Posts by Justin

13

History of Pyramidology

by Justin in

the great pyramid awaits thee.

click on the following link and you'll learn the history of pyramidology, including russell's involvement.

http://www.greatdreams.com/pyramid.htm

Justin

Come one, come all. The Great Pyramid awaits thee. Click on the following link and you'll learn the history of Pyramidology, including Russell's involvement. http://www.greatdreams.com/pyramid.htm

22

I Need Ideas

by TowerWatch in

i am working on a david letterman type of ?top ten list?

to publicize my seminars with local churches.

sort of the top ten reasons a pastor would want his parishioners to become more familiar with the beliefs and practices of jehovah's witnesses.

I don't see the liberal position represented on this board. Instead, there is a struggle between those who are still fundamentalist in their thinking (whether of the JW or Evangelical variety) and those whose criticism of the Bible is so severe that the Book is left as a worthless piece of junk. A true liberal considers the Bible to be of value in spite of its contradictions, historical conditioning, and so forth. Unfortunately, a liberal cannot function in a war zone which is dominated by the two extremes because the liberal cannot follow either of them to their logical conclusions.

2

Ewatchman: christians in the "strictest sense"

by trumangirl in

i quote from ewatchman's latest essay "will christianity survive the end of the world":.

indeed, we are assured by god's everlasting word that the meek will inherit the earth and reside forever upon it.

however, in the strictest sense, only anointed individuals are truly christians.

Justin

I remember reading in Timothy White's A People for His Name that when the "other sheep" or "Jonadabs" first appeared they were not considered Christians because, as pointed out above, the name "Christian" is taken from Christ, which means Anointed. They weren't considered to be Jehovah's witnesses (then spelled with a small "w") either. If you had the earthly hope, you were simply expected to identify yourself as a Jonadab. Then a young girl wrote to the Society and asked them if she could consider herself a Christian. Rutherford didn't have the heart (imagine!) to say No, so he said that anyone who was a follower of Jesus could be considered a Christian.

Through the years it has been an ongoing problem for the Society to determine how many "classical" things apply to the OS. Now they're considered to be in an inner courtyard of the spiritual temple, but they still can't partake of the Memorial emblems. On and on it goes.

20

Da Judge: A Few Thoughts

by Farkel in

there has been a renewed interest on joseph ("grudge") rutherford lately among newer ones here.

this is good.

the entire current wt culture was shaped by him and his stooge, fred franz, and that culture exists to this very day.. da judge believed (or said he believed) that when he and others of the first-class wts elite died, they would be instantly transported to heaven to live and rule forever as immortal beings.

Justin

Hillary,

Adam Rutherford was no relation to Joseph, and I think he was a Bible Student. I'm unable to supply you with a reference at this time. RR may know more. If you want to start a new thread on this subject, you may be able to get his attention.

9

time warp

by peacefulpete in

ok just a short comment about an simple scribal goof.

nehemiah 1:1 says that in the ninth month of the 20th year of artexerxes nehemiah learns about that the temple was not built after 110 years or so after the persians had sent colonizers nehemiah 2:1 says that in the first month of the same 20th year (8 months earlier!

) he speaks to the king about this matter.

Justin

My harmonization was based on the texts that were initially referenced in the argument. They do not say 'the ninth month and the first month of Artaxerxes' twentieth year,' they give the names of the Hebrew months, which happen to be the first and ninth months of the calendar. This should not be confused with the regnal year of a king.

Suppose we have a fiscal year which begins in July. Our twentieth fiscal year would therefore begin in July. In that fiscal year, the ninth month of the calendar year (September) would come before the first month of the calendar year (January). If you like, you may shift the argument to the larger context of Ezra-Nehemiah, but the original argument is based on the fallacy of comparing apples with pears (in this case, regnal and calendar years).

1

1919 question

by l3gi0n in

.

this may be a dumb question, but when did jw start teaching that they were divinely appointed in 1919?

Justin

The initial date for the divine appointment was considered to be 1918. That is when Christ Jesus supposedly came to the spiritual temple and judged his anointed followers.

In his booklet published in 1941, Theocracy, Judge Rutherford stated that the significance of 1918 was realized in 1922. A copy of this booklet is found at http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/booklets/theocracy.html. Read pages 23-24.

It was only later, during the Knorr-Franz era, that the emphasis was shifted to 1919. I believe this occurred when the "Babylon the Great is Fallen" book was published in 1963. I was still studying at the time, and before that it seems that the emphasis was on 1918.

Whereas 1918 is still considered to be the temple judgment, that year saw the imprisonment of Rutherford and his release, whereas 1919 saw the restoration at the first Cedar Point, Ohio convention.

9

time warp

by peacefulpete in

ok just a short comment about an simple scribal goof.

nehemiah 1:1 says that in the ninth month of the 20th year of artexerxes nehemiah learns about that the temple was not built after 110 years or so after the persians had sent colonizers nehemiah 2:1 says that in the first month of the same 20th year (8 months earlier!

) he speaks to the king about this matter.

Justin

Let's quote these verses. Nehemiah 1:1 (KJV): "The words of Nehemiah the Son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu [Kislev], in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace . . ." Then Nehemiah gets the news that the wall of Jerusalem was still broken down. Now Kislev is the ninth month of the Hebrew calendar. Nehemiah 2:1 (the supposed contradiction) states: "And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king . . ." Then Nehemiah tells the king what we've learned in the first passage. Nisan is the first month of the Hebrew calendar.

Can this be harmonized? Yes, because the twentieth year of Artaxerxes does not need to correspond with the Hebrew calendar year. That is, Artaxerxes' twentieth year could have begun in the latter part of the calendar year and ended in the earlier part. The month Kislev, even though it was the seventh month of the calendar year, could have elapsed early in Artxerxes' twentieth year.

In fact, The One Volume Bible Commentary edited by J.R. Dummelow (not a fundamentalist commentary) states: "The year intended is probably reckoned to begin with the month of his accession, not with the first calendar month Nisan, since the events that happended in Chisleu, the ninth month, are related before those that occurred in Nisan . . ." (p. 278)

6

Gnostic chiliasm

by Leolaia in

i just read a very illuminating article by charles e. hill (published in journal of early christian studies, 2000) on the theology of cerinthus, the early asian proto-gnostic heretic who flourished c. ad 90-120 and who was described by polycarp of smyrna (cited by irenaeus) as the chief adversary of presbyter john, the principal elder at the church of ephesus and the probable author of 2 and 3 john and the introductory chapters of revelation.

patristic writers gave two very different portraits of cerinthus which seemed at once to be incompatible: of a proto-gnostic adoptionist who denied the resurrection and the corporeality of christ, and who was the real author of the proto-gnostic gospel of john (cf.

irenaeus, pseudo-tertullian, the later alogists, and the epistula apostolorum, a proto-orthodox document from asia minor, c. ad 140-150), and of a chiliast who taught a doctrine of a millennial restitution of the kingdom of god on earth, with emphasis placed on fleshly pleasures, and who was the real author of the chiliast revelation (cf.

Justin

Whether we stay with the canonical writings or go outside, the ancient traditions provide us with the dilemma of how we might harmonize the more material views of the age to come with the spiritual or "gnostic" views. This harmonization is what the Bible Student/JW tradition has attempted to do with its heavenly and earthly hopes.

Pure gnosticism is more akin to Platonism in that salvation is an escape from the world of matter and a reunion with the Godhead. The early church father Irenaeus (second century) was a millennialist, and yet he found it necessary to explain the future hope in terms of different levels roughly equivalent to Russell's beliefs. In Against Heresies (V:36:2 ) he states:

2. [They say, moreover], that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold: for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second will dwell in paradise, the last will inhabit the city; and that was on this account the Lord declared, "In My Father's house are many mansions." 340 For all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place; even as His Word says, that a share is allotted to all by the Father, according as each person is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch on which the guests shall recline, having been invited to the wedding. 341 The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, affirm that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; also that they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 342 For in the times of the kingdom, the righteous man who is upon the earth shall then forget to die. "But when He saith, All things shall be subdued unto Him, it is manifest that He is excepted who did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." 343

See http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577 .

Orthodoxy finally combined the two elements by teaching that people will be resurrected with material bodies and yet go to heaven (or hell).

If Cerinthus was an atypical gnostic who thought that the Jews would yet have their own Messiah (not Jesus) and would live in a restored Jerusalem, we could ask if such a material salvation was also universal in scope (as would be the case if such texts as Isaiah 2:2-4 were taken into consideration). Then the Jews and the restored nations would be left on earth while the true gnostics would be reunited with the divine.

3

The Tabernacle and the Gown

by Justin in

this is not the same as the original page number which began with the new year (in this case, the original page number being 149 of the may 1911 tower).

[r4816 : page 149] .

[r4817 : page 149] .

Justin

When doing research in the old magazines of the Russell era, one must understand the reference system used and how this material came to be available for succeeding generations. Today we might say, "The Watchtower says thus and so," but during Russell's lifetime the magazine's shortened title was split into two words: Watch Tower (the full title having been Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence). So the magazine is frequently referenced as simply the Tower.

The year 1919 was the fortieth anniversary of the Watch Tower, and in honor of this the Society published the first set of bound volumes (each volume containing several years rather than just one). The entire set had a page number system beginning with the very first magazine and going clear through to the end of the year 1919. These volumes are commonly known as the Reprints, and they may be referenced by the Reprint numbers (in the example below, R4816 stands for Reprint page 4816). This is not the same as the original page number which began with the new year (in this case, the original page number being 149 of the May 1911 Tower). The Reprint number usually has four digits, unless it is from a very early Tower, and the original page number usually has three (unless it was from early in a given year).

When modern Bible Students reproduce the volumes electronically, they usually leave off the section after 1916 (year of Russell's death) because the final three years were under Rutherford's presidency. This is unfortunate, as the practice forces them to also omit the index which comes at the end and would have made it easier to do research.

You remember how Russell, at his final illness on the train, requested to be wrapped in a Roman toga. The following example shows how he preached in a robe (or "gown") when at the London Tabernacle. Hope you will find the lengths he went to defend this practice to be amusing, regardless of your personal opinion of the man. So here it is: Reprint page 4816, original page 149, from the Watch Tower of May 1911.

From

http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r4816.htm

[R4816 : page 149]
THE TABERNACLE AND THE GOWN
LONDON TABERNACLE has a large gallery, seating nearly as many as the first floor--in all nearly 1,200. To suit this the pulpit is a high one, boxed in, so that only the head and shoulders of the speaker are in view. A plain black robe or gown, provided by the kindness of some of the friends, was worn by the Pastor (Brother Russell) in the pulpit, but not at other times. This raised from a few the query, Is Brother Russell becoming a Babylonian--preaching in a church edifice and wearing a robe?
It was thought well to explain, for the benefit of all, that the use of Church buildings was never condemned in the Bible, nor in the DAWN-STUDIES. St. Paul preached in a Synagogue whenever he had opportunity; so did the other Apostles, and so did Jesus. We do not favor the general striving for church edifices because of the expense, because the friends of the Truth are generally poor, and because what money we all can devote to the service of the Lord can be used more wisely as a rule-- to accomplish a wider spread of the glad tidings of great joy. [R4817 : page 149]
We still view the matter thus. But at London, as in New York City (Brooklyn), it is our judgment that the cause is best served by having a plain Tabernacle for general worship and also for the Society's warehouse and office of publication. We have sought to do the Master's will, and believe we have done it in both cases.
As New York City is the American center, so is London the British center, or, indeed, the European center. It is to the advantage of the entire work everywhere that Brooklyn Tabernacle and London Tabernacle, even as names alone, should lend their dignity to the cause we love to serve. Both buildings are heavily mortgaged. The Society has other uses for its income, and is making no endeavor nor appeals for money to clear these off.
As for the gown of plain black: It is simplicity itself, and very much more like what the Savior and the Apostles wore than is a frock-coat. And as for wearing an ordinary, every-day business suit of blue or gray or tan in the pulpit--surely it is a bit irreverent, unless as emergency might make it necessary.
Respect for the Lord and for his Truth seems to call for respect even in the dress of the one who, for the hour, represents the Lord as his mouthpiece, "ambassador," or "able minister of the New Covenant," calling for the joint-sacrifices necessary to be found before the New Covenant can go into effect. We should not be understood as laying down a law respecting meats or drinks or wearing of apparel. We are merely suggesting that a fancy vest, colored tie and business suit do not appeal to us as specially to be commended. Rather, we would commend to the preaching brethren, so far as possible and convenient, a preference for black and white apparel--whatever the cut.
Prejudice is a weed which may flourish in comparatively well-kept heart-gardens. But it should always be plucked up as soon as discovered, or it will do damage-- no one can tell how much--to the owner of the garden and to his neighbors. THE GOLDEN RULE
The Golden Rule seems not to be fully understood nor appreciated by some of God's children who have gone beyond the Law which it represents and are seeking to sacrifice. The Golden Rule means--be just toward fellowmen, giving them the same liberty which you desire and claim as your right. Do not attempt to fetter them in ways you would not wish them to fetter you. All saints should remember that this is simply justice, not sacrifice. It is God's command--the very foundation of his throne, of his Government. Perhaps no other lesson is more needed to be learned by the Church than this. It is violated continually in the home and in the Church. Justice, before generosity; the Golden Rule, before sacrifice, is surely God's order, and all who would be obedient to him and well pleasing will surely take heed to watch themselves in this respect.
FALSE DOCTRINE IS BABYLON'S FAULT
As for the churches nominal being Babylon because they meet in fine or poor buildings, with or without steeples, this is foolishness, well to be gotten rid of, and which none of us ever should have had. Similarly the dress of the minister has nothing to do with Babylonishness --although we do confess to prejudice against the changing of gowns during service and the wearing of colored gowns, etc., in Catholic and High Church ceremonials, as contrary to the simplicity of Christ.
Babylon's fault is her false doctrines--the mingled wine in her cup--the "Golden Cup" of the Divine Word --wherewith she and the world are so intoxicated that they cannot understand the Truth, but persecute it.
To come out of Babylon, therefore, does not mean nevermore to worship God in a specially constructed building; nor does it mean to do nothing that Babylon does and to wear nothing which Babylon approves. This application would mean that we might neither sing nor pray nor use an organ, etc., because others use these, whom we believe have departed from the faith.
It is difficult, of course, for us to keep our poor heads well balanced by the spirit of a sound mind; but the [R4817 : page 150] Golden Rule will surely assist. One dear friend claimed that he was afraid that others would be "stumbled" by these matters--especially that those who have gone out from us would use it as a club. Our answer is that those who have gone out need not be considered for one moment; they will twist and turn everything, for evil anyway. If we stopped to heed and please them we would do nothing that would please and serve God.
On the contrary, we believe that the general sentiment of thinking and pious people is turning from the rough-and-ready preaching, once so approved, to something more refined and reverential. There are still good people who consider it a sin to wear a collar or a necktie even at Divine service, but they are becoming fewer.
But the Golden Rule leaves these children of God free to dress as they please, without others busybodying in their affairs. Let experience teach them. Let them learn in the School of Christ that the advantages and liberties of the Kingdom of God (the Church) consist not in meats and drinks and clothing, but in righteousness and true holiness, represented by the Wedding Garment, "without spot or wrinkle or any such thing."

26

Just read "Who Wrote the Bible", another book recommendation please?

by lookingnow25 in

i just finished reading "who wrote the bible" by friedman after seeing someone reommend it on here.

i was enthralled and finished it in record time for myself.

i'd never considered anything that could be called 'higher criticism' before.

Justin

I recommend Understanding the Bible: An Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers, and Religious Liberals by John A. Buehrens published by Beacon Press, Boston, copyright 2003. Beuhrens is the former president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, and I believe that he reviews many of the traditional material in the critical, liberal approach (such as the documentary hypothesis) while including some of the new insights. He writes primarily for a liberal readership, and sees no need for an "up yours" approach directed against fundamentalists. Accepting the story of Job, for example, as literary fiction does not required confronting a "true believer" with contradictions designed to shake one's faith in the Bible as "the inerrant word of God." It's a different way of seeing the text.

Once you are grounded in the more conventional explanations which have been around now for 150 years or so, you can then decide if you want to be exposed to the turkey shoot that is currently being sponsored by persons who are just as angry at the Judeo-Christian tradition as XJW's are at the Watchtower. You know - anything goes - fire away!