Posts by aqwsed12345

44

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

aqwsed12345

No, it is not relevant at all, that other translations also render this like that, because if the Hebrew phrase ’elai et asher-daqaru indeed contains a first-person singular object, then this fact would not change even if all the Bible translations in the world had translated it incorrectly in this regard.

So if a solution is controversial in a Bible translation, you shouldn't run to other translations, but look at the grammatical meaning of the established text in the original language. But you're not capable of doing that. Translation is not based on "precedents," there is no principle that says "if someone else translated it this way, it must be legitimate." It's just a "but he farted too" kind of argument. The meaning of the text is not determined by other translations.

The LXX is just an uninspired translation, the NT quote is a free adaptation (neither a verbatim quote, nor an inspired determination of the meaning of the Hebrew OT text), the text of Zechariah is in Hebrew, so what does 'elai et asher-daqaru mean? Can you give a straightforward answer for this question? Yes or no?

So if a certain solution is controversial in a Bible translation, it’s misguided to simply point to other translations as justification. Instead, the discussion should center around the grammatical and contextual meaning of the established text in the original language. Appealing to what other translators have done isn’t a real argument; it’s just deflecting the responsibility to evaluate the actual source material. Translation doesn’t work on the basis of precedent—there’s no rule that says if someone else translated it a certain way, that automatically makes it legitimate. Relying on that kind of defense is like saying, “Well, he did it too,” which is hardly a convincing or scholarly approach. Ultimately, the meaning of the text must be determined by direct engagement with the original, not by tallying up how others have rendered it.

44

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

aqwsed12345

Nope, that is not the issue here, but whether the NWT intentionally deviates from the established Hebrew text (’elai et asher-daqaru) in the verse in question. It is a simple question: yes or no? Well?

And in this regard, what Robert Alter, or all the Bible translations you listed, say. It is completely irrelevant. Prove that the given Hebrew text does not have a first-person singular subject. If it does, then it does not change if the Pope himself does not have it in his personal translation, then my answer is that the Pope was wrong about this. It is as simple as that.

So what's your answer: Does ’elai et asher-daqaru contain first personal singular object ("me")? Yes or no? If not, justify why not, feel free to use a dictionary, AI, whatever, but focus on this, and how X and Y translated it is not an argument at all.

That is how you should debate, but instead you start this usual authority contest, and bashing the marginal parts of my answer, and the usual "but it is AI!". If AI, if not AI, if its content is true, then it is true, if not, then refute it on the merits. Nothing else matters.

But I'm not surprised that JWs and their apologists can't substantively defend critical parts of the NWT linguistically, instead resorting to this kind of "but he farted too" argument. The critical details of the NWT are tried to be justified by little-known, erroneous translations by private individuals, well-known “bugs” in well-known translations, selective citations of professionally accepted Greek language books, a misleading series of “examples” that prove nothing, and the works of liberal Catholic and Protestant authors who do not consider the Bible to be the reliable word of God.

44

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

aqwsed12345

The usual shift of the topic to the authority contest and no-answer by “Dr.” Argumentum ad Verecudiam. That's precisely why I say that you are theologically zero, there is never a substantive answer on behalf of you, just debate over what and why some liberal Catholic-basher Prof. Dr. PhD -berg/-stein/-witz said and meant (I don’t give a damn), instead of adressing the issue on it merits.

44

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

Robert Alter’s elegant English cannot be conscripted as a shield for Arianism. Alter himself explains in his preface that, when Hebrew yields two plausible renderings, he often chooses the one that sounds least jarring in modern English, even if it means smoothing away abrupt first-person switches. Zechariah 12:10 is a textbook case of that stylistic policy: the abrupt volte-face from “I will pour out” to “me whom they have pierced” clangs on the Anglophone ear, so Alter levels it to “the one.” He was not drafting a doctrinal manifesto; he was producing idiomatic prose. The linguistic question, however, turns on syntax, not euphony, and the syntax is stubborn. אֵלַי plus the direct-object marker אֶת is the only construction that yields “to me whom they pierced.” Every extant Masoretic manuscript that preserves the line—including the newly collated Dead-Sea fragment 4QXIIg—reads it that way. The lone support for “him” is a just marginal qere that crept into a few medieval hand-copies and the Septuagint’s paraphrase, which elsewhere is perfectly willing to subdue anthropomorphic shocks (compare its softening of Exodus 24:10 and Psalm 22:16). Grammatically, therefore, “me” is the lectio difficilior and thus, by the canons of textual criticism, the more authentic reading.

Nor can this first-person speech be waved away as a parent simply sympathizing with a child. Zechariah’s oracle never introduces a second character. From verse 1 on, the speaker is Yahweh, the one who “stretches out the heavens.” He, that same speaker, declares that He will be looked upon as pierced. Yahweh’s identification with the stricken Shepherd in 13:7 (“Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered—declares Yahweh of hosts”) seals the point: the wound is His own. To recast that as a father empathizing with a son you must import an actor whom Zechariah never names, fracture the discourse, and violate the prophet’s penchant for startling, condensed theophanies (cf. 2:10–13; 9:9–10).

Does this single first-person pronoun instantly produce a Nicene Creed? Of course not, and no informed Trinitarian pretends otherwise. Doctrine is never distilled from a solitary verse; it crystallizes from the canon’s whole witness. Zechariah 12:10 is one luminous facet of a larger biblical phenomenon: texts that place divine titles, works, and worship on figures distinct from yet identical with Yahweh. The “Angel of the LORD” who speaks as God yet is sent by God (Exod 3; Judg 6; Zech 3); the Child who is born yet called “Mighty God” (Isa 9:6); the Son of Man enthroned beside the Ancient of Days and receiving the worship due to God alone (Dan 7). The evangelists and apostles do not invent a new metaphysics in the fourth century; they simply let these strands meet in Jesus. John 19:37 cites Zechariah precisely because the evangelist recognises that the crucified Nazarene is the embodiment of Yahweh’s self-wounding love. Paul can say that the rulers “crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8) and that God purchased the Church “with His own blood” (Acts 20:28) because the “me” of Zechariah has walked in flesh.

Far from being laughable, then, the Trinitarian reading honours every piece of the evidence: the stubborn Hebrew grammar, the pattern of Old-Testament theophany, the apostolic exegesis, and the reverent instinct of the early martyrs who hailed Jesus as “our God” decades, not centuries, before Nicaea. A non-Trinitarian can silence one verse only by muffling the chorus. The Church has never claimed that Zechariah 12:10 alone establishes the Trinity; we say that a theology which cannot explain how Yahweh speaks of Himself as pierced, yet lives and pours out His Spirit, is thinner than the parchment on which the verse is written.

44

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

aqwsed12345

Let’s cut through the confusion and Watchtower smokescreens here. The controversy over Zechariah 12:10 is not some innocent accident of translation, nor is it a mere “academic ambiguity” best left to the footnotes of scholars; it is a deliberate theological maneuver by Arianizing groups—above all the Jehovah’s Witnesses—to obscure what is one of the Old Testament’s most dramatic prophecies of the deity and sufferings of the Messiah, who is none other than the LORD Himself.

The Hebrew text reads with uncomfortable clarity for all who wish to deny Christ’s deity: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced.” This is Yahweh speaking, first-person, throughout the context. The speaker does not change. There is no linguistic or contextual justification in the Hebrew to replace “me” with “him” or “the one,” except to avoid the inescapable conclusion that the One pierced is God Himself. The phrase is אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָרוּ (’elai et asher-daqaru)—“to me whom they pierced.” The Massoretic pointing, the syntactical construction, and the entire context support the reading “me.” And this is precisely why the Watchtower must twist the text: the original is simply too explicit for their anti-Trinitarian program.

But the Arian Watchtower is not alone in this act of subterfuge. They attempt to hide behind a handful of modern translations that, in a misguided attempt at smoothing out an “awkward” reading, replace the original “me” with “him” or “the one.” This is not translation fidelity; it is theological cowardice. It is an attempt to “protect” the reader from what the prophet actually prophesied—a God who would Himself be pierced. Note well: when Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformed translators—who accept the deity of Christ—choose the “him” rendering, they are often motivated by what they see as a contextual flow or Septuagint influence, not because the Hebrew text demands it.

Let’s get this straight: the context is the LORD, speaking throughout. “I will pour out the Spirit… they will look upon me whom they have pierced.” No honest reader in Hebrew can miss the force of the passage. The Septuagint, which often smooths out anthropomorphic or theologically “problematic” Hebrew texts, does indeed have “him,” but this is a known phenomenon in the LXX—sometimes reducing explicit messianic or theophanic passages to lessen their force, especially those that would scandalize later rabbinic sensibilities. The LXX is valuable, but it is not inspired, nor is it immune to agenda-driven translation choices, especially on messianic texts.

Now, notice the Watchtower’s favorite trick: appealing to John 19:37, where the apostle John, citing Zechariah, writes, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.” But this proves nothing except John’s adaptation of the prophecy to the Christ event—he is not quoting the Septuagint verbatim, nor is he denying the Hebrew. He is applying the prophecy directly to Jesus. But even here the force remains: the One who is pierced is the LORD of Zechariah’s prophecy, now revealed as Christ crucified.

And this brings us to the heart of the issue: the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum—the communication of idioms or properties—which is at the very heart of Christology. The One who is pierced is Jesus Christ according to His humanity; but because the divine and human natures are united in the one Person (hypostasis) of the Word, it is right and proper to say that God Himself was pierced—not that the deity suffered (God in Himself cannot suffer), but that the Person who suffered is truly God. This is why the New Testament can speak of “the Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28)—language so intolerable to Arians that the Watchtower corrupts that passage too, just as it does in Zechariah 12:10.

You cannot evade the plain meaning: the One pierced is not merely a human agent or some vague “messianic figure,” but the very LORD of Israel, the one true God, who, in the mystery of the Incarnation, took upon Himself flesh and was pierced for our salvation. All the evasions about “transmission difficulties,” “textual ambiguities,” and “multiple translations” are nothing but desperate attempts to avoid the stumbling-block of the Cross—God crucified, as the apostolic faith has always proclaimed.

The claim that “the Jews were monotheists, so the Trinity can’t be in the Old Testament” is an anachronistic absurdity. It is precisely because the Jews were monotheists that the scandal and wonder of Zechariah 12:10 is so great. (Here the criticism blatantly confuses the concepts of “monotheism” and “unitarianism,” similar to Islam, where there are no separate words for these two concepts in the Arabic language.) The doctrine of the Trinity does not break monotheism; it is the only possible explanation for the testimony of Scripture, Old and New: the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there is only one God. No first-century Jew would have “invented” this; it is what God Himself revealed, and what the piercing of Christ—the LORD—brings to fulfillment.

If you want to know why the Watchtower eviscerates Zechariah 12:10, look no further than their Arian fear of the Cross: the fear of a God who loves so much that He Himself was pierced, that the very LORD took on flesh and dwelt among us, that the eternal Son paid the price for our sins, and that His divinity, not diminished but revealed, is shown in His self-giving love. The Watchtower cannot abide this; it is the death of their entire system.

And so, to every former Witness, to every seeker of the truth: do not let the Watchtower’s paper-thin rationalizations cloud the overwhelming testimony of Scripture and the Church. The One who was pierced is Yahweh. The One who poured out the Spirit is the Son who sends the Spirit from the Father. The One who purchased the Church with His blood is God Himself. There is no getting around it, unless you prefer human traditions over divine revelation.

The Trinity is not a fourth-century invention, nor a “later development.” It is the only doctrine that makes sense of all the evidence—linguistic, historical, theological, and above all, biblical. All else is a clever rehash of ancient heresies—Arianism, Socinianism, and all the Watchtower’s failed attempts to keep the infinite God safely locked away from the scandal of the Cross.

You want honesty? Then have the courage to face the plain force of the text. “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced.” And on that day, there will be mourning—not just for sins past, but for the centuries of lies that have tried to hide the crucified God from His people. The Catholic faith does not run from this mystery; it proclaims it from the rooftops. God was pierced—for you, for me, for the world. That is the gospel the Watchtower cannot bear.

19

Will They Change the Memorial Talk This Year?

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/o5almnehew4?si=kdgrjgbiutjkvcxe.

i’m hoping the memorial talk will be different.

change the talk!

aqwsed12345

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4A7TB0cyak

26

Fear not those who kill the body, but cannot destroy the soul (Not in the new song book)

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

i finally got my own copy of the new song book in english.

i notice that the lyrics in one of the songs have been changed from:.

fear not those who kill the body, but cannot destroy the soul.

aqwsed12345

The Soul and Eternal Punishment - Matthew 10:28

Oh, the tragicomedy of Watchtower exegesis: where the plain words of Jesus are run through the theological meat grinder and spat out as theological mush to suit Brooklyn’s ever-shifting dogmas. Here we are, forced to revisit the Watchtower’s tired, reductionist reading of Matthew 10:28, a text that for nearly two thousand years has terrified the conscience of saints and martyrs—until the Governing Body decided that “soul” just means “future life potential,” and annihilationism is somehow the “good news.”

Let’s be clear: Jesus says, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” That’s not cryptic. That’s not code. That’s not a wink-wink-nudge-nudge about future resurrection prospects. That’s a direct, existential warning about the stakes of eternity and the ultimate irrelevance of earthly threats. But try telling that to someone who gets their theology from Watchtower tracts and not from the Bible, church history, or, God forbid, the actual Greek text.

Let’s torch the straw men one by one, shall we?

First, the JW anthropological monism—the asinine idea that humans are just animated meat, that “soul” is nothing more than a biological phenomenon, and that the death of the body is the extinction of the self. According to this pop-materialism, once you’re dead, you’re as conscious as a sack of potatoes, until Jehovah’s perfect memory recreates you as a clone in a Millennial Disneyland. Meanwhile, your “soul” is as dead as the disco, apparently. And yet, these same apologists insist on defending the text—“fear not those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul”—by making “soul” mean... what exactly? A record in God’s cloud storage? An insurance policy for possible resurrection? Is this what passes for theological rigor in the Kingdom Hall?

Let’s actually read the text, not Watchtower’s footnotes:

“Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.”

Here, two things are made explicit: (1) the soul is NOT identical to the body, because man can kill the body, but NOT the soul; and (2) there is a kind of death worse than mere bodily death—a destruction in Gehenna, executed by God, that involves both body and soul. In other words: the “soul” isn’t destroyed by human violence, and isn’t annihilated by physical death. If it were, Jesus’ words would make no sense. If “soul” just means “life” or “person,” and killing the body is ipso facto killing the soul, then what is left for God to do in Gehenna? Play Scrabble with your DNA?

But of course, the Watchtower loves eisegesis: instead of letting the text say what it says, they shovel in their own meanings with all the subtlety of a backhoe. “Soul just means ‘future life potential’”—yes, and Shakespeare’s ‘To be or not to be’ is about job prospects, I suppose. If “soul” only means your future chance of being resurrected, why on earth would Jesus contrast the limited power of men with the unlimited, ultimate power of God? Why would he even bother with the distinction? It becomes a completely pointless tautology: “Don’t fear men, because they can only kill you; instead fear God, because He can... also kill you, but might choose not to bring you back.” Riveting.

But let’s go further. If you want to play the language game, let’s do it: the Greek word here for “destroy” (ἀπολέσαι, apolesai) is the same word used throughout the New Testament, and it never means annihilation in a metaphysical sense. It means to ruin, to lose, to render useless, to consign to a state of utter loss. The same verb is used of the “lost sheep,” the “ruined wineskins,” even of the Prodigal Son (“was lost and is found”—Luke 15:24). Was the lost sheep annihilated out of existence? Did the prodigal vanish into non-being? This is basic lexical analysis, not Watchtower make-believe.

And let’s not ignore the parallel passage in Luke 12:4-5, which the Watchtower conveniently avoids. There Jesus says, “Do not fear those who kill the body and after that have nothing more they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell (Gehenna). Yes, I tell you, fear him!” If death is nonexistence, what’s the big deal about being thrown into Gehenna after you’re already dead? Do you threaten the non-existent with more non-existence? The logic is preposterous. Jesus’ whole point is the existence of a punishment beyond physical death—otherwise, his warning is pointless.

Let’s pause for a moment to reflect on the comic absurdity that is the Watchtower’s “life prospects” theory. Are we to imagine that Jesus is warning: “Fear God, because He can delete your file from His hard drive, and you’ll never get downloaded again”? That isn’t theology; that’s IT support.

And what of the Christian tradition and the earliest Christian writers? Justin Martyr, in the mid-2nd century—not a Trinitarian, not a Catholic, not a medieval scholastic—interpreted this verse as a warning of post-mortem, conscious punishment. The same goes for Tertullian, Athenagoras, and the entire early church. The idea that the soul persists, that it is not subject to human violence, and that it faces ultimate judgment from God, is not some Babylonian innovation but the baseline, universal belief of the Christian movement until the theological illiterates in Brooklyn started passing out magazines.

Let’s not forget: even the Jews of Jesus’ day—except for a handful of Sadducees whom nobody took seriously—believed in the survival of the soul and post-mortem recompense. This is confirmed by Josephus, the Book of Wisdom, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament itself (see Luke 16:19–31, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where both are conscious after death).

Meanwhile, the annihilationist/JW view can’t explain a whole host of texts:

Matthew 25:46: “And these will go away into eternal punishment (κόλασιν αἰώνιον), but the righteous into eternal life.” If “eternal punishment” just means non-existence, it’s a punishment you’re never conscious of—hardly what the word “punishment” means in any language, anywhere, ever.
Revelation 14:10-11: “They will be tormented with fire and sulfur... and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night.” Non-existent people don’t experience “no rest” or “torment.” Only conscious beings can be said to “have no rest day or night.”
2 Thessalonians 1:9: “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord.” Destruction here is relational and existential loss, not ceasing to exist.

But perhaps most ironically, the Watchtower itself had to silence the words of Jesus—removing “Fear not those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” from its own songbook, because it so blatantly contradicts their doctrine. When your theology can’t survive being sung, it’s time to consider whether you’re even still in the business of Christianity.

So, to sum up: The JW reading of Matthew 10:28 is a masterclass in dishonest interpretation, a monument to theological wishful thinking, and a sad testament to the intellectual bankruptcy of annihilationism and monism. Jesus’ words stand in judgment against all such revisionism. Men can kill the body; only God can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. That’s not about “life prospects,” “cloud storage,” or a resurrection lottery. That’s about the ultimate reality of the human person: body and soul, judged by God, and destined for eternal life or loss. Face it—or run away singing Watchtower-approved lyrics, your choice.

45

The pope's cousin is a JW

by loosie in

.

sorry i can't get the file attachment to work

aqwsed12345

@vienne

"...being a heck of a lot smarter than you are..." - ROTFL. I've debated with him many times, I've never heard any independent thoughts or constructive criticism from him, other than trumping Christian orthodoxy with various fashionable modernist so-called "authorities," saying "if e-v-e-n Dr. PhD -berg/-stein/-witz said this and that, who are you, aqwsed12345, to argue with them, huh?" And he just keeps saying nothing just bullying me about whether it's AI or not AI. Man, focus on the content, on the merits (and asolutely nothing else), refute it, or if you cannot, then shut up.

"...he is poking your nose and leading you along." - Then he's the same shitty bully as those who mocked Thomas Aquinas, I'm not ashamed to be like him.

He was known for his child-like innocence. “Oh! Thomas, look! There are flying pigs outside!” two friars declared, pointing frantically to the window. Thomas, falling for their practical joke, bounded to the window to see this incredible anomaly of nature. Alas, the feathered pigs were nowhere to be found, and Thomas turned to see his brothers succumb to fits of laughter. “I would rather believe that pigs can fly,” Thomas declared, “than believe that my brethren could lie.”

45

The pope's cousin is a JW

by loosie in

.

sorry i can't get the file attachment to work

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

The core misunderstanding in your message is a conflation of possibility with plausibility—and in historical or genealogical claims, those are not the same thing. Of course it’s not physically impossible that a pope had a Jehovah’s Witness relative; people convert, families fracture, strange things happen. But a story being theoretically possible isn’t the same as it being evidenced. That’s the whole point. What matters here is not whether such a relationship could ever occur somewhere, sometime—but whether it happened in this specific case. And on that count, there is simply no documented support.

To say “she could simply be the cousin of the Pope” is to gloss over the fact that being someone’s first/second cousin is not a general impression or vibe—it’s a very specific biological relationship, requiring shared great-grandparents. We know who Pope Benedict’s great-grandparents were. We know who Stefanie Brzakovic’s great-grandparents were. They’re not the same people. Not even close. This isn’t speculation; it’s documented in parish records, family trees, and multiple independent genealogical sources. That’s why serious inquiry rules the claim out—not because it’s outlandish in the abstract, but because it’s untrue in the concrete.

And let’s not pretend this was treated like just another ordinary claim. She didn’t say, “I think we might be distantly related.” She said the Pope was her cousin, that he called her personally, and that he praised her JW evangelism—an anecdote conveniently mirroring decades-old JW propaganda narratives. This isn’t a harmless quirk; it’s a perfect faith-affirming tale, told without evidence, that contradicts every available genealogical fact and cultural pattern. That raises red flags.

Your suggestion that critics are “determined” to deny it says more about your stance than theirs. Critical inquiry doesn’t start from emotional investment—it starts from what can be proven. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. No one is “determined” that this couldn’t possibly be true. What we are saying—quite clearly—is that there is no evidence that it is true. And when the only thing sustaining the story is hearsay, nostalgia, and a circular trail of newspaper echoes, that’s not evidence. It’s folklore.

You also pivot into an odd digression about Ratzinger’s election, as if public perception or Austrian disappointment somehow bolsters the cousin story. It doesn’t. The fact that Christina Odone or British comedians were surprised by Benedict’s election has zero bearing on the veracity of a woman’s family anecdote in Australia. That portion of your message is an excellent illustration of misdirection—shifting the focus from whether the claim is true to how some people felt about an unrelated event. That isn’t critical thinking; it’s emotional buffering.

And finally, your swipe at AI “spewing plausible sounding but patently ridiculous arguments” is ironic—because that’s exactly what this anecdote is. It sounds charming and vaguely plausible to someone not familiar with the geography, naming customs, or genealogical details of rural Bavaria—but it collapses instantly under scrutiny. That’s not the AI’s fault. It’s the strength of rigorous reasoning over feel-good stories.

If we care about truth, sincerity isn’t enough. Sentimental stories must still pass the test of evidence. And this one simply doesn’t.

45

The pope's cousin is a JW

by loosie in

.

sorry i can't get the file attachment to work

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

I think you simply misunderstand how myths and personal narratives often form — especially in religious or insular communities like Jehovah’s Witnesses. It doesn’t require a deliberate lie, nor a highly specific pre-existing obsession with Cardinal Ratzinger. It just requires a plausible-seeming connection that gets passed along and gradually shaped by memory, affection, or community reinforcement until it hardens into a personal truth. In fact, the claim didn’t need to be constructed with any grand design. “I had a cousin in Germany” can, over decades, become “I had a cousin who became a big priest,” and finally, “My cousin was the Pope.” This kind of retrospective elevation is common and well-documented — especially in aging individuals with deep spiritual investment and a close-knit religious environment that values anecdotal proof of divine favor or recognition.

It’s also not the case that “being caught in a lie” would be a major deterrent. People frequently recount stories that aren’t technically true but which they believe deeply. This isn’t malicious — it’s confabulation, a normal human cognitive process. Particularly in the JW community, where anecdotes are routinely used to edify and reinforce faith narratives, stories of validation from outsiders — even powerful religious figures — serve a very functional role. The quote ascribed to Ratzinger aligns too neatly with a longstanding JW literary motif of “respectful acknowledgment from clergy.” That’s not just a coincidence. It’s a sign that the story fulfills an internal ideological need far more than it stands up to critical examination.

In 2005, the internet was not nearly as pervasive or interconnected as it is today. A story published in a local newspaper would have seemed relatively low-risk in terms of exposure or verification. Someone making a sentimental or embellished claim — especially an elderly woman with a compelling personal narrative — would have had little reason to think that genealogists, skeptics, or digital sleuths would one day comb through parish records or cross-reference archival family trees. The assumption back then was that local stories stayed local, and personal anecdotes were unlikely to face rigorous fact-checking on a global scale. It simply wasn’t as easy to investigate such claims, nor did people expect that one day they could be publicly dissected by anyone with internet access and a bit of curiosity.

As for the idea that it’s unlikely someone would fabricate a connection to that cardinal specifically — that overestimates how these associations work. Ratzinger had been a globally recognized theological figure since at least the 1980s, especially in Europe. His name would have been familiar to any German-speaking JW, especially if they were alert to religious news. The fact that he later became pope simply gave the story a massive boost in narrative weight, allowing a fuzzy or unsubstantiated claim to feel suddenly momentous. Media then amplified it, not because they verified it, but because it made a good headline. And good headlines have a funny way of validating personal memories — even false ones.

At bottom, the story persists not because of strong evidence, but because it feels true to those who want it to be. But feeling is not fact. In communities where ideological narratives and personal faith often blur the boundaries of critical scrutiny, stories like this thrive — until someone asks for documentation. And in this case, every checkable fact collapses under examination. That's not a weakness of the skeptical view. It's the strength of evidence-based thinking.