JW Insider

I know for a fact, and from personal experience, that it is quite possible to hold differing views from many other Witnesses and continue to have privileges and NOT be disfellowshipped. Among certain bodies of elders one can even make a private request not to be given certain subject matter as assignments and, as long as this never interferes with congregation activities as a whole, this need not be a problem. But I also know that there are some elders and circuit overseers who are quick to create an ultimatum that might lead to disciplinary action. It's ironic that some of the most judgmental of these persons themselves also hold views that differ from the Society's view. (I saw this especially when I worked for Brother Schroeder.)

Everyone knows that all of us might hold certain minor variations in our personal beliefs about a verse or an idea here and there, and if we are not dogmatic and if it does not contradict a key teaching then we are "safe."  But it is easy to cause trouble with personal beliefs, and it's easy for people to get caught up in the idea that their personal beliefs make them somehow better or more spiritually mature than others. This was a rather obvious problem for a time at Bethel.

I didn't see it as openly when I was there, but I'm told that there was a practice that probably peaked in the early to mid 1970's and coincided with the hype about 1975 that ran from 1967 to 1974. The practice was for many "Bethel Elders" (especially those in authoritative positions) to talk about ideas they held that differed from the current Watchtower teachings. This was not considered a sign of disrespect, but a way to gain more respect, a way to position themselves as spiritually mature and studious. It was especially the more mature brothers who had responsibilities in the Service Dept, Correspondence, Writing, and similar work. It seemed like every "Table Head" could speak about some nuances of differences in belief that he held, and there was a kind of free-thinking openness that many brothers found refreshing. Younger Bethelites were able to have enlightening conversations among themselves about doctrinal possibilities based on sharing things they heard from table conversations.

The expansion of the Bethel family due to the increased inflow of Witnesses in the pre-1975 era might have had something to do with why this was cracked down upon. With the new Governing Body assignments that expanded beyond the Board of Directors, some of the brothers like Sydlik and Schroeder who were well known for this practice, began to be heard only in more hushed tones. Others followed suit, so that non-conformists seemed to censor themselves (I'm told). Of course, it's quite possible that other factors resulted in the self-censoring. Perhaps there was a fear that it could get out of control; perhaps it came from Knorr or Franz. All I know is that people still talked about the more open freedom that had been the norm in the years just before I got to Bethel, and various Bethelites would still identify who had said what about certain doctrines. The consistency among various Bethelites told me that most of it was probably true, and I was able to verify some of it with Dan Sydlik, Bert Schroeder, Fred Rusk, Sam Friend and others personally.

On the matter of the "overlapping generation" I would think it's simply a matter of attitude and "style." Disagreeing without being disagreeable.

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

There are illogical dissections going one. For example:

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

most of them left the Watch Tower organization,

 Who are "them"? How do we know that those disputing and leaving the Bible Students back then were actually anointed at all? Maybe only those proving loyal in the face of trials were genuine in the first place.

It was easy to anticipate that you might judge them all as having never been genuinely anointed. This is why I said it was "by their own count" and "per the Watch Tower publications."

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If they are referring to the entire group of faithful anointed ones (by their own count) who were actively serving God, then no one could say, per the Watch Tower publications

Also, think about what you are saying. Many of those "disputing and leaving the Bible Students back then" were disputing and leaving because of false doctrines being promoted by Rutherford and the Watch Tower. The 1917 dispute was about men wrestling over who should have dictatorial power and the promotion of a book "The Finished Mystery" where the majority of its content is now understood to be false doctrines. The first promotions of the Watch Tower Society under Rutherford was the false doctrine (actually a false prophecy) that millions then living would never die because the proofs that the end would come in 1925 were even better than the proofs of 1914 and that Bible Students had more evidence that the end would come in 1925 than Noah had evidence that Jehovah would cause a flood upon mankind. Do you think that all true anointed Christians would be expected to merely put up with these attitudes and false doctrines and false prophecies? Using the Watch Tower's biblical definition of apostasy, ultimately, Rutherford himself apostasized from the Bible Students movements which he had taken part in promoting. We consider Rutherford's apostasy in this case to be a good thing!

Remember that the congregations themselves were responsible for rooting out error. There was no hint in the Bible that they were to wait upon a central body to root it out for them. Note what Jesus tells John:

(Revelation 2:2) 2 ‘I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them to be liars.

(Revelation 2:6) 6 Still, you do have this in your favor: that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus, which I also hate.

(Revelation 2:14) 14 “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, who taught Baʹlak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel. . .

(Revelation 2:15) . . .In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus.

(Revelation 2:20) . . .“‘Nevertheless, I do hold this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezʹe·bel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and misleads my slaves . . .

(Revelation 2:24-26) 24 “‘However, I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching, those who did not get to know the so-called “deep things of Satan”: I am not putting on you any other burden. 25 Just the same, hold fast to what you have until I come. 26 And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations,

etc., etc.

If any of these anointed Christians were serious about their obligations as congregations under the leadership of Christ Jesus, they should have been expected to dispute the same false doctrines, false prophecies, and political idolatry, that the Watch Tower admits had been the cause of so much stumbling. Later, especially around 1927 to 1930, Rutherford went so far as to equate some of the teachings of Russell with the teachings of Satan.

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

14 There is yet a third reason for confidence. What has developed among God’s people points to the nearness of the end. For example, prior to the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven, a group of faithful anointed ones were actively serving God. When some of their expectations about what would happen in 1914 did not come about, what did they do? Most of them proved their integrity under trials and persecution and kept right on serving Jehovah. Over the years, most—if not all—of those anointed ones have faithfully completed their earthly course.

I think a careful reading actually does lead to the idea that the Watchtower is now promoting the entire doctrine as Bible "truth."

Of course there is a lot of "hyperbole" and "hypobole" in this introduction. It was not "some of their expectations about what would happen in 1914 that did not come about; for most of them, it was ALL OF THEIR EXPECTATIONS ABOUT 1914 that did not come about. If they are referring to the entire group of faithful anointed ones (by their own count) who were actively serving God, then no one could say, per the Watch Tower publications that "most of them proved their integrity under trials and persecution" or that "most --if not all--of those anointed" faithfully completed their earthly course. In fact most of them left the Watch Tower organization, and many were pushed out on purpose by Rutherford, either actively or through doctrinal error. (Doctrines that he promoted, but which we now consider to be in error.)

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year.

This is also hyperbole, because none of them readily discerned the sign of Christ's presence in that year, because they continued to discern that Christ's presence was in 1874, and this they discerned even into the 1920's and 1930's, when the doctrine was partially changed. Officially, they kept discerning that Christ's presence had begun in 1874, right up until about 1943. Note this from the book, God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years -- Has Approached:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
⁵⁵In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.

The Watchtower in the 1940's admits very explicitly that they did NOT discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914. None of them did.

Therefore, there are conflicting points here about how they did not understand most of what happened in 1914, and then claiming, at the same time, that they readily discerned what happened in 1914. Taken together, it might be highlighting the more important point that, in spite of a wrong understanding, at least some continued to maintain their integrity and continue to be watchful about Christ's presence. This might also color the lens by which some interpret the importance of the urgency and integrity as opposed to the acceptance of the specific current doctrine itself -- then or now.

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

This is evidently only so because evidently the previous thought was wrong because most of the 1914 generation, as previously interpreted, are dead.

Yes. However, as something is put out there, it soon becomes the way "we understand" it. Note paragraph 15 from the 2014 Watchtower, quoted above. This is the "editorial we" of the writer of this particular article, or is a statement of unity by the Governing Body and/or "editorial board," or it's a statement of what we as Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

To keep a more complete set of references for this topic, we also have the Jan 15, 2014 WT:

*** w14 1/15 pp. 30-31 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS AWAY
14 There is yet a third reason for confidence. What has developed among God’s people points to the nearness of the end. For example, prior to the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven, a group of faithful anointed ones were actively serving God. When some of their expectations about what would happen in 1914 did not come about, what did they do? Most of them proved their integrity under trials and persecution and kept right on serving Jehovah. Over the years, most—if not all—of those anointed ones have faithfully completed their earthly course.
15 In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year.—Rom. 8:14-17.
16 The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth. Thus, not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” of whom Jesus spoke. Today, those in this second group are themselves advancing in years. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 give us confidence that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation. This should add to our conviction that little time remains before the King of God’s Kingdom acts to destroy the wicked and usher in a righteous new world.—2 Pet. 3:13.

And, as was already mentioned Brother Splane, in the September 2015 JW Broadcasting talk, provided a chart. Then this same chart was referenced just a few months later by a later JW Broadcasting speaker, Brother Kenneth Flodin, who said that it was "masterfully explained" by Brother Splane and that he did such a "beautiful job" that he wasn't going to attempt to repeat it, so he just replayed the video of Splane, and then called it a "very clear explanation."

1 minute ago, Anna said:

I think we should explore this one a little further

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

whether belief in the current "overlapping generation" doctrine was optional, or perhaps less important than other doctrines

In a post within 3 minutes of yours, I noticed that the 2010 original WT on this teaching appears to carefully delineate what items are definite and what items are not. It's from this type of writing that I assume you derived the idea that it was, in effect, "optional."

I'm glad that The Librarian moved the "generation" posts from the unrelated topic over to this topic. It was clear that on this topic, the questions remain unsettled to some and unsettling to others.

In addition to the posts that have already been moved over from that other topic, questions came up about whether belief in the current "overlapping generation" doctrine was optional, or perhaps less important than other doctrines. Perhaps it is not a topic that we promote to new persons but have them consider it when they are better prepared for it. Another question (mine) was whether we should get involved in discussions of chronology at all.

7 minutes ago, Anna said:

But please all carry on, it's an interesting discussion, although already discussed elsewhere on this forum.

OK.

As was already pointed out, we have always known that a generation can include overlapping contemporaries, but these contemporaries belong to another generation. The Watchtower has said that "three or even four generations" may overlap at the same time. So the overlapping explanation is not about how to define a single "generation that will not pass away." My own issue with the current explanation has more to do with the disrespect it shows to Jesus, in trying to twist up the meaning of language so much that we have inadvertently tried to present him as some kind of trickster.

*** w52 9/1 pp. 542-543 Questions From Readers ***
Your publications point out that the battle of Armageddon will come in this generation, and that this generation began A.D. 1914. Scripturally, how long is a generation?—G. P., Liberia.
Webster’s unabridged dictionary gives, in part, this definition of generation: “The average lifetime of man, or the ordinary period of time at which one rank follows another, or father is succeeded by child; an age. A generation is usually taken to be about 33 years.” But the Bible is not so specific. It gives no number of years for a generation. And in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32, the texts mentioning the generation the question refers to, we are not to take generation as meaning the average time for one generation to be succeeded by the next, as Webster’s does in its 33-year approximation; but rather more like Webster’s first-quoted definition, “the average lifetime of man.” Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping. (Ps. 78:4; 145:4) Before the Noachian flood the life span was hundreds of years. Down through the centuries since, it has varied, and even now is different in different countries. The Bible does speak of a man’s days as being threescore and ten or fourscore years; but it assigns no specific number of years to a generation.—Ps. 90:10.
Even if it did, we could not calculate from such a figure the date of Armageddon, for the texts here under discussion do not say God’s battle comes right at the end of this generation, but before its end. To try to say how many years before its end would be speculative. The texts merely set a limit that is sufficiently definite for all present practical purposes. Some persons living A.D. 1914 when the series of foretold events began will also be living when the series ends with Armageddon. All the events will come within the span of a generation. There are hundreds of millions of persons living now that were living in 1914, and many millions of these persons could yet live a score or more years. Just when the lives of the majority of them will be cut short by Armageddon we cannot say.

On 6/19/2017 at 6:42 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Interesting quote in 2008 WT 15 Feb:

"The word “generation” usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event. For example, Exodus 1:6 tells us: “Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation.” Joseph and his brothers varied in age, but they shared a common experience during the same time period. Included in “that generation” were some of Joseph’s brothers who were born before him. Some of these outlived Joseph. (Gen. 50:24) Others of “that generation,” such as Benjamin, were born after Joseph was born and may have lived on after he died.
  So when the term “generation” is used with reference to people living at a particular time, the exact length of that time cannot be stated except that it does have an end and would not be excessively long. Therefore, by using the term “this generation,” as recorded at Matthew 24:34, Jesus did not give his disciples a formula to enable them to determine when “the last days” would end. Rather, Jesus went on to emphasize that they would not know “that day and hour.”—2 Tim. 3:1; Matt. 24:36."

Is that difficult to grasp? Is there something wrong with me because I think I understand what this says?

This is not difficult to grasp at all. But I do think there is something wrong with thinking that this says the same thing as the current publications are saying. It may have been a "trial balloon" for the current doctrine, but it's very different from the current doctrine.

On 6/19/2017 at 6:42 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

 I find it infinitly easier to understand compared to this attempt : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlapping_generations_model

That is a very sensible explanation of the economics-related overlapping generations model. Note that it is plural as it ought to be. Quoting, the article, with extra highlighting, it states:

Quote

Wikipedia: ". . . it is the natural framework to study the allocation of resources across the different generations."

The Watchtower "model" is the singular, and very non-sensical "overlapping generation" model. The difference one little "s" can make is important. Note that in Spanish "esposa" means wife, but "esposas" means handcuffs.  For most people, that's quite an important difference.

28 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Still banging on about the "generation" here are we? Well, nothing wrong with that (Acts 1:6), as long as we don't fall out over it.

Actually, Acts 1:7 says there is something wrong with us banging on about the generation. It says it's none of our concern. It's not in our domain. Knowledge of the times and seasons does not belong to us. It belongs to the Father alone. Anyone who tries is overstepping their authority.

(Acts 1:7) . . .” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction [NWT fn: "authority"].

This is why Paul could say that we don't need anything written to us about chronology:

(1 Thessalonians 5:1) Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.

This certainly offers a rather crass view of the priorities. It makes it seem like the primary focus is on money. But it should not be overlooked that the contributions to the worldwide work are also designed to be providing the initial funds to set up Kingdom Halls in places that can't afford to build their own. Then the contributions in those congregations with new Kingdom Halls will pay back the cost through their own contributions at the rate that they can afford it. If and when the confiscation of properties in Russia is considered legally irreversible, the funds to the worldwide work can be used to help them rebuild when and if their situation changes. In the meantime, their excess contributions can be redistributed to places where Assembly Halls and Kingdom Halls are built legally.

In our current suburban congregations, we are considered to be in a wealthier area, so the push is to build in areas of prime real estate value. In just a few years, we have sold off two halls, as soon as they were paid for, and the new bigger hall was built in a fancier area, with more congregations paying for it through maximized contributions. Any other halls in this area that are already paid for become prime targets for selling off and being replaced with bigger and better ones. There are two problems with this. One is that the hall must be set for the size of the largest congregation (of four that meet here) with room for a bit of expansion, so this means that the other three congregations meeting here fill up only 30 to 50% of the seats. The other problem is that we have created an environment where more people think that the idea is to keep all of us maximizing our contributions to pay for a hall that is much bigger and fancier than anyone would have thought reasonable. (This also makes it look as though the primary goal is to keep "feeding" the contribution boxes even though the profit on the last two "flipped" Kingdom Halls was enough to pay for most of the single, new hall where congregations from those last two halls now meet.)

Reminds me of a street sweeping vehicle that nicked the front of my car while I was waiting in a legal parking spot. I hadn't paid for the meter because I was waiting in the car. The street cleaner was actually doing the other side of the street, which was not legal on alternate days for the specific purpose of street cleaning, and he was going around an illegally parked car when he hit my car. He looked back at the car, saw the damage, a long scrape and a loosened fender that made a loud pop when it loosened, and he just went on driving, not knowing I was waiting in the driver's seat. So I ran out of the car and chased him down at the corner and told him what he did. I saw a policeman who spoke to the street cleaner and then rushed up to my car to give me a ticket. I asked him why, and he said he it was his job to "protect the street cleaner." I thought that was extremely honest, although very stupid. Later, I got out of the ticket but paid for the damage repair myself, as it was less than my deductible. Could have got the money back from the city, I suppose, but that would have been an unnecessary headache.

1 hour ago, Jim Seward said:

Viewed this way, predation then contributes to the overall "peace among animals."

I think it was Russell who said that 99% of animals either die by violence or starvation. Of course, I think it was Bertrand Russell, not Charles Taze.

Growing up, I was always taught that our honesty, integrity, conduct, and acts of goodness and kindness were just as much as "witness" as going from door to door. Not that I didn't like going from door-to-door.

At 5 years old, I loved going from door to door, and my mother says I always wanted to keep the house to house records where we would mark down each address, where literature was placed, who was not at home (or suspected to be home but hiding), who was busy, etc. At about 10 years old, I became a bit wary of going from door to door in case I met kids I knew from school, but at about 15, I started to like it again, especially if I met people I knew. By the time I was 16 I had already quit high school to pioneer, and after a couple years of pioneering, I had so many Bible Studies (students) that I had little time left for the door-to-door work, and I missed it again, especially in the city college/university territory and nearby rural "need-greater" territory.

But through all of this, I think the growth of new congregations was based, not so much on the door-to-door work, but on the reputation we had among ourselves for being a happy, loving people who conducted ourselves with honesty and integrity. When someone was out of a job, another Witness would hire them, or help them to get something where he or she also worked. When a Witness started a small business, he hired Witnesses almost exclusively. We all pitched in when a brother or sister had storm damage to their home, or if someone had an emergency, or if a new family moved into the territory. When I look back now and remember who was related to whom, I realize that 90% of the growth in our congregations was from relatives of a core number of families who had been there from 1964, when we first moved into the initial congregation of that territory.

I say all this, not to discourage or minimize the house-to-house work. I think that in some ways, our reputation that is due to the house-to-house work is very valuable, even if no one ever became a Witness through that activity. It defines a purpose and ties us to an idea about the first-century congregation, even if the first-century Christians never actually used this exact method themselves.

So, with that said, I'm wondering if it's possible for the preaching work, the witnessing work, to be just as effective, or possibly more effective, if at least half our time was spent doing good for the neighborhoods and communities we live in. We would no doubt focus especially on those related to us in the faith, fellow Witnesses, but we would not limit it to that. In Hebrews 10:24,25 it says that we should not forsake gathering together at meetings to encourage one another to show love through good works. Perhaps we should even expect elders to make announcements about which specific good works we could join in together.

It's also an idea for compliance with the Russian authorities that would not conflict with our obedience to God. I have wondered how it would change our preaching work if we never preached to anyone that the Russian Orthodox Church was part of Babylon the Great and that all those who have a good heart will desire to join the Witnesses in order to avoid destruction when that church is destroyed along with the rest of this system. The attraction to join the Witnesses would have to be based entirely on positive role modeling rather than fear of destruction. This doesn't mean that we would avoid explaining our beliefs when those related parts of the Bible came up. But that could not be a part of the primary attraction to join the Witnesses, according to the expected Russian regulations on preaching.

Personally, I think that if the Watch Tower Society was willing to tell the Belgian authorities that we had changed our stance on blood, and disfellowshipping/shunning and to tell the Mexican branch to dispense with the "worship" portions of the meetings in Mexico for 50 years -- when the Watch Tower forbid the use of songs, and prayers at the meetings and forbid the use of the Bible in the door-to-door work -- then it would be just as possible to carry on the Russian work with a shift in focus. No one would change their core beliefs, they would just focus on good works, including the support of their own Witness families and friends first, and good works for the community, second. When persons are attracted to what binds Witnesses together, it would still be love for God and love for neighbor, and the rest of the beliefs would be much more palatable to those who would join us. 

On 6/17/2017 at 10:51 AM, The Librarian said:

Maybe @JW Insider will remember where that story is at?

I don't remember where it might be, although I'd guess it would have been with the comments regarding the late sister, Audrey [Mock] Knorr.

The story was known by my "table head" at Bethel. (I was the "table foot," for what it's worth.) By 1976, I only heard it "whispered" by this long-time Bethelite, and his younger wife kept trying to get him to keep his voice down about it. But she was also the one feeding him details of the story, as if she was the source. (She worked with Sister Knorr.) But that was while Brother Nathan Knorr was still alive. After Brother Knorr died, 1977, it was talked about more openly. It was talked about again, around 1990, when Brother Richard Wheelock committed suicide by jumping from a window of the Towers Hotel. The person who called me from Bethel to tell me about Brother Wheelock also tied it to the story of his past troubles, although he said he had just learned about those troubles. (BTW: Many people have said that Brother Wheelock jumped from the 8th floor of factory building where he worked. This isn't true.)

So the story goes that Richard Wheelock was engaged to Audrey Mock. In those days Brother Wheelock knew that marriage meant leaving Bethel, probably to become a "circuit servant" in his case. But Brother Knorr really liked her and made it known to her that he was also interested in marriage. Audrey Mock had to tell Brother Wheelock that she was breaking off the engagement in favor of Knorr, and Brother Wheelock was so distraught that he threatened to kill himself if she did. The threat was "jarring" she said, but perhaps should have been taken more seriously. Brother Wheelock had ongoing problems with depression that might have been completely unrelated to what happened with Audrey Mock. Of course, she might have realized that she needed to get away from him as soon as he made the threat. It was not a common thing for a man to say and might have tipped her off that he wasn't a stable man. Richard was the factory overseer for the entire time I was at Bethel, and never seemed "off" or "depressed" to me. He did stay to himself, closed up in his office a lot, but this wasn't an unusual practice.

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

But was corrected as I think any faithful spirit creature would do when faced with an inappropriate human response.

Yet, we do not know if Jesus would have corrected John, and Hebrews 1:6 indicates that he would not have.

(Hebrews 1:5-2:4) 5 For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” . . .  8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.” 10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. . . .  13 But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? . . . [2:3] For it began to be spoken through our Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him, 4 while God joined in bearing witness with signs and wonders and various powerful works and with the holy spirit distributed according to his will.

These have even been used as proof-texts for Trinitarians, since the method of worshiping was "doing obeisance." Same as John was doing when he fell down in front of the angel. But again these are NOT prooftexts, but are here to highlight the unfathomable greatness of Jesus in his position at God's right hand. 

(Revelation 5:8-10) . . .the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb, and each one had a harp and golden bowls that were full of incense. (The incense means the prayers of the holy ones.) 9 And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, . . .

(Revelation 5:13, 14) 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” 14 The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped.

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I doubt that the Scriptures were written to counter this false doctorine. 

That was my point. They were written to give an overall picture that fully equips us to understand the position of Christ whether we are from an environment where it was taught that he was no more than a human, or from an environment where it was taught that he was no less than Almighty God. There is no scripture that claims that the Mighty God, Jesus, the Son of God, is equal with the Almighty God, the Father. But John 1 and Hebrews 1, for examples, were written so that we do not think to diminish Christ's position, or consider him unworthy of "obeisance."

30 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Sometimes TRUTH can only be taught by extrapolating faulty logic to its absurd conclusion, so it is PAINFULLY obvious that a premise is false.

Absolutely!!

And by the way, it's: "reductio ad absurdum" although it could mean about the same thing in context. ("Having been reduced to absurdity.") But without context it would appear to say "I withdraw to absurdity."

13 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

29 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

within the JW mindset, how uncomfortable the thought is of talking to/praying to/supplicating Jesus directly.

Substitute "unthinkable" for "uncomfortable".

I believe the publications have also drawn on the fact that IF this is understood as praying to or supplicating Jesus directly, the situation has to be understood. Both Stephen and John (at Patmos) and Saul/Paul (c. Damascus) have just seen a vision or had an experience in which they knew that Jesus had just shown himself in some divine way. I think that any human, including any JW, would suddenly feel as if it were proper to pray to or supplicate Jesus directly in such a context where his immense power is somehow conveyed to us. After all, John even felt like bowing down to an angel, in Revelation 22:8-10:

…8And I am John, the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had shown me these things. 9But he said to me,“Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!”

Also, there was a time when the Christian Scriptures were just being written, when it was appropriate to emphasize the fact that Jesus was fully "divine," because the last thing most people would remember about him was that he had been humiliated and "broken" by Rome with the punishment meted out to common criminals. The reminder that he is NOW at God's right hand was especially important for the early Christians and it was almost the "motto" of the Greek Scriptures. (Psalms 110:1 is the most quoted verse from the Hebrew Scriptures.) Stephen's vision of a glorious Lord standing at God's right hand was a direct evidence of the fulfillment of Psalms 110:1.

With this in mind, we might be surprised that there are not more scriptures that raise Jesus to a level that makes him seem almost equal with his Father, who is also spoken of as his God. But even in these verses where the Bible is emphasizing the divinity of the Son of God as opposed to the humanity of the Son of God, there is almost always a clear path away from understanding these passages as a direct claim of equality. (And even if one or two of these verses appeared to make the claim unambiguously, we would still need to understand it in the wider context of many more passages that directly state that the Son of God is NOT equal with the Father.) This happens again and again. In John 1:1, in John 10:33, in John 20:28 (Thomas addressing "My Lord and My God"). I think that even many scholarly Trinitarians have noticed that what they sometimes call proof-texts almost always contain a loop-hole, or some ambiguity to overcome. We rightly point out the ambiguities, and believe they are purposeful. I think some Trinitarians believe that these few passages, even though they contain some amgiguity, are meant to override verses to the contrary. It seems much more reasonable to see them as necessary to raise awareness of the status of Jesus which might otherwise be unimaginable to the first Jewish Christians, but always in the wider context of many more scriptures that must be understood with these verses. 

I often get the impression that Trinitarians are claiming that 5 ambiguous verses somehow overcome the teaching of 50 unambiguous verses. Surely it's best to consider that 50 unambiguous verses are teaching the basic truth, yet, on their own, they might inadvertently emphasize the inferior position of the Son of God. And while that might be technically true (that the Son is inferior to Almighty God) a full understanding might be better tempered with some of the more ambiguous verses that will remind us that this "inferiority" is a technicality, but that it should not diminish our regard for Jesus and and the greatness and wonder of his new position in heaven that is still not fathomed by mere humans. 

Looks nice. Based on just the "cover shot" it looked like that they gave little people their own parking lot. They seem to be very appreciative, too!

I think the closest explanation would be the following from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/dressed-to-the-nines.html:

Quote

 

The Poetick Miscellenies of Mr John Rawlett, 1687, provides the earliest reference to 'to the Nine' that I can find:

The learned tribe whose works the World do bless,
Finish those works in some recess;
Both the Philosopher and Divine,
And Poets most who still make their address
In private to the Nine.

It seems clear that 'the Nine' that Rawlett was referring to were the Nine Muses. It is just as clear that 'dressed to the nines' is merely an extension of 'to the nine/s' and that we could equally well 'dance to the nines' or 'etymologise to the nines'. The search for the link between 'nines' and dress sense has unearthed no convincing candidates.

 

I think what he has missed is the fact that poetry of this time period, as with Shakespeare's, often got mangled when quoted. I think that the real source is from the poem, but I'm guessing that it's based on a mangling of the original idea. What the poets and authors wrote, they "addressed to the Nines." [the creative muses] Therefore, anything that is extremely well-said or well-written (or poorly written, if you are being sarcastic) is therefore "addressed to the Nines." Especially "highfalutin" language, often combined with "highfalutin" dress, would become a candidate for saying it was was [ad]dressed to the Nines. The contraction 'dressed for addressed would make the phrase quickly evolve into a reference for highfalutin dress rather than language.

Mmmmmm! Can't wait to enjoy it. All my life I thought this was something I was really missing. And every time I get a craving for blood, I have to remind myself that I must wait until someone makes it artificially, or perhaps makes it out of 99% of each of the four major components, so that it isn't whole blood and it isn't a whole component. (Of course, I could always have that last 1% for desert, assuming my conscience allows it.)

This seems pretty insane, if the real reasons for the 'invention' were to pick up a few more religious customers; but, then again, it seems pretty insane to process blood for food, too.

My father still tells this old joke:

JOHNNY: Mommy, this soup tastes like blood.

MOTHER: Shut up, Johnny, and finish before it coagulates!

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Presumably you mean "A Separate Identity" and "The Forgotten Prophet" ?

Yes.

33 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Most engineers I know have been married three times ...

Most engineers I know have been married an average of 0.5 times. For reasons only an engineer would know, I cannot say that the average was 0.50 or 0.500, indicating the limited scope of my data.

On 6/7/2017 at 1:44 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

First two wives ran off, one to her first love, the other for no stated reason.

Did she think, perhaps, that your memes contained a hint of insensitivity, or something even worse?