Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Who really started the jw's?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 4:51PM #21
mrjordan
Posts: 2,145

Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:35PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:24PM, mrjordan wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:02PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 3:36PM, Phronesis wrote:


Brother Russell did not found Jehovah's Witnesses. He did however found the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.


Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society. First formed in 1881 and then legally incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania on December 15, 1884. In 1896 its name was changed to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Since 1955 it has been known as Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.


 Peoples Pulpit Association. Formed in 1909 in connection with the Society’s moving of its principal offices to Brooklyn, New York. In 1939 the name was changed to Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc. Since 1956 it has been known as Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.


Jehovah's Witnesses have been around since the time of Abel. (Hebrews 11:4 & 12:1; compare Isaiah 43:10-12.)


Jehovah's Christian Witnesses came into existence on the day of Pentecost, 33 CE.


I know ya'll don't like that and will dispute it, but facts are facts.




Jews were called "JWs"?  Hmm; I wonder why that never pops up in rabbinic or diasporic Judaism, from Babylonia to Roma and Gaul? 




Actually in Hebrew 11:4...


"By faith Abel offered God a sacrifice of greater worth than Cain, through which [faith] he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness respecting his gifts; and through it he, although he died, yet speaks."





And, they carried an I.D. in their back pocket of their animal-skin that read, "JW."  Okay, "they were JWs because I said they're JWs." 




The book of Hebrew was written by....? It was not I who wrote those words.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 4:53PM #22
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,647

Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:51PM, mrjordan wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:35PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:24PM, mrjordan wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:02PM, mecdukebec wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 3:36PM, Phronesis wrote:


Brother Russell did not found Jehovah's Witnesses. He did however found the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.


Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society. First formed in 1881 and then legally incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania on December 15, 1884. In 1896 its name was changed to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Since 1955 it has been known as Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.


 Peoples Pulpit Association. Formed in 1909 in connection with the Society’s moving of its principal offices to Brooklyn, New York. In 1939 the name was changed to Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc. Since 1956 it has been known as Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.


Jehovah's Witnesses have been around since the time of Abel. (Hebrews 11:4 & 12:1; compare Isaiah 43:10-12.)


Jehovah's Christian Witnesses came into existence on the day of Pentecost, 33 CE.


I know ya'll don't like that and will dispute it, but facts are facts.




Jews were called "JWs"?  Hmm; I wonder why that never pops up in rabbinic or diasporic Judaism, from Babylonia to Roma and Gaul? 




Actually in Hebrew 11:4...


"By faith Abel offered God a sacrifice of greater worth than Cain, through which [faith] he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness respecting his gifts; and through it he, although he died, yet speaks."





And, they carried an I.D. in their back pocket of their animal-skin that read, "JW."  Okay, "they were JWs because I said they're JWs." 




The book of Hebrew was written by....? It was not I who wrote those words.





Origen said, in response to that question, Deus scit.  But then, Origen was a Trinitarian, and you know what that does to a JW brain. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 6:12PM #23
Kemmer
Posts: 16,498

Origen said, in response to that question, Deus scit.  But then, Origen was a Trinitarian, and you know what that does to a JW brain.



Many years ago in the theologate, there was a priest-professor who we felt figured he was undervalued.  We thought if he was ever made a bishop, his motto would be "Fidem Scit" (he knows the faith), but pronounce the Latin in the Italian way.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 6:17PM #24
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,647

Apr 19, 2012 -- 6:12PM, Kemmer wrote:


Origen said, in response to that question, Deus scit.  But then, Origen was a Trinitarian, and you know what that does to a JW brain.



Many years ago in the theologate, there was a priest-professor who we felt figured he was undervalued.  We thought if he was ever made a bishop, his motto would be "Fidem Scit" (he knows the faith), but pronounce the Latin in the Italian way.





One hopes he knew the Baltimore Catechism

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 6:58PM #25
Oeste
Posts: 3,370

Apr 19, 2012 -- 3:36PM, Phronesis wrote:


Brother Russell did not found Jehovah's Witnesses. He did however found the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.


Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society. First formed in 1881 and then legally incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania on December 15, 1884. In 1896 its name was changed to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Since 1955 it has been known as Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.


 Peoples Pulpit Association. Formed in 1909 in connection with the Society’s moving of its principal offices to Brooklyn, New York. In 1939 the name was changed to Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc. Since 1956 it has been known as Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.


Jehovah's Witnesses have been around since the time of Abel. (Hebrews 11:4 & 12:1; compare Isaiah 43:10-12.)


Jehovah's Christian Witnesses came into existence on the day of Pentecost, 33 CE.


I know ya'll don't like that and will dispute it, but facts are facts.




I find this type of reasoning fascinating.


As you're walking down the street, a man approaches you.


"I am Jesus Christ!" he exclaims.


Stunned, you turn and ask "Jesus Christ of the bible?"


"The same", he says.


You decide to humor him. "Why should I believe you're the Jesus of the bible?".


He opens his bible and reads from Mat 24:44: 'You also must be ready all the time, for the Son of Man will come when least expected'. He then closes his bible and and stands triumphantly, his presentation concluded.  "Now ask yourself, were you expecting to see Jesus Christ when you saw me?"


"Actually no", you respond.


"Well there you go. You may not like it, you may even dispute it, but facts are facts."



 How do you separate such claims from the one you just presented?


Never argue with stupid people. They will drag
you down to their level and then beat you with
experience ~ Mark Twain

If you are neutral on situations of injustice
you have chosen the side of the oppressor ~
Desmond Tutu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 7:19PM #26
cherubino
Posts: 7,277

Apr 19, 2012 -- 6:58PM, Oeste wrote:


I find this type of reasoning fascinating.


As you're walking down the street, a man approaches you.


"I am Jesus Christ!" he exclaims.


Stunned, you turn and ask "Jesus Christ of the bible?"


"The same", he says.


You decide to humor him. "Why should I believe you're the Jesus of the bible?".


He opens his bible and reads from Mat 24:44: 'You also must be ready all the time, for the Son of Man will come when least expected'. He then closes his bible and and stands triumphantly, his presentation concluded.  "Now ask yourself, were you expecting to see Jesus Christ when you saw me?"


"Actually no", you respond.


"Well there you go. You may not like it, you may even dispute it, but facts are facts."



 How do you separate such claims from the one you just presented?




A true story. Several years ago when a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door, I asked one of the ladies where the Bible originally came from.

"God," she replied.

"Did it drop out of the sky or did an editorial committee select the contents of it long after the fact of the writing itself?"

"No," she replied quite condescendingly, "It came directly from God."

"How do you know that?" I asked. "Did you see it happen?"

"I know it because I believe it," she said.

"Is a belief the same as as fact?" I went on. "If I were to believe that the Great Pumpkin created the Harvest Moon, would that make it a fact?"

She said that was an unfair question because her beliefs were in the Bible and mine aren't. So I asked her once again where the Bible came from. At that point she became very tight-lipped, her posture stiffened and her hands were noticeably shaking as she clutched her Bible to her abdomen.

Her companion then interjected that they had pressing obligations elsewhere and had to go. I took that as my cue and ended the conversation as quickly and diplomatically as I could, because she was in my house and I was really afraid she was going to have a nervous breakdown right there in my living room.

My point is that she had never thought through exactly why she believes the Bible came from God, nor about what sort of thought transmission or authentication process might have been involved. She had adopted her belief from other people who had impressed it upon her, of course, and apparently never reflected that they hadn't thought it through any more than she had. So I concluded that the real reason she got so defensive and looked so panic-stricken wasn't because I was doubting the Bible. The real reason for her discomfort was that she didn't want to admit to me, a lost soul by definition and therefore someone she had earned the right to look down upon by becoming a Pioneer, that she'd bought the whole enchilada from someone else, someone who in turn had bought it from someone else, who in turn...

We call this stuff revelation, but it's really about creating hierarchical roles in relationships here & now where none existed before. Why do people do that?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 11:30PM #27
Theo
Posts: 4,687

Why do people do that?


Because they want to believe that someone has the answers, and so they trust someone who inspires confidence in them. All that "certain someone" has to do is show themselves knowledgeable, more so than anyone else they know or have been exposed to - and they will bet the family farm that that guy knows the truth - and therefore everything they teach from the Bible, seems to make sense to them, even if they can not come up with the same "insights" on their own.


Heck , I just did the samething yesterday and today. I have a mechanic friend who has taken care of my vehicles for the past 15 years or better. Yesterday he told me about an old Ford Bronco 2, and the great condition it was in when he bought it at an auction, and what he did to it in his garage... and I am sold. I am buying it from him because I trust his knowledge far more than the salesman at the car dealership down the road. You see, this guy is the man I would take a used car to - to see if it is worth buying, so obviously I trust his opinion more than my own - seeing he knows more than me about cars.


But the thing is - there are probably better mechanics out there who might try to persuade me to buy a different vehicle, but in as much as I do not know them, and do not really have the knowledge base to tell if they know more than my mechanic - I am going to trust the guy I know.


Frankly, if I had the interest, I have the means to learn all about vehicle mechanics, and then I would be able to have confidence in my opinion too... in as much as it would be an informed opinion. But in as much as I have little mechanical aptitude, and less desire to know about cars - I have not availed myself to the massive amounts of information available to the general public... I would rather trust my friend than know for myself.


Sadly, many people take exactly the same approach to religion and the Bible. They get to know and like someone who seems to know the Bible really well - and after awhile they start to trust them. Eventually they will sit at their feet and hang on their every word... happened to me back in the 1970s. Fortunately for me, I learned enough about the Bible from other sources, that eventually I was able to evaluate what I had been taught - and figure my own way out of their maze.


~ Theophilus

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 7:34AM #28
matica
Posts: 3,065

So the facts bearing a knife in the back of Russell by Rutherford after Russell died and 75% of Russells followers would not follow Rutherford, I guess that would make Russell an apostate?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 8:39AM #29
cherubino
Posts: 7,277

Apr 19, 2012 -- 11:30PM, Theo wrote:


Sadly, many people take exactly the same approach to religion and the Bible. They get to know and like someone who seems to know the Bible really well - and after awhile they start to trust them. Eventually they will sit at their feet and hang on their every word... happened to me back in the 1970s. Fortunately for me, I learned enough about the Bible from other sources, that eventually I was able to evaluate what I had been taught - and figure my own way out of their maze.


~ Theophilus






I actually read the Bible all the way through when I was a twenty-something monk back in the early 1960s. I read the whole RSV one page at a time, and I did it over the course of a summer in the quiet hours around dawn, usually outside. I simply read it without preconceptions, verse by verse and chapter by chapter, and also without the customary didactic embellishments of concordance, commentary or study guides, and without any mood-altering atmospheric enhancements such as bells, organ music, sermons, hymns or other theological framework. The big surprise was to discover how much of it was simply the historical legend and recorded customs of a primitive and generally brutal tribe of nomads, complete with a deity who took their side of any dispute with their neighboring tribes.

Then I had to ask myself if there were subtle moral or ethical lessons to be gleaned by reading it as parable or allegory, or if it was simply as it appeared, the triumphant war-whoop morality of the outlaw or savage, for whom killing and plunder are essential survival skills. But what ethical application could that possibly have for civilized people today, except for lifting some carefully selected passages out of context and ignoring the rest? In what generic sense, then, was it all to be understood as divine revelation, or even edification for that matter, any more than caveman paintings or Aztec sculpture?

I have to admit that the hardest part was staying awake. The next hardest part was trying to reconcile all the primitive folklore and tribalistic bombast that actually fills most of the pages, and I started to wonder exactly how anyone could go about deciding what, if any of this, was holy writ. I mean, on one page it says thou shalt not kill, and a few pages later it tells-- nay, commands-- to rape, plunder or slaughter every living thing in Canaan.


That was one of my major epiphanies, if you will, when I saw what I saw firsthand without any commercial voice-over. After that I couldn't help but see it all through the eyes of an anthropologist or a sociologist, especially when I realized that most of what's in the Bible never gets used to support any doctrine or quoted as proof text, but just sits there as unaccounted-for and unexplained packing material.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 9:10AM #30
Kemmer
Posts: 16,498


I actually read the Bible all the way through when I was a twenty-something monk back in the early 1960s. I read the whole RSV one page at a time, and I did it over the course of a summer in the quiet hours around dawn, usually outside. I simply read it without preconceptions, verse by verse and chapter by chapter, and also without the customary didactic embellishments of concordance, commentary or study guides, and without any mood-altering atmospheric enhancements such as bells, organ music, sermons, hymns or other theological framework. The big surprise was to discover how much of it was simply the historical legend and recorded customs of a primitive and generally brutal tribe of nomads, complete with a deity who took their side of any dispute with their neighboring tribes.
Then I had to ask myself if there were subtle moral or ethical lessons to be gleaned by reading it as parable or allegory, or if it was simply as it appeared, the triumphant war-whoop morality of the outlaw or savage, for whom killing and plunder are essential survival skills. But what ethical application could that possibly have for civilized people today, except for lifting some carefully selected passages out of context and ignoring the rest? In what generic sense, then, was it all to be understood as divine revelation, or even edification for that matter, any more than caveman paintings or Aztec sculpture?
I have to admit that the hardest part was staying awake. The next hardest part was trying to reconcile all the primitive folklore and tribalistic bombast that actually fills most of the pages, and I started to wonder exactly how anyone could go about deciding what, if any of this, was holy writ. I mean, on one page it says thou shalt not kill, and a few pages later it tells-- nay, commands-- to rape, plunder or slaughter every living thing in Canaan.


That was one of my major epiphanies, if you will, when I saw what I saw firsthand without any commercial voice-over. After that I couldn't help but see it all through the eyes of an anthropologist or a sociologist, especially when I realized that most of what's in the Bible never gets used to support any doctrine or quoted as proof text, but just sits there as unaccounted-for and unexplained packing material.



Contrasting the above with Newtonian's ark brochures and GTBH's forecasts of "eternal" Earth's future demographics, I think I'd go with Cherubino's evaluation.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook