Ann O'Maly

*Tingtingtingting* Aaaand predictably they discuss the 'sun-god' Tammuz-Nimrod connection and have bought into other Hislopian pseudo-history, ladies and gentlemen. The video should be re-titled, "Shocking but mostly hooey."

A more scholarly discussion:

KURT M. SIMMONS - THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTMAS AND THE DATE OF CHRIST’S BIRTH

Oh goody. It's the annual 'let's perpetuate half-truths, non sequiturs and debunked myths about Christmas origins' campaign. ?

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Those who have a heavenly hope may serve on earth, and those with an earthly hope may serve in heaven for all we know.

Why should there be two different destinies in the first place - especially for Christian believers?

What is the scriptural support that there are two different destinies for Christian believers? 

(These questions are for anyone.)

On 11/29/2016 at 7:00 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Well, don't misquote. I said "the first century Christians addressed by Paul".

Maybe you missed my first question to you?

On 11/29/2016 at 3:19 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

 

On 11/28/2016 at 7:51 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Obviously, Abraham's destiny and that of the first century Christians addressed by Paul differ,

How is it obvious Abraham's destiny and that of first century Christians differ?

Anyway, need to catch up with the rest of this thread now ...

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Obviously, Abraham's destiny and that of the first century Christians addressed by Paul differ,

How is it obvious Abraham's destiny and that of first century Christians differ?

7 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Despite his righteous standing and his significant role in the outworking of God's purpose subsequent to the event described at Gen. 12:1-3, Abraham did not become one of the spirit-anointed, baptised, born-again followers of Christ addressed by Paul in Rom Chap.4 before he died. Therefore, his destiny differed from those who do.

He was born in the time before Jesus and Christianity, yes. But how does your conclusion follow that his and Christians' destinies are different?

16 hours ago, Blind Boy Grunt said:

Actually "studying the Bible" with your kids in 1979 mostly involved fighting to get everybody to sit down and be still and read Bible verses in small print they didn't understand and could not picture in their minds.

Evidently you missed the point about Noah doing "just so" and the FDS feeding us if you have issues with current teaching methods.

My Book of Bible Stories came out in 1978 and the pink Great Teacher book had been around for a few years. Didn't your family use these new 'spiritual provisions' from the 'slave class'?

The Royal Commission's full report can be read/downloaded at,

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/c2d1f1f5-a1f2-4241-82fb-978d072734bd/Report-of-Case-Study-No-29

I'm working through it now. Will the Org. humbly acknowledge and act on the Commission's findings? Let's hope so. It's a pity that 'Satan's world' has to chastise 'Jehovah's earthly organization.' But then, if it happened in Bible times, it can happen in modern times too, right?

I hear his Christmas album is outstanding! 

21 hours ago, Diakonos said:

As I read these verses it struck me that Paul saw no difference in Abraham having righteousness "counted to him" and 1st century Christians having righteousness "counted to them" .As verse 23 shows this is the same declaring of righteousness with the same resulting promise.

Yes, you got it, Diakonos. Galatians (which is a mini-Romans) makes the same argument, leading up to the punchline:

"You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. ... Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise." - Galatians 3:26, 29; cf. Rom. 8:14, 17.

Thus being "declared righteous for life" and "declared righteous as God's friend" is, in biblical salvation terms, a distinction without a difference.

2 hours ago, Nicole said:

[Article quote] "Remember, there are no mistakes. Every choice you have made was the right choice at that specific time."

Yes there are. And there are wrong choices no matter how we thought about them at the time.

To help prevent the negativity about ourselves spiraling into feelings of worthlessness after we've messed up (which often happens when we have been raised and/or surrounded by people who expect near perfection of us and pick up on every real or perceived fault), accept that we will get things wrong and make idiots of ourselves at times... and that's OK. Making mistakes are opportunities to learn and grow - sometimes we learn more from getting things wrong than by doing everything right all the time. And as for the 'soy sauce' incident? A sense of humor would have gone a long way to get over it.

On 10/27/2016 at 8:28 PM, Anna said:

So, on those premises we must conclude that only some individuals scattered throughout Christendom have the truth. Without actually knowing they have the truth of course. Or, we must assume that God and Christ  are not concerned with truth, and that there is no real scriptural measuring rod for a Christian. All very convenient......and unscriptural.

But what is 'the truth'?

Biblically, 'truth' is applied to, 

• Jesus - he is 'the truth' (John 14:6)
• God's spirit (John 14:17)
• God's word (John 17:17)

Every denomination will have their own angle on those truths depending on which scriptural dots are joined up.

But notice that 'the truth' is never applied in the Bible to a religion or its set of doctrines.

If God and Christ wanted everybody on the exact same doctrinal page now, they could remove all the ambiguities.

As it is,

"For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known." - 1 Cor. 13:12

... and this from the inspired apostle Paul! So every Christian has to do their best according to their own prayerful study and the conclusions based on them. Besides, the Organization has changed its mind countless times on what 'present truth' is, has it not?

Quote

 

Then he goes on to say “So there was much more diversity in the early stages of the Christian movement than the Book of Acts suggest....”

Yet he himself had just used the book of Acts to cite two examples (of what he regarded as diversity)!....??

 

I suspect he means that Christian diversity was much more common and wide-reaching than the few notable examples which made it into the book of Acts suggest.

Quote

Why did Paul do that? Because he knew unanimity was important because it was the will of God and Christ. Also, saying that the churches were very diverse is possible in the 2nd century, (apostasy)but not applicable to the extent he has in mind in the 1st Century.

So doesn't it show that, rather than Christianity starting off as somehow doctrinally pure and unified with later heresy and fragmentation, there were already scattered and diverse churches having their own take on the gospel, with Paul and subsequent Church Fathers then working to shape it into a 'catholic' orthodoxy?

Quote

Bear in mind, I am referencing these scriptures because of established fundamental truths in the 1st Century, those I discussed in my previous post such as the identity of God and Christ, the soul etc.

But many of those 'truths' hadn't been established yet. We get Paul hammering out matters of soteriology and the resurrection, as well as John's late gospel and corrective letters explaining Jesus' identity and nature. Early Christians would still be thrashing out these fundamental issues for centuries to come!

Quote

Further to your arguments, I know doctrines of the Trinity, soul etc. are a  "massive involved topic" once you delve outside of the realms of logic and scripture.

No - even within the realms of logic and scripture they are massive involved topics.

Quote

In addition, the authors in your link talk about diversity of views as if there were MANY diverse views when in fact there were only a very few

I suspect that, as well as the few examples in Acts being indicative of more commonplace happenings, they have in mind the contents of all the early Christian writings - not just those that were later canonized.

Quote

Other minor issues regarding who should do what (taking care of widows, proselytizing etc.) was also taken care of and resolved, the latter being normal issues of everyday life and organization and not related to doctrine.

Some of these minor issues would be relating to doctrine, though - like sources of meat, and who one should eat with, and when head coverings were appropriate, and so on.

Quote

Also, it is interesting to note, that although some of Christ's early disciples evidently got very emotional over some issues, (Paul & Barnabas) these did not linger, and definitely did not result in bloodshed. On the contrary, arguments over the identity of the Christ in the 2nd Century led to some nasty stuff, including murder. How Christian was that? 

Not Christian at all. However, there are the precursors to that level of hostility toward heresy when those who hold to and/or teach a different perspective are considered a pariah, e.g. Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 John 7, 10. It's a short step to outright violence when cherished ideologies are at stake.

Quote

How Christian was that, when Christ gave clear example of how his followers should behave regarding the authorities. And indeed, it's nothing like how Paul handled matters with the authorities.

Indeed. They thought the authorities' violent comeuppance would be later through a divine smiting.

Quote

Another interesting aspect shows how the confusion of the identity of the Christ may have got it's beginning. It's to do with worship. The above referenced author goes on to say: "These were explosive ideas. Faced with the problem that had confronted all Christians since St. Paul -- how to be a monotheist believing in only one God, yet still worship Jesus Christ" (p.55). Of course the author assumes this WAS a problem among the earliest Christians, whereas it really was not. Christians in Paul's day did not worship Christ....

It's not an assumption. The issue of worshipping Christ WAS a hot potato with the earliest Christians. E.g. see Larry Hurtado's book Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity where he provides evidence leading to the opposite conclusion.

Quote

I do not see any ambiguity in the texts describing the relationship between Jesus and his father.

Trinitarians would agree that there is no ambiguity in these texts. So why, they would ask, can't you see it? They use the same scriptural slap-downs as you have used with me regarding a seeming insensibility to 'Bible truths.' 

Have you tried looking in the 2016 Yearbook on the website?

Edit: Melinda just beat me to it! 

On 10/3/2016 at 0:15 AM, Jay Witness said:

All minors baptized and later disfellowshipped that have received damages may one day decide to form a class action lawsuit against the Jehovah's Witnesses

I don't know how feasible that would be legally and without encroaching on the 1st amendment. If somebody was baptized as a minor and disfellowshipped as an adult, couldn't it be argued that, as an adult, that person ratified their earlier contract by willingly submitting to congregation rules, consenting to have data held on them (e.g. report slips), accepting privileges, etc?

23 minutes ago, Anna said:

Whoever inserted the link into my post above please take it away. I do not appreciate having my post tampered with, without my permission. If you deem it necessary or helpful to include that link, then please insert it under your own post.

Very well. The link relating to your quote has been removed from your post and inserted here:

http://kristenfrihet.se/english/truechrist.htm

P.S. I find it to be common courtesy that, when a direct quote is made, it is properly referenced. That you did not do. Consequently, it was inserted into your post for the purpose of this new thread and so readers could follow where you were coming from. The edit was clearly flagged up so readers could distinguish between your initial post and the insertion.

22 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with the lies regarding their creation  (immortality of the soul etc.).

Again, this is such a massive, involved topic. It is not as scripturally (or linguistically and philosophically) black-and-white as you assume.

Think:

What is the 'soul' and has understanding about it changed over the time the Bible was compiled?

Are the 'souls' of the 'anointed' immortal?

What 'something' of an 'anointed' person is transformed after death or is 'resurrected' to heavenly life?

When and under what circumstances is a soul's immortality granted, according to the Bible?

Researching these questions, one will find that the Org. attacks the idea that the 'soul' is inherently or naturally immortal. But it seems to sidestep the idea many Christians hold to that immortality is something bestowed.

22 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with the lies regarding their mode of judgement (hell fire etc.).

Another huge debate among Christians is the interpretation of those 'hell fire' proof texts - should they be taken literally or figuratively? 

Regarding what is to be taken literally and figuratively in the Bible, are hermeneutic principles applied consistently?

22 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with the lies regarding their moral standards (homosexuality ok etc.)

Do JWs believe homosexuality is wrong? Or Do JWs believe the issue is about homosexual practice? Lots of other Christian groups would accept homosexuals without condoning homosexual acts.

22 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with lies regarding worship (Jesus, Mary, idols etc)

This depends on what is meant by 'worship' and whether it is scriptural to 'worship' Jesus (another discussion in itself). The veneration of Mary follows from other premises which have to be assessed on their scriptural merits or otherwise. As for 'idols' - well, we can make idols of anything - even organizations and their leaders, if we are not careful -  can we not?

22 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with the lies regarding defence (war etc.)

Another debate that would ensue from wider-ranging ethical questions. Is it OK to stand by and let your neighbor be bullied or killed? What about all the war-mongering and genocide in the OT?

22 hours ago, Anna said:

His quote above is a cheap cop out.

Actually it isn't when one begins to think beyond the superficial, beyond the ear-tickling soundbites.

22 hours ago, Anna said:

However, Christ did establish the first century church and on this church the true church should be modeled.

And the first century church was diverse.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html

So your reason for declaring this person a false Christian is that he doesn't hold to your own religious group's current interpretations of Scripture. Doesn't this strike you as a presumptuous position to take - especially since it is the 'Judge of all the earth' to make that final assessment?

Did you try and understand his scriptural arguments that countered the JW Organization's then-held views (the article was written in 1998 and a lot of JW doctrine has changed since then)? 

20 hours ago, Anna said:

The scriptures indicate quite clearly that there will be a united group in the last days, they do not teach that true Christians will be scattered amongst various Christian denominations.

This is one of the arguments the author counters. He also makes the valid point that the Org, has (and still has) a mix of righteous and wicked people within its congregations and outside of them, thereby suggesting that the harvest and weeding out work has not concluded.

20 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with the lies about their persons (the trinity etc.).

This reminds me of when I had discussions with evangelicals. Some of them consigned me to hell because I couldn't accept, on scriptural grounds, that Jesus was the second Person of the Trinity. I asked them where it said in the Bible that I had to accept this specific doctrine in order to be saved. They couldn't point to any text.

The converse is true, of course. If it was so necessary to pin down God's and Jesus' ontological relationship with each other, Bible texts would not be so ambiguous or have to be explained away by those in either camp. And if anyone really examines the subject in any depth, they will realize that Trinitarians have strong scriptural arguments in their favor.

I'll have to break off my reply for now, but I'll come back to the rest of your post later ...

International convention?

Albanian national dress?

Yes, Librarian is a little grouchy today. 

And what happened to the middle lady's other leg? Maybe that's why the Albanians are propping her up.

28 minutes ago, Teresa Morales said:

But the faith shared commonly among JW's is based on truths from the Bible, not opinions of men. 

Really? JWs' 'biblical truths' change all the time. How can you be sure that what JWs pronounce as biblical truth today won't be pronounced as biblical falsehood tomorrow?

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Is this opinion or fact?

Estimation based on logic and data.

On 10/23/2016 at 0:38 AM, Anna said:

No, of course not, but I can read the stuff he has written.

Maybe we are not reading the same stuff because what comes out clearly in it is his Christian faith and his respect for biblical and historical truth.

EDIT: This part of the discussion has been given its own thread.

20 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

It was the unbelievers who took no note of Noah wasn't it? Those who listened were expecting God to act, because He told them He would quite a few years before. Actually, Noah did know the day when the destruction would come didn't he? Keep that in mind when drawing the parallels. And keep Matt 24:43-44 in the picture too.

As I explained in a previous post:

"... they simply 'did not know' when the Flood was coming until it was upon them and took them by surprise (this is the whole point of the illustration - like the Flood, Jesus' Parousia will be unpredictable). 

The NWT poorly renders the Greek as 'took no note' in this verse. As a sidebar, compare the changed rendering in the rNWT with that in the older NWT at John 17:3. The same word ginōskō used there is also used in Jesus' illustration, but in the latter instance, the antediluvians did not 'know' or 'come to know.'"

God told Noah to build an ark because He was going to wipe everyone out; He didn't tell him when the Deluge would be until a week before. Not only that but, if you believe the Flood was global, 99% of the world's inhabitants would have been completely oblivious to what was going on in some plain in Mesopotamia.

On 10/21/2016 at 2:57 PM, JW Insider said:

[Brought to you by "New Light"!!]

"New Light! If you can't change what you say, change what 'what you say' means."

This is exactly what happened with the phrase "The Gentile Times have ended..."

And 'generation.'

For she keeps saying in her heart: ‘I sit as queen ...

She's not been voted in yet. 

On 10/17/2016 at 6:18 AM, Anna said:

I didn't want to sound to be mean, it's just that I don't think he is following in Christ's footsteps

 How would you know? Are you familiar with his daily habits, deeds, his beliefs?