Ann O'Maly

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

anomally = something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

I know what an anomaly is, I just didn't understand your sentence.

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Of course I see your point (similar to Act  5:29), I just do not think it applies here as I don't see David as being disloyal to Saul. It was Saul who was disloyal.

David defected to Saul's and Israel's enemy, the Philistines. Wouldn't the establishment have viewed that as disloyal? 

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Anyway, are you constructing an argument to show that the experience of ex-witnesses disfellowshipped for disagreeing with doctrinal matters which were later corrected in their favor is parallel to David's experience of being an outcast?

My argument was a simple one: Loyalty to God may mean disloyalty to a religious leadership's actions or beliefs. 

You brought in 1 Sam. 24, and I referenced 1 Sam 27f. which raised the issue about David's loyalties. David's example underlined the point that loyalty to Jehovah comes over and above loyalty to a nation or human ruler, even if that meant one became an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I was referring to the "video" presentation that Kurt provided. Look at the point made at the 1 minute and 20 second mark in the video:  "Four main arguments used to prove Jesus died on a Cross" 1. Jehovah's Witnesses Believed in the Cross.

Oh I seeeee. I didn't watch after 16 seconds. I'm going to have to watch the whole thing now, aren't I? 

14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Very thorough article with an interesting acknowledgement:

"it will never be known beyond doubt what type of instrument was used to execute Jesus." 

"It is true that it will never be known beyond doubt what type of instrument was used to execute Jesus. But there is evidence – strong evidence – that it may have been a cross." - p. 31.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not so sure about how the presentation would convince anyone. Have never heard anyone tell me that Jesus must have died on the cross and one of the proofs is that the Watchtower used to believe it and has pictures of it. ????

The Watchtower's prior beliefs about the cross and how it was depicted in the literature isn't used as a 'proof' that Jesus must have died on a cross, but is merely part of tracing Watchtower's attitudes about it. The author presents biblical, linguistic, archaeological and patristic evidence that is highly suggestive that Jesus' instrument of execution may well have been cross-shaped.

Thanks JW Insider. I had a feeling that Manuel Boyet Manicola would struggle to answer (there's a lot of doctrinal history to dig up and process!), but you have given a thorough background to how this 1935 idea came to be.

As an aside, and slightly off at a tangent, it's interesting that one of the main arguments Rutherford put forward as scriptural evidence for the new 1935 'great crowd = earth-bound' teaching was that Jesus inspected the temple and had sat down on his judgment throne in 1918 with the nations before him, and he was separating the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25). These nations aren't in heaven, he reasoned, so the 'great crowd' of 'sheep' must be on earth when this takes place, therefore, this is evidence that the 'great crowd' is earthly, not heavenly. 

Seeing as the '1918 judgment/separating' teaching was revised in the mid-90s (it became a future event), this specific argument for the 'great crowd' being an earthly class evaporated.

Going back to how ideas were communicated back then, this caught my eye in the Aug. 15, 1935 WT (which discussed the new ideas about the 'great multitude'):

1935 WT volume found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5jNoZSyIWQWS3NyVHlaazZvNFk/view

18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This is a bit childish?

I was stating a fact and it was written with an impish twinkle in my eye. 

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

David was God's anointed king. 1Sam 16:13. Saul made David an outcast because of his own loss of God's favor and his intent to kill David.

The point remains that, because of David's higher loyalties, he became an outcast in the eyes of God's (still) anointed and reigning king (cp. 1 Sam. 24:5, 6), and that David provides an example of where loyalty to God may mean disloyalty to a leadership's actions or beliefs. 

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Now you are second guessing.

Yes, it is purely my opinion based on how this discussion has gone.

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I'm disappointed, I had come to expect anomaly.

I don't understand what that means.

OK I lasted 16 seconds.

As soon as the video started using the 'Two Babylons' book as its source, I knew it was a dud.

Real research can be found here:

jwcross.pdf

Eoin, dragging you back to the point here: if you overheard the kind of conversation between a father and son as I posted above, would you not conclude that the father was trying to coerce or blackmail his child into marriage? If not, why not?

19 hours ago, John Houston said:

It is not man's right to give blood, which was to be poured out to the ground, if taken from an animal for food ...

Blood was only to be poured out on the ground if a life was taken. It was to ensure the animal was properly dead and, when used as part of ritual sacrifice, was symbolic of atonement for sins.

Seeing as no life is being taken when blood for transfusion is being donated, and that it is not being used for religious purposes or for food, but it is being used for what God originally designed it for, those Scripture texts and the intent behind them do not apply.

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I think we had better leave this discussion to another time and place as it is straying a bit off topic.

Lol. You started it by asking how 1 Samuel 24:4-7 sat with the idea that being loyal to Jehovah may mean disloyalty to a religious leadership's actions or beliefs, and quibbling about whether David's loyalties made him an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed king.  And I think you see my point very well. 

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

He was already an outcast.

From when God's anointed king wanted to kill him, yes. But you are evading the lesson to be learned, namely: doesn't David's example emphasize loyalty to Jehovah over and above loyalty to a nation or human ruler, even if that meant he was an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed?

20 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

He was certainly an outcast. But was that due to his loyalty?

 

Um yeah! If he'd been disloyal, he'd have killed Saul, become king, and stopped being an outcast.

On 5/29/2016 at 7:37 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

I'm finding it hard to make the connection here.

I can see that. 

You agree that getting married has lesser gravity in the great universal scheme of things than baptism, right?

What if you overheard this conversation between a father and his mid-teen son?

"But dad, while I like the girl and we're friendly, I do not feel ready to make a lifelong commitment to her. I'm too young to get married."

"Oh yeah? Not ready? Well let's hold off on your driver's license, hey?"

"What? Dad? You're kidding, right? I'm 16. I'm ready to drive a car!"

"No, son. You're ready to handle a car but not ready for marriage, huh? You explain that to the girl's family." 

"What the hell, dad?"

Is the father being reasonable with his son?

Isn't the father using some form of coercion or blackmail to induce his son to get married?

If this isn't a form of coercion or blackmail, what is it?

On 5/28/2016 at 11:24 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

i don't think his loyalty made him an outcast.

Having to hide in caves and among Israel's enemies to evade death at the hands of God's anointed king doesn't count as being an outcast? Really?

35 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Pretty well for me. Excellent strategy in that David secured his future boundaries whilst giving the Philistines the impression he was fighting their enemies. He then escaped fighting against Saul when the distrusting Philistines sent him away. Thus he played no part in Saul's overthrow and death in the ensuing battle. So David stayed loyal to Jehovah and allowed him to deal with problem of Saul.

Yep, David was playing both sides and it worked out for him. But doesn't David's example emphasize loyalty to Jehovah over and above loyalty to a nation or human ruler, even if that meant he was an outcast in the eyes of God's anointed?

28 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I'm hearing a man saying that if youths felt they were mature enough to have a driving licence but weren't ready to consider dedication and baptism, then maybe their priorities needed adjustment.

How are the two in any way equivalent? 

30 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

... I'm not hearing that suggestion here.

AMIII threatened to hold off on granting one of his sons a drivers licence when he turned 16 when his son said he didn't feel ready for baptism. That was blackmail.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

How does 1 Samuel 24:4-7 sit with this?

It doesn't. I doubt whether anyone's seriously considering putting members of the Org's leadership to death.

It's interesting that David defected to Saul's and Israel's enemy, the Philistines, for a while (1 Sam. 27-29). How does that sit with the issue of loyalty?

5 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Yes, Moses did not "publicize".  But killing the Egyptian is in itself a "statement" and very powerful at that.....

So Moses was not prophesying in this instance, was he? 

5 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Sure.  The key question is: What is Jehovah asking of us? Loyalty to him, period.  Humans sin, lie or deceive.  What we need is to stay close to Jehovah at all times....

Therefore, loyalty to Him may mean disloyalty to a religious leadership's actions or beliefs. 

5 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

If they DO love Jehovah and Jesus, where will they go?  Back again to non-biblical teachings such as hellfire and the trinity? (2 Peter 2:22)

Another sweeping generalization. Many of the ones who left retained Bible Student/JW beliefs on these. 

Also, you need to realize that Christians who advocate the Trinity and hellfire have scriptural texts to back them up and would argue that the JW views are non-biblical. It's a matter of perspective.

5 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Otherwise, they would have stayed, as Simon Peter and the others did. (John 6:68)

Stayed 'where' or ... ?

John 6:68: Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. 

Do you see the difference? It's not a 'where' but a 'whom.' Religious organizations can come and go and veer off the rails. Christians believe God and His Son are constants through all that and they are the ones who can save a believer in the end - not an organization.

3 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

You're correct.  But JWs never quoted the Bible as "basis" for the year 1935

Really? So where did they get the idea from? How did they come to the 'logical conclusion' that 1935 was when the heavenly calling ended? 

9 minutes ago, John Houston said:

I am going to,reply as did Jesus to Pilate, you are saying those things. 

Thank you for the confirmation.

4 minutes ago, John Houston said:

Moses got his message wrong, remember? That was why he did not go into the promised land! Moses acted on his own,  not following Jehovah's instructions. He did not lie, but they were his own actions.

Are you suggesting that the Org acted on its own with 1925 and 1975, not following Jehovah's instructions?

11 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This is a puzzling question. Of course no true prophet is recorded as getting Jehovah's message wrong. Whenever Jehovah's message is transmitted, it could only be right as Jehovah himself was transmitting it and saw to it that the message was transmitted as he required. Sometimes the message was not even understood by the messenger.  

So if someone claims to have had a message revealed by the Lord himself, and yet the message turns out to be faulty, we can conclude either ...

- the Lord gave faulty information,

or

- the person didn't accurately convey the Lord's message,

or

-the person didn't receive the Lord's message.

On Dr. Jeanson:

http://americanloons.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/193-nathaniel-jeanson.html

Jeanson is a relatively central figure in the Creation Science movement, since he has (in fact) a Medical PhD from Harvard. The fact that he apparently painstakingly obtained the degree in order to disregard every piece of knowledge obtained in the process soley for the purpose of lending an air of authority to anti-science makes his degree meaningless, of course, but the Creationist movement still tout it as evidence for their claims. This is, of course, further showcased by his young earth Creationist arguments, which are the same as the ones Gish used in the 60s and which reveal no grasp of the science. And it is, of course, showcased by the fact that Jeanson himself admits to obtaining the degree for window-dressing.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160418052514/http://www.icr.org/article/4822/

"I'm a second generation creationist, you might say," he said. He explained how he saw that "salvation was inherent in creation science" and that it could be used as a tool for evangelism, another passion of his.

With a promising and lucrative career in medical research open before him, Jeanson said he underwent a career shift at Harvard. "I asked myself, 'How can I use and abuse my training to influence eternity, rather than for temporary gain?'" He considered mission work or attending seminary. He decided, instead, to seek employment at ICR, rather than continuing his research in Boston.

8 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Would a true prophet of God make false prophecies about World War II? 

‘The Nazis will destroy the British Empire.’ (Fifth Column, p 15) <---inserted the missing word

-  Of course, it happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

No it didn't. Neither did the Nazis and Fascists 'grab Switzerland.' Look more closely at what Rutherford claimed and to whom he attributed his insights:

8 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

- Did JW said that Armageddon will follow WWII immediately?

No, this was 1941 in the middle of the war. Look up the quote for yourself.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5jNoZSyIWQWZWtHUm8zdkw3OVE/view

If a GB member said that the new release was the 'Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon,' what would you conclude about when Armageddon was coming?

8 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

‘The end of Nazi Fascist hierarchy will come and will mark the end forever of demon rule.’ (Watchtower, 15 December 1941, p 377) 

- Nazi rule ended.  We all know that.

The article's theme Scripture was Dan. 2:44 - you know, the one about how God's kingdom would smash all the human kingdoms to smithereens? It wasn't only the Nazi Fascist hierarchy that was to be destroyed but all the earthly governments. Check out the article for yourself - same link as above. Nazi rule ended, but all the other 'kingdoms' remained.