers confound all attempts to identify the ecclesiastical establishment of “the Holy Roman Empire,” with “the Holy Catholic Church” of the ancient creeds."

36

Converted Greek Philosopher Explains Christianity in 125 AD

by Sea Breeze in

i ran across a pretty early treatise.

we were all taught that "real" christianity was lost to history and was only restored once russell and then rutherford restored it so that the wt could be appointed as god's "mouthpiece".

but, aristides wrote to the emperor hadrian and gave a pretty good synopsis of core christian belief in 125 ad.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, I don't think I ever came across information about the Apol. 2, Syriac before, at least one referring to Jesus as God, even though I once owned several volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and read some of what was written in them about Jesus if to see if they ascribed full deity to Jesus. In those volumes I found that the earliest ones considered authentic (instead of forgeries) by the editor of the volumes did not ascribe full deity to Jesus! The editor gave a list of the documents which he said were forgeries - including many attributed to Ignatius. In the introduction to his volumes the editor said the volumes show that Jesus was not originally viewed as God (or something to that effect - I read the material more than 15 years ago and I don't remember precisely what the editor said in his introduction)!

The volumes I had of the Ante-Nicene Fathers looked like the volumes shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers_(book)#/media/File:Church_Fathers.JPG , except that none of my volumes I had their dust jacket.

What is your source for the English translation of Apol. 2? I found a translation at https://ccel.org/ccel/aristides/apology/anf09.xiii.iii.html and that source does not say "“God came down from heaven” - unless one is making a misleading quote like the WT often does. The translation instead says "And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the most high God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men." Your leaving out the words "the son of the most high" immediately before the word "God" made a huge difference in the meaning. The next sentence in the translation says "And being born of a pure virgin, unbegotten and immaculate, He assumed flesh and revealed himself among men that He might recall them to Himself from their wandering after many gods." Maybe where it says "unbegotten" it means unbegotten by a human father, especially since the prior sentence said "son of the most high God".

The next paragraph in the translation contains the following sentence. "For they know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit4424; and beside Him they worship no other God." There it does say "beside Him they worship no other God" and some people probably interpret the word "Him" as referring to Jesus, but it could be referring to God the Father (whom the translation of the text also calls the Creator) since it mentions God before referring to God's only-begotten Son. That sentence also clarifies that Christians considered Jesus to be begotten. I think the "Him" referred to is God the Father of Jesus Christ - not Jesus Christ, and not the Holy Spirit either.

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

'Yet the Book of Job does not refer to just any adversary but to "the adversary.”

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and the satan came also among them" (Job 1:6).

"The adversary" is a member of God’s heavenly council, who says he had just returned "from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." God asks him what he thinks of Job, but being a kind of prosecutor, the satan says that Job is only being good because he is being rewarded for it. He convinces God to test Job's piety with a deluge of disasters.

A similar image of ha-satan, the satan as heavenly prosecutor, can be found in the Book of Zechariah (3:1-10), which is also believed to date from the early Second Temple period. In it, where Joshua the high priest is put on trial and accused by "the adversary." The Lord acting as judge rebukes him and sides with the "Angel of the Lord" who acts as the priest’s defense attorney.'

After mentioning later Jewish views about Satan, the article says: "The view of Satan and his demons as actual beings was criticized by more rationalist streams of Judaism and most prominently by Maimonides, the sage who lived in the 12th century. Over time, as Judaism advanced to the modern period, this rationalist view prevailed and Satan and his minions were interpreted, at least in mainstream Judaism, in more metaphoric ways: they emblemize the evil inclinations which man carries within him, and cause him to stray from the path set for him by God."

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

minimus, regarding what I said in my prior post, perhaps you didn't vote for Trump. But even if so, I hope you can see my point about some people having voted for Trump because of what they considered to be good about him, while they also acknowledge things about him that they consider to be bad.

Regarding Satan, I notice that you acknowledge that ".. in scripture, Satan can be an angel of light. Even when trying to tempt Jesus he used scripture to make his point." Further, in the book of Job, what Satan did to Job and others (as horrible as it was) was done with God's permission. I've noticed that according to Judaism Satan is not viewed in the Hebrew Scriptures exactly the same way that Christians view Satan. The religious Jews believe that in the Hebrew Scriptures (including in the book of Job) Satan is viewed as a prosecuting attorney in God's court (or in God's presence).

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/satan-the-adversary/ says "In Hebrew, the term Satan is usually translated as “opponent” or “adversary,” and he is often understood to represent the sinful impulse (in Hebrew, yetzer hara) or, more generally, the forces that prevents human beings from submitting to divine will. He is also sometimes regarded as a heavenly prosecutor or accuser, a view given expression in the Book of Job, where Satan encourages God to test his servant." Regarding some Christian ideas the Jewish source says "Some of these Christian ideas are echoed in Jewish tradition, but some also point to fundamental differences — most notably perhaps the idea that, in the Hebrew Bible at least, Satan is ultimately subordinate to God, carrying out his purpose on earth. Or that he isn’t real at all, but is merely a metaphor for sinful impulses."

The religious Jews also believe that what Christians call "the fall" of Adam and Eve (including inherited sin from Adam and Eve) was not a fall. Regarding what Christians call the fall (and inherited sin), https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5999-fall-of-man says "The story of the fall of man is never appealed to in the Old Testament either as a historical event or as supporting a theological construction of the nature and origin of sin. ... The Garden of Eden is not even alluded to in any writings before the post-exilic prophets (Ezek. xxviii. 13, xxxi. 9; Isa. li. 3; but comp. Gen. xiii. 10 [sic], and even in these no reference is found to [sic] the Fall. The contention that, notwithstanding this surprising absence of reference to the story and the theme, the Hebrews of Biblical times nevertheless entertained the notion that through the fall of the first man their own nature was corrupted, is untenable."

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

minimus, in light of principles you espoused in your post does that mean you did not vote for Donald Trump as President, since he is known to lie numerous times and that multiple women accused him of sexual harassment, or did you vote for him anyway thinking he had some good policies and made some truthful statements?

The comments I made about Rutherford were because I wanted him to be presented accurately and for discussions about him to not be entirely one sided. Furthermore when I began reading his books, I was not convinced of any of the accusations about him being a bad person (whether a drunkard, an adulterer, or a crook, or a liar). I am still not convinced of the accusations, though they now seem more plausible to me. I will have do more reading about the matter. But it is hard for me to believe any of the current and former Government Body members are (or were) very bad people while serving on the GB (or as President of the WT), due to my personal experiences with the religion and due to the emphasis in the WT literature of very high strict moral standards. But even if some have or had major flaws while leading the WT organization, every person alive has flaws and I try to acknowledge the good in people (even Donald Trump, despite me strongly disliking him), while acknowledging that certain ones have obvious major moral flaws. For example, many of the early USA Presidents owned slaves, but that doesn't mean their good actions shouldn't be acknowledged. Perhaps you think they should be 'canceled' from the history books (or that their good actions should not be mentioned in the history books) and that their statues should be toppled over and/or removed. I guess you feel I should "disfellowship" Rutherford in the sense of thinking I should cease all fellowship with him (in the form of reading his literature). What specific things did I write about Rutherford that you think were acts of me justifying him?

My studying his books helps me to be more aware of the religion I was raised in from infancy and of the degree of accuracy of their current teachings and of the degree of integrity of the organization. A number of books alleged to have been written by Franz quote from Rutherford's literature and invite JW's to read the literature. Thus reading the literature helps me to see the degree of influence Rutherford's literature has on the current JW religion (and also the way the religion was while I was an active member of it). But it is also because I have invested much time into the religion and I want to get something good out of it (rather than discarding every part of it 'along with the bath water' - to use a metaphor), and thus I want see if they have some truths and good ideas I had not already learned about. I haven't just been reading Rutherford's books, I have also been reading Russell's and the books produced by the WT after Rutherford died. I have about all of the WT books (except I sold nearly all of the WT bound volumes I had, but the text of those are on CD-ROM) that have copyrights ranging from the year I was born through about the year I became an atheist.

As far as Satan goes, I have browsed some literature by the Church of Satan (see https://www.churchofsatan.com/nine-satanic-sins/ ) and The Satanic Temple (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple ) to see if they were as people say, or if they might have some good teachings. To my surprise I noticed that most of their teachings are not bad and that many of their teachings sound humanistic instead. The latter group is actually a secular group in disguise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple says "The group uses Satanic imagery to promote egalitarianism, social justice, and the separation of church and state, supporting their mission "to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people". ... The organization's participation in public affairs includes political actions as well as lobbying efforts,[11][12] with a focus on exposing Christian privilege when it interferes with personal religious freedom."

Regarding Satan himself, if you read the Bible carefully in regards to its alleged quotes of Satan, you will notice that nothing the Bible quotes Satan as saying is said to false according to the Bible. For example Genesis 3:22 has Jehovah God say that Satan was technically correct in what he told Eve (about the effect of eating the forbidden fruit), though it wasn't what Eve expected. Also according to the account Adam and Even would have obtained eternal life, had not God blocked their access to the tree life. The account even makes God the liar because God said Adam and Eve would die in the very day of their eating the forbidden fruit (if they eat it), but instead God let them live for hundreds of years before dying.

In the Gospel accounts of Satan tempting Jesus Satan accurately quoted scripture to Jesus (no false quotes at all, though Jesus said Satan was not applying the scriptures properly). Furthermore in an account Satan offered Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would perform and act of worship to him, and WT literature says that Satan could legitimately make that offer since according to the Bible all the kingdoms of the world do belong to Satan. In the accounts of demon possessed men everything the demons said out loud was truthful (according to the Bible), including one proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God (see Luke 4:41). There was also the example of a woman having the power of prediction by means of a demon (or of an unclean spirit) and according to the account the predictions were accurate. The spirit of divination even said (according to the Bible) "These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim unto you the way of salvation." (ASV) According to the Bible what the spirit said was true. See Acts 16:16-18.

156

Remembering Rutherford

by Sea Breeze in

he seems to me to be the angriest and most ill-tempered of all the wt presidents, especially after his stint in prison and failed prophecies.. “regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he [rutherford] once confessed to us at bethel, “i made an ass of myself.”” watchtower 1984 oct 1 p.24.

rutherford died at beth sarim on january 8, 1942, at the age of 72.

[220] cause of death was...carcinoma of the rectum..."[21] .

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, did you notice that the webmaster of the site with the article about Rutherford's female companions (the article which you use as documentation) is an ex-JW who is now an atheist and who even has a book called State Atheism - Why is it necessary?. Considering your belief in God, isn't that ironic for you? See https://www.watchtowerlies.com/state_atheism_why_is_it_necessary.html and https://www.watchtowerlies.com/contact.html for proof of the views of the webmaster. The webmaster/author (writing in the third person about his views) says the following about himself. "Atheism was not a choice, but a conclusion to which his mind and heart had no choice but to arrive." Perhaps your following the evidence will eventually lead you to the same view.

One of the author's web sites pages is https://www.watchtowerlies.com/is_the_bible_really_god_s_inspired_word.html and it makes the claim that the Bible is not God's inspired word and states some reasons for the view. See also his page at https://www.watchtowerlies.com/debate_evolution_or_creation.html which makes a case for evolution.

Thanks for directing me to a source which has ammunition against God-belief. I much appreciate it. Considering your belief in God and creationism, isn't it ironic that you directed me to a site (in support of your accusations against the WT and Rutherford) which argues against those religious views of yours?