Posts by leaving

13

Isaiah 2:2,3 Thoughts?

by problemaddict in

i thought i would bring this to the horde.

there is wisdom in the multitude of counselors after all.

this scripture has been given to me as "irrefutable", in a discussion i am rather enjoyign with someone fairly high up, that has their doubts.

leaving_quietly

This is one I think about frequently. It would seem that this applies to JWs only if you are a JW (which I am, so this scripture bothers me a bit... sorry, can't shake it.)

However:

"in the final part of the days"

What days? Most OT authors looked toward the Messiah as their "last days". Does this mean when Jesus was on earth?

"the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains"

When did this occur? In 1914? Or more likely when Jesus said at John 2:19? "In answer Jesus said to them: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

"and to it all the nations must stream"

The natural Israelites had a chance to be a kingdom of priests. (Ex 19:6) But, they blew it. So, Jesus said at Matt 22:37,38: "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,—how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But YOU people did not want it. ?Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU."

So, Paul was made an apostle to the nations. (Rom 11:13). The Gentiles were being invited in, thus "all nations".

And many peoples will certainly go and say: “Come, YOU people, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths.”

Many people preach. Not just JWs. Don't believe me? Just read sermons online. They're full of preaching, just like JWs. Many of them use God's name. Who is to say that only JWs do this?

For out of Zion law will go forth, and the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem. 4 And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.

You got me. Since judgment hasn't been rendered, yet, I would venture to say that this has not been fulfilled. Once judgment has been rendered and matters are set straight, then we will see the latter part in it's entirety, where entire nations will not war against other nations, not just JWs in one country not warring against JWs in another country.

Just my opinion on this. Read the commentaries at bible.cc on these verses. It's kinda all over the board. Who is right? Who isn't? Who's to say?

9

No Governing Body in Paul's day

by The Searcher in

the given understanding of the bible account at acts 15 regarding the circumcision issue is that a "governing body" resolved the issue.

is this assertion based on scriptural evidence?

while jesus walked the earth, some of his apostles were contentious with each other regarding who would be superior to the others.

leaving_quietly

One more thing... the letter they wrote (Acts 15:22-29) was an apology letter!!!

"Then the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation favored sending chosen men from among them to Antioch along with Paul and Bar′na·bas, namely, Judas who was called Bar′sab·bas and Silas, leading men among the brothers; 23?and by their hand they wrote:
“The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci·li′cia who are from the nations: Greetings! 24?Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions, 25?we have come to a unanimous accord..."

9

No Governing Body in Paul's day

by The Searcher in

the given understanding of the bible account at acts 15 regarding the circumcision issue is that a "governing body" resolved the issue.

is this assertion based on scriptural evidence?

while jesus walked the earth, some of his apostles were contentious with each other regarding who would be superior to the others.

leaving_quietly

BTTT

Preface to my comments: WT would have us believe that Paul went up to Jerusalem to get a decision on the matter of circumcision from the first century "governing body". The Searcher did a nice job of dispelling that, however, I wanted to add a few more observations based on Paul's first-hand account in Galatians 2.

Gal 2:2 - And I laid before them the good news which I am preaching among the nations, privately, however, before those who were outstanding men, for fear that somehow I was running or had run in vain.

Ok, comparing Galatians to Acts, we can see that Paul went to see the "outstanding men" (or "influential men" as some translations say), which turned out to be "the apostles and older men". However, contrary to my belief prior to yesterday when I read this, he met with these "privately". The multitude of the congregation was not involved. (Paul did meet with the congregation earlier, but this was a private meeting. With the entire congregation they "recounted the many things God had done by means of them" Acts 15:4.) Why privately? He explained: "for fear that somehow I was running or had run in vain." Not "running ahead", no, but simply so that his efforts to explain what he was preaching to the Gentiles was not wasted on everyone. 'First, let's get the "outstanding men" on board, then we can bring it to the rest.' Acts 15:5 states "some of those of the sect of the Pharisees that had believed rose up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses." This happened when Paul was meeting with the entire congregation, for verse 6 says: "And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair." So, verse 6 is where the private meeting begins.

This was a huge AHA! moment for me. This, coupled with Galatians 2:4,5: "But because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who sneaked in to spy upon our freedom which we have in union with Christ Jesus, that they might completely enslave us— 5 to these we did not yield by way of submission, no, not for an hour, in order that the truth of the good news might continue with YOU."

As The Searcher already mentioned, false brothers were brought in, however in the Acts account, you may recall that "there was no little dissention". The false brothers were among the "outstanding men" in that private meeting, such that Paul had to say "we did not yield by way of submission, no, not for an hour" (must've been a lengthy meeting!)

So, what I get from these two accounts is that Paul, 17 years after being blinded by the Lord (the first three he spent in Arabia, then Damascus before going to Jerusalem to meet Cephas and James, then another 14 before he returned to Jerusalem a second time) gets a revelation to go to Jerusalem because of this issue that false brothers were bringing to him. His point of going? He was going, not to have them make a decision, but instead, to tell them how things are by revelation of Christ. (This is where WT teachings greatly differ... the apostles and older men were not making a decision... Paul was letting them 'catch up' on the teachings of Christ, and he knew it was going to be a real challenge.)

Of course, after all of this, they agree and write the letter to the congregations saying as much.

Let's wrap up:

1. Those in Jerusalem were "outstanding men" (or "influential men") and never called a "Governing Body", or even a "council"

2. False brothers snuck in (or, as Gal 2:4 say "were brought in"... by whom, I wonder?), trying to subvert Paul's teaching

3. Paul, by way of revelation (Gal 2:2) went up to Jerusalem, essentially to straighten them out, but in a private meeting

4. The "outstanding men" argued a lot over the issue because the "false brothers" were among them

5. Paul did not back down (even bringing Titus, an uncircumcised Greek with him)

6. The "outstanding men" finally came around to Paul's way of thinking (really Christ's way of thinking)

Bottom line: no governing body in the first century existed to make a decision regarding circumcision. No, Paul was there to help the ones making the accusation (those false brothers, and anyone they could have influenced, even the apostles) understand the real teachings of Christ, that circumcision was not a requirement. He was there to adjust their thinking.

10

First Recorded "Conscious Class" Talk in the Kingdom Hall

by raymond frantz in

the governing body is not all powerful and all present ,we are not totally powerless .use your talks to promote christian freedom and tear down their propaganda .use material from publications that promote christian freedom and scriptures that they willingly avoid .use your talks to awake your brothers .

the following talk uses non of the usual watchtower propaganda and uses scriptures the governing body chooses to avoid .. whether you are an elder ,a ministerial servant ,or just a publisher use your items and your talks at the meeting to awake your brothers and sisters .this talk was given few days ago at the thursday meeting ,based on proverbs 3:5.sorry for the accent ,english is not my mother language.. talk at the kingdom hall.

leaving_quietly

3:50 "To understand the Bible on your own is your God-given right."

Well played!

35

JW businessman's email about the UN and false religion

by Las Malvinas son Argentinas in

jw
friends

i was shown a hard copy of an email from a purported jw businessman who claimed he had contact with some un officials as part of his 'business'.

in conversation, he claimed that he blurted out and asked them when they were going to clamp down on religion as foretold in jw prophecy.

according to the account, the un official acted startled, and asked 'how do you know?'.

leaving_quietly

Heh.... I heard this one, too, except it wasn't a JW businessman, it was a JW sister on a tour of the UN. Definitely an urban legend.

73

Who is the Israel of God? Used one in scripture, claimed by Christians everywhere!

by nibbled in

the phrase israel of god appears only once in the scriptures, yet it is frequently used in christianity.

just who is the israel of god?.

as you consider these points, and before responding, will you please test your thinking to ensure first that you are speaking from a scripture only standpoint?

leaving_quietly

As for the original posting... is there a clear view here what the Israel of God represents (lots of reading to get at it).

Personally, I'm considering the audience Paul was talking to, which was the congregations (plural) of Galatia. There were likely both natural Jews and Gentiles in those congregations. He was discussing how useless circumcision really was and that all in Christ were set free (apparently free from the custody of sin). I see Galatians 6:16 as an kind ending to not offend any who might be offended at what he was saying, so he first mentioned "all those who will walk orderly by this rule of conduct", but so as not to leave out any where were truly of the natural line of descent who were once under law and who were literally from the children of the free woman (Sarah), he includes them as well, the Israel of God ("of God" because it was through God's promise to Abraham, through Sarah, to Isaac and Jacob).

To be clear, though, he states in Galatians 4:28 that "we, brothers, are children belonging to the promise the same as Isaac was." In this, he was including those where were NOT of Jewish lineage. The reason I say that is because of Galatians 5:1, where he says, "For such freedom Christ set us free." Only through Christ were they set free, no longer children of slavery, regardless of their fleshly heritage. He then tells them in verse 2: "See! I, Paul, am telling YOU that if YOU become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to YOU." Natural Jews would have already been circumcised, so he must be including Gentiles here.

But, like I said, I personally see the inclusion of the phrase "Israel of God" to be a sort of gracious gesture so as not to offend any who read the letter who were truly natural Jews. In other words, I don't think it refers to anything special other than to include them specifially in his closing comments.

I could totally be wrong, but that's how it appears to me.

16

Rev 3:12 - New Jerusalem descending out of heaven?

by leaving_quietly in

there are scriptures talk about new jerusalem descending out of heaven.. rev 3:12 - the one that conquersi will make him a pillar in the temple of my god, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and i will write upon him the name of my god and the name of the city of my god, the new jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my god, and that new name of mine.. rev 21:2 - i saw also the holy city, new jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from god and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.. most scholars feel all this is figurative, because, well, as barnes said:.

"the idea of a city literally descending from heaven, and being set upon the earth with such proportions - three hundred and seventy miles high revelation 21:16, made of gold, and with single pearls for gates, and single gems for the foundations - is absurd.".

eze 37:12 - and i will conclude with them a covenant of peace; an indefinitely lasting covenant is what there will come to be with them.

leaving_quietly

Shelby, thank you for all that. A few things, if you please...

The account of Joseph and Pharaoh is actually a precursor to the relationship between God and Christ

The funny thing is that, speaking for myself only, every time I think of Pharoah, I always think of the bad Pharoah in the days of Moses. I keep forgetting there was a good Pharoah. However, I never did make this connection, though upon further research, I see the connection was made long ago in the publications. One thing I did not find in the publications, but did find in scripture was another correlation: Pharoah gave Joseph a new name. Jehovah gave Jesus a new name, also.

The "he" that conquers is my Lord, the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah), dear one... and yes, that is the name of the city... and yes, it is "written" on him.

This doesn't make sense to me. The verse (Rev 3:12) says: "The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God". Isn't the speaker here Christ? Going all the way back to Rev 1:1, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him". So, "the one that conquers" couldn't be Christ in this context. It's repeated in verse 21: "To the one that conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, even as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." Clearly, "the one that conquers" in both these contexts is not Christ (otherwise, Christ would be granting to himself to sit down on his own thrown.)

As for the foundation stones, they have the names of the Apostles on them, as the Rev 21:14 says. You're saying the stones are the Apostles? That's a new thought.

As a result, he PROVED himself to be Israel's "husbandly owner".

I appreciate what you are saying here, but you attribute this to Christ, whereas in Jer. 3:14, this is attibuted to Jehovah: "“Return, O YOU renegade sons,” is the utterance of Jehovah. “For I myself have become the husbandly owner of YOU people; and I will take YOU, one out of a city and two out of a family, and I will bring YOU to Zion." Also, Isa 54:3 states: "For your Grand Maker is your husbandly owner, Jehovah of armies being his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Repurchaser." So, I'm just curious about your statement regarding Christ being Israel's "husbandly owner".

As for the rest... ok, it's a lot to think about, at the very least. Many thanks.

66

Still Waiting For the Governing Body To Explain Their New Light

by Cameron_Don in

jw
friends

regarding the governing bodys new light relative to matthew 24:45-47, anointedjw.org recently said the following:.

this new light certainly poses a problem for the governing body.

perhaps this is another reason why they have not yet published a sober and scriptural xplanation of this new light.

leaving_quietly

I still think the bigger issue is that Jesus did not inspect the org in 1918/19... that's a future thing. That's way bigger to me than the GB = FDS fiasco. If Jesus did NOT inspect the org in 1918/19, then the org could not be God's chosen organization (how could it be? the inspection hasn't happened yet) and whoever the FDS happens to be has zero authority other than giving out "their measure of food supplies at the proper time." (Luke 12:42) To me, this is a much bigger issue.

16

Rev 3:12 - New Jerusalem descending out of heaven?

by leaving_quietly in

there are scriptures talk about new jerusalem descending out of heaven.. rev 3:12 - the one that conquersi will make him a pillar in the temple of my god, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and i will write upon him the name of my god and the name of the city of my god, the new jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my god, and that new name of mine.. rev 21:2 - i saw also the holy city, new jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from god and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.. most scholars feel all this is figurative, because, well, as barnes said:.

"the idea of a city literally descending from heaven, and being set upon the earth with such proportions - three hundred and seventy miles high revelation 21:16, made of gold, and with single pearls for gates, and single gems for the foundations - is absurd.".

eze 37:12 - and i will conclude with them a covenant of peace; an indefinitely lasting covenant is what there will come to be with them.

leaving_quietly

Thank you, all.

Shelby, I'm a tad confused by what you say. I mean no disrespect by that. Your posts intrigue me.

"New Jerusalem" is actually not the name of city, but the description of a city, the NEW City of Double Peace ("Jerusalem"), the Bride of Christ

Thus, the NEW Jerusalem, which is named "JaH eTsidhqenu"... or "JAH is our righteousness/vindication"

This was a "duh!" moment for me. It's plainly obvious in Rev 3:12 that "New Jerusalem" is not the name of the city. Why have I never caught that before? " I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem" I assume "JaH eTsidhqenu" is the name of the city written on "Him that conquers" (who is that, by the way?)

"She" is not a literal city as we know of such from an earthly POV - she is a "city/temple" made up of people: Christ, the foundation cornerstone; the Apostles and Prophets, the foundation; the Apostles, the gates; the Prophets and others, pillars; and most, living stones.

How is this so? Rev 21:15-21 describe what appears to be a physical, brilliant, beautiful city. I understand about the Christ being the cornerstone and the gates and such, but the language used here indicates a physical city. You're saying it's not a physical city?

The Highest "Ruler" in this City is the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies ("Pharaoh")... who has conferred authority upon His Son, the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH ("Joseph")

Why do you refer to JAH as Pharoah and his Son as Joseph? What connection am I missing?

by means of a "marriage" between the Lamb (Christ) and his Bride (those who make up the "city")

Who is the Bride? We've always been taught it is the 144,000. However, other posts would seem to indicate this might not be the case. I'm admittedly confused here.

A related question: what is the distinction between the 144,000 and the "great crowd"? (in the simplest terms possible, please)

16

Rev 3:12 - New Jerusalem descending out of heaven?

by leaving_quietly in

there are scriptures talk about new jerusalem descending out of heaven.. rev 3:12 - the one that conquersi will make him a pillar in the temple of my god, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and i will write upon him the name of my god and the name of the city of my god, the new jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my god, and that new name of mine.. rev 21:2 - i saw also the holy city, new jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from god and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.. most scholars feel all this is figurative, because, well, as barnes said:.

"the idea of a city literally descending from heaven, and being set upon the earth with such proportions - three hundred and seventy miles high revelation 21:16, made of gold, and with single pearls for gates, and single gems for the foundations - is absurd.".

eze 37:12 - and i will conclude with them a covenant of peace; an indefinitely lasting covenant is what there will come to be with them.

leaving_quietly

There are scriptures talk about New Jerusalem descending out of heaven.

Rev 3:12 - “‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.

Rev 21:2 - I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Most scholars feel all this is figurative, because, well, as Barnes said:

"The idea of a city literally descending from heaven, and being set upon the earth with such proportions - three hundred and seventy miles high Revelation 21:16, made of gold, and with single pearls for gates, and single gems for the foundations - is absurd."

Eze 37:12 - ‘“And I will conclude with them a covenant of peace; an indefinitely lasting covenant is what there will come to be with them. And I will place them and multiply them and place my sanctuary in the midst of them to time indefinite.

The WT teaches the "sanctuary" is nothing more than "pure Christian worship." (w73 p283)

Thoughts? Has anyone researched this?

leaving_quietly

Posts by leaving_quietly