Jump to content

HollyW

When a teaching changes after baptism.....

Recommended Posts

This came up during a discussion of some of the recent changes in JW beliefs:  I've often wondered, do you think that if a teaching has changed since you were baptized, you should still be required to believe it? 

If there's any interest in this, there are some follow-up questions I'd like to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question.

Baptism is a symbol of dedication to Jehovah, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. It isn't dedication to a teaching but to a person. (some might want to argue that the forgoing statement is a teaching of course, but I am not going to get into a "who created God?" loop). 

So if I am dedicated to Jehovah, then I believe that no lasting harm can come to me if I fulfil the terms of that dedication. I am quite happy to comply with "teachings" that change from what I learned prior to dedication simply because I did not dedicate myself to a body of instructions. It's a bit like what Paul described at 1Cor.9:17.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Interesting question.

Baptism is a symbol of dedication to Jehovah, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. It isn't dedication to a teaching but to a person. (some might want to argue that the forgoing statement is a teaching of course, but I am not going to get into a "who created God?" loop). 

So if I am dedicated to Jehovah, then I believe that no lasting harm can come to me if I fulfil the terms of that dedication. I am quite happy to comply with "teachings" that change from what I learned prior to dedication simply because I did not dedicate myself to a body of instructions. It's a bit like what Paul described at 1Cor.9:17.

 

 

Doesn't The Baptism Questions Require You To Dedicate Yourself To The Organization?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

My Dad used to take me deer hunting when I was a teenager.  We'd go out when it was dark and be in a deer stand in a tree as the light began to come up.  At first you could make out precious little, but as the light slowly intensified, the tree stump that may have initially looked like a sleeping bear, became more easily identifiable.  Once the morning had broken, much more became clear.  Now if someone had asked me at that point if I felt I was required to believe that what I had thought was a bear really was a tree stump, the question would make no sense.  Of course, it was a tree stump.  Why would someone ask a person was required to believe it was tree stump when that was so obviously clear?

But what about the seedling that was growing out of the ground 30 yards away?  Well, at first, that was not even visible when  there was little light.  But then at mid-morning, one could see the seedling, but still it was unclear exactly what it was.  Likely a relative of a nearby plant or tree.  But upon returning to the sight a while later and doing some in research into the leaf shape, etc, we might come to some pretty good conclusions.  But even then, the passage of time made the identification more discernible. 

Of course, in some situations, identification of the plant could have been mistaken or need to be altered if one realized that there could have been a slight error at the initial or subsequent examinations.  

Likewise, JW's understanding of the scriptures continues to grow and mature.

This is one of the great advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have over most other religions.  It is their willingness to change or adjust based on new insights or investigations.  That is in fact how science works (or at  least is supposed to).  How silly it would be to be required to, for instance, be bound to the beliefs astronomers had back in the 1900's.  As Hubble peers into space and other bits and pieces of information are discerned, our knowledge of the stars and space grows.  Likewise with the scriptures.  

The question as to whether we are required to believe the new insights might be best rephrased, "Does one want to progress in knowledge or not?"

By way of contrast, it is most apparent that most churches are mired in the doctrine of the third - sixth centuries. They cling to, for instance, the Athanasian Creed.  It's as if they are required to believe that the tree stump is really a bear!

Now as to which camp one chooses to belong, that is a choice for each individual.  But as for me and my household, we choose continual progress.

Thank you for your reply, Lloyd. :)

I know you probably worked hard on your illustration, but it seems to me to be out of harmony with what the Bible reveals at 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.   

There's also this: James 1:17  Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

 Also, your illustration would not be in harmony with what Pastor Russell said about new light extinguishing older light in the February 1881 ZWT p.3:

If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light: So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another.  

    Hello guest!

Last, but not least, your illustration doesn't reflect the reality of the WTS changes in teachings because you would have the light showing a bear at first, just as you've said, then the light showed a stump, also as you've said, but then the light was showing a bear again, and then a stump again, reflecting that they were going back to older light from time to time.  Would that not be illustrative more of regression rather than progression?

Ephesians 4:14 tells us, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Doesn't The Baptism Questions Require You To Dedicate Yourself To The Organization?  

You're probably thinking of one of the questions asked just before being baptized:  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?" 

I wonder if maybe this is the reason they believe they are required to change their beliefs, this association their baptism identifies them as having with the WTS?  That would make sense, wouldn't it, that having been baptized into that relationship, they would expect to continue adapting their beliefs about what the Bible teaches based on what the WTS tells them it teaches, even if it cancels out what they believed when they were baptized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Interesting question.

Baptism is a symbol of dedication to Jehovah, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. It isn't dedication to a teaching but to a person. (some might want to argue that the forgoing statement is a teaching of course, but I am not going to get into a "who created God?" loop). 

So if I am dedicated to Jehovah, then I believe that no lasting harm can come to me if I fulfil the terms of that dedication. I am quite happy to comply with "teachings" that change from what I learned prior to dedication simply because I did not dedicate myself to a body of instructions. It's a bit like what Paul described at 1Cor.9:17.

Thanks for the reply, Eoin.  I appreciate having your thoughts on this, though I'm not sure about the application of 1 Corinthians 9:17 to this subject.

Since the WTS does require acceptance of all of its teachings in order for you to be approved for other JWs to associate with, is that what you mean by fulfilling the terms of your dedication, to be willing to change your beliefs if and when your religious leaders tell you to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"I know you probably worked hard on your illustration, but it seems to me to be out of harmony with what the Bible reveals at 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. "

I"m sure you worked hard on your response as well, but I fail to see how my illustration conflicts with John 1:5.  You gave no explanation. What is true however is that though we may progress in our understand of the scriptures, that in no way conflicts with the fact that God is Light and in him there is no darkness.  I fail to see any connection between those facts and the fact that we try to progress in our understand of the scriptures.   

The same would be true as regards James 1:17 ( Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. ).  You seem to be trying to say that since Jehovah gives perfect gifts and good things means that our attempts at understanding the scriptures must be perfect from day 1, but that doesn't make logical sense nor does it harmonize with other scriptures.  Need I list scriptures wherein Biblical characters grew in knowledge?

And you misunderstand Russell.  He did said, "any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth."  But he was speaking about truth and not about the attempts at understanding it.

Further, you misinterpret my illustration.  It simply shows that what may appear to be one thing in the darkness, may prove to be something else entirely in the light and upon a closer examination.

Moreover, does it really makes sense to you that Jehovah would "speak from the heavens", so to speak, on every little point?  Is that how you see him, as a micro-manager being sure that every single nuance of every single act at understanding the scriptures is rigorously correct at every point in time?  

Or is he not a God who let's folks grope for him and search for him.  Isn't he in fact a God who reveals things progressively, Jesus stating that there were certain things that the disciples were "not able to bear" at a certain point in time.

Doesn't progressive understanding make much more sense?  If pertinent, it would perhaps be wise to not allow pride to get in the way of logic and reasonableness.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again, Lloyd,

Let's take your illustration and in the light you and your father had at first, the stump looked like a bear.  Did your father require that you believe it was a bear in order for you to be approved association?  And did he require you to also teach others the stump was a bear on pain of shunning?  Of course not, so there's the difference in reality that your illustration does not speak to.  Obviously it was still too dark for either of you say the truth was that the stump was a bear.  This is where 1 John 1:5 comes in because the light you were using was not from God: This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. " This verse could not have been written by someone peering into the darkness and seeing a bear where there was a stump.

Look for a moment at the practical application of what Russell wrote.  In the first light that he had, he looked at the faithful slave and saw 144,000 persons.  Later he came to believe he had been looking at one person, himself, and so did all of his followers.  This could be a case of adding more light and showing that it was just shadows that made the faithful slave appear to be 144,000 people when really there was just the one.  For thirty years this was what everyone in the WTS was seeing, but then the next president of the WTS, Judge Rutherford, said the faithful slave was 144,000 person, not just one, in fact he said it did violence to the scriptures to exclude any of the 144,000.  Do you see how the light went back to what it had been in the beginning?  That means that if Russell's light had increased, Rutherford's light had to have dimmed or gone out.

The current governing body of the WTS has in effect put out both the light Russell used to see just himself as the faithful slave and also put out the light Rutherford was using to see the faithful slave as all of the 144,000, and have turned on another light that shows just themselves as the faithful slave, and only when they are meeting as the faithful slave.

If not turning light on and off the way Russell spoke against doing, it surely is showing a dimmer switch being used. ;)

You had felt I was misinterpreting your illustration but you offered it as a way to answer my question about being required to believe something that was not being taught when you were baptized.  You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all.  If the teaching that was changed was akin to what you pointed to as being seen in the darkness, can that teaching be said to be a Bible teaching that one must believe in order to be approved association?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HollyW said:

Hi again, Lloyd,

Let's take your illustration and in the light you and your father had at first, the stump looked like a bear.  Did your father require that you believe it was a bear in order for you to be approved association?  And did he require you to also teach others the stump was a bear on pain of shunning?  Of course not, so there's the difference in reality that your illustration does not speak to.  Obviously it was still too dark for either of you say the truth was that the stump was a bear.  This is where 1 John 1:5 comes in because the light you were using was not from God: This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. " This verse could not have been written by someone peering into the darkness and seeing a bear where there was a stump.

Look for a moment at the practical application of what Russell wrote.  In the first light that he had, he looked at the faithful slave and saw 144,000 persons.  Later he came to believe he had been looking at one person, himself, and so did all of his followers.  This could be a case of adding more light and showing that it was just shadows that made the faithful slave appear to be 144,000 people when really there was just the one.  For thirty years this was what everyone in the WTS was seeing, but then the next president of the WTS, Judge Rutherford, said the faithful slave was 144,000 person, not just one, in fact he said it did violence to the scriptures to exclude any of the 144,000.  Do you see how the light went back to what it had been in the beginning?  That means that if Russell's light had increased, Rutherford's light had to have dimmed or gone out.

The current governing body of the WTS has in effect put out both the light Russell used to see just himself as the faithful slave and also put out the light Rutherford was using to see the faithful slave as all of the 144,000, and have turned on another light that shows just themselves as the faithful slave, and only when they are meeting as the faithful slave.

If not turning light on and off the way Russell spoke against doing, it surely is showing a dimmer switch being used. ;)

You had felt I was misinterpreting your illustration but you offered it as a way to answer my question about being required to believe something that was not being taught when you were baptized.  You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all.  If the teaching that was changed was akin to what you pointed to as being seen in the darkness, can that teaching be said to be a Bible teaching that one must believe in order to be approved association?

you just want to cause trouble and yet give no reasons yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you miss the point of the illustration HollyW?  It is simple, practical, reasonable, and follows other disciplines wherein one attempts to understand a thing in a logical progressive way.  Nor is there any conflict with God being a person of Light, without darkness, as I have already explained. Jehovah doesn't just spoon feed those who want to serve him.  He has given them incredible brains and reasoning abilities and allows them to pursue the truth rather than just forcing it down their throats.  Along the way, those who are humble can grow in understanding by admitting that they may have been off a bit initially and are willing to adjust to what has become clearer.  Again, this is the clear advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have other many other religions.

Your view of Russell/Rutherford change in views was covered in the illustration wherein one tries to discern what the seedling 30 yards away was.  One might not understand initially just what sort of plant that is.  One might get the wrong idea and have to change one's view in light of new information.  That could even happen several times.  But eventually the evidence starts to mount and conclusions become more solid.  This is common sense.

If your point is that the light must be increasing in a strictly linear fashion, then I would suggest you take a step back and view the forest before you view the trees.  Views on things like who the superior authorities are went back and forth for a time.  So what? Eventually that became clear, and if one can step back, one can see the general slope favoring a positive, clearer direction of understanding overall.  Again, this is simple reasoning.  As one grows in knowledge, insight, and understanding older ideas that may have missed the mark are discarded, just as they are in the scientific community, and the truth becomes ever clearer. 

(Note: You said: "You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all."

That is correct.  The darkness referred to the major misunderstandings that Christendom still promotes today, and out of which Jehovah's people came via a generally progressive and positive beam of light)

 

Holley, here is where one can get into trouble.  That is by holding people to standards that are unreasonable and that reflect a strictly "black and white only" point of view. 

Someone says "progressive light" and you focus on the definition of "progressive" instead of the incredible advances of knowledge.  See the point?

Become humble in your understanding.  Open your mind and you will be much more likely to find you way.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HollyW said:

You're probably thinking of one of the questions asked just before being baptized:  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?" 

I wonder if maybe this is the reason they believe they are required to change their beliefs, this association their baptism identifies them as having with the WTS?  That would make sense, wouldn't it, that having been baptized into that relationship, they would expect to continue adapting their beliefs about what the Bible teaches based on what the WTS tells them it teaches, even if it cancels out what they believed when they were baptized.

well, That Is What I Was Thinking 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, biddy2331@gmail.com said:

you just want to cause trouble and yet give no reasons yourself

Onthe contrary,  proof was given, you just choose to turn a blind eye. Reread the post and think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, biddy2331@gmail.com said:

you just want to cause trouble and yet give no reasons yourself

Hi Biddy,

Perhaps you'd be willing to explain how my question has troubled you.  Evidently you thought of an answer to the OP that has made you uncomfortable.  Let's talk about it, okay? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LloydSt said:

How can you miss the point of the illustration HollyW?  It is simple, practical, reasonable, and follows other disciplines wherein one attempts to understand a thing in a logical progressive way.  Nor is there any conflict with God being a person of Light, without darkness, as I have already explained. Jehovah doesn't just spoon feed those who want to serve him.  He has given them incredible brains and reasoning abilities and allows them to pursue the truth rather than just forcing it down their throats.  Along the way, those who are humble can grow in understanding by admitting that they may have been off a bit initially and are willing to adjust to what has become clearer.  Again, this is the clear advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have other many other religions.

Your view of Russell/Rutherford change in views was covered in the illustration wherein one tries to discern what the seedling 30 yards away was.  One might not understand initially just what sort of plant that is.  One might get the wrong idea and have to change one's view in light of new information.  That could even happen several times.  But eventually the evidence starts to mount and conclusions become more solid.  This is common sense.

If your point is that the light must be increasing in a strictly linear fashion, then I would suggest you take a step back and view the forest before you view the trees.  Views on things like who the superior authorities are went back and forth for a time.  So what? Eventually that became clear, and if one can step back, one can see the general slope favoring a positive, clearer direction of understanding overall.  Again, this is simple reasoning.  As one grows in knowledge, insight, and understanding older ideas that may have missed the mark are discarded, just as they are in the scientific community, and the truth becomes ever clearer. 

(Note: You said: "You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all."

That is correct.  The darkness referred to the major misunderstandings that Christendom still promotes today, and out of which Jehovah's people came via a generally progressive and positive beam of light)

 

Holley, here is where one can get into trouble.  That is by holding people to standards that are unreasonable and that reflect a strictly "black and white only" point of view. 

Someone says "progressive light" and you focus on the definition of "progressive" instead of the incredible advances of knowledge.  See the point?

Become humble in your understanding.  Open your mind and you will be much more likely to find you way.

 

I don't think I missed the point of your illustration at all.  I understood it just as you've stated it:  "It simply shows that what may appear to be one thing in the darkness, may prove to be something else entirely in the light and upon a closer examination."

That was why I posted what I did when I replied to it.  If at your baptism you understood something to that effect, such as 'this is what the Bible appears to be teaching at present, but it may prove to be something else with more light and upon a closer examination, so let's wait for that light and that closer examination', then your illustration might fit, but I don't think that was your understanding, was it?  

Nor was the teaching about, say, the faithful slave, presented to you as being something that was still in darkness, was it. If we were to apply your illustration to the teaching about the identity of the faithful slave, it would cast Russell and Rutherford and those who came after them as being in the dark about this for nearly the entire existence of the WTS.

Perhaps our views of what progressive light means are different.  From Russell's own description it would not be the sort of light that extinguishes what he called "older light".  His application of this to his teachings was, "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth."  That would be new light extinguishing older light.  Clearly the differing views about the identity of the faithful slave and also the identity of the superior powers were exactly what Russell said should not happen, that is, "the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another."  He refers to the same scripture I did,  James 1:17  Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

It might be a good idea to read again what he said in the  February 1881 ZWT p.3:

If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light: So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holly, as I have explained several times now, investigation of Bible truths is similar to investigation of the physical heavens or the human cell or a jillion other matters. Progression in understanding is the natural normal way for things to go.  There may be the occasional misunderstanding, but the path is generally positive, and upward.  Quibbling about whether new information conflicts with the older, to what extent, and whether or not that would violate Russell's maxim, "new light never extinguishes older light," has little value.   It does seem obvious however that Russell was likely speaking about basic, well-established truths and not looks at things that may need need further clarification.  In physics, math, and astronomy for instance, there are well established truths such as Newton's Laws and Archimedes' Principle.  But that doesn't mean that nothing new can be learned and that adjustments can't be made where needed.   

Then too, as was written in the Revelation Climax book:

"It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times."

I'm certain Russell would agree that what he wrote was not infallible, don't you?  

Look, in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940;s, 1950's and so on, Astronomy was taught to students.  There were tests to be taken and answers had to be given according to the progress in knowledge up to that point in time.  In the 1920's the answers given on tests might have resulted in a high score.  But those same answers might have resulted in a much lower grade in 2016.  That's how things work.  Progress.  An increase in light or knowledge.  I don't think we can define exactly just to what extent Jehovah points the way or to what extent we grope in the direction he gives, but no matter.  He remains the Father of Light and we do well to progress in understanding.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WT holds fast to the term “food at the proper time”, which also would be considered “new light”.  As you have brought out Holly, James 1:17 says there is no variation or shifting shadows if we keep in God’s light.  Can we not all agree that adaptation is expected when changes are enforced by the organization?  If one looks over the entire span of its history and its changes, we also must consider how these changes affected thousands of lives who held fast to the teaching of the moment.  There is a WT entitled, “Rejoice in the knowledge of Jehovah”.  (2001)  Would those who embraced either an early generation teaching or the 1914/1925 date of Armageddon, the suggested 1975 date also of Armageddon, rejoice in the knowledge of “Jehovah” if their lives were turned upside down by such anticipation?  Would Jesus rejoice in such changes if he sees the heartbreak of those who put trust in a present teaching?

It is easy to narrow our focus down to ourselves and our ability to adjust to present teachings, shutting our eyes to those who stumbled through years of big change.  When thinking of Rutherford sending brothers and sisters away as outcasts because they questioned his leadership role; and then, in the 70’s a theocratic “governing body” was formed, does this not make one wonder what our Father thinks of such oppressive man rule in any form, yesterday or today?  And those that were cast out, what happened to them?  Does God view them as the unrighteous ones, or Rutherford, since his desire as sole ruler was later changed by the introduction of a governing body?  Jer 23:1

 Are such changes enforced at the loss of sheep really a “safeguard” provided by God? 

“Jehovah provides something else to safeguard us: spiritual food at the proper time”.  W 02/12/15 p 13-18

Requirement to believe past teachings appears to be only a requirement if it stays the same.  Once “new light” is introduced, this is considered truth!  Which leads one to believe that truth in the organization wears many faces.

“For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations…Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon. 

“Previously, we thought that the judging of people as sheep or goats would take place during the entire period of the last days from 1914 onward. We concluded that those who rejected the Kingdom message and who died before the start of the great tribulation would die as goats—without the hope of a resurrection.”

“In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read 

    Hello guest!
.We understood that the “arriving” mentioned in verse 46 was linked to the time when Jesus came to inspect the spiritual condition of the anointed in 1918 and that the appointment of the slave over all the Master’s belongings occurred in 1919. (
    Hello guest!
) However, a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy indicates that an adjustment in our understanding of the timing of certain aspects of Jesus’ prophecy is needed. “

“After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, and it would finish at Armageddon.”  “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be"

“So we needed to change the way we understood some parts of the prophecy.”

All the above quotes are from WT 13/7/15 pp 3-8

David Splane, when introducing the new teaching of the generation alluded to liking the “idea”. Doesn't this sound like it is destined to change, simply because it is an idea?  Jer 23:26-32  

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”  2 Tim 4:3,4

If one is expected to assimilate and idea set forward by a group of men who admit that they “thought” their teachings were right in the past, by listening and embracing such new ideas, isn’t this slaving for men and not Christ? 1 Cor 7:23  Jesus promised that each one us that approaches him directly with our earnest desire will know the truth.  John 8:32,36; John 5:39-44; Prov 2:1-9

If we consider how often the WT uses terms such as “likely”, “evidently”, “seems so”, “must be”,  we must realize that assumptions and personal speculations made by such anointed ones are not in the likeness of Christ’s teachings, who spoke with authority.  John 16:13,14    Why are these speculations still being made, if not because of a snowball effect?  

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”  John 14:26

In order for any of us to rejoice in the knowledge of God, shouldn’t we question any teaching from an anointed one, not gulping it down and expecting God to forgive the misleading of thousands with thoughts and ideas?  Is this truly how the Helper brings to remembrance all things from Christ?  Matt 12:33  Would not past failed teachings in need of an overhaul, be considered “thorns” and stumbling blocks, to those who wholeheartedly had accepted them as truth?  Luke 6:43-45

“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? 
Num 23:19

But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.  Matt 5:37 (Eph 4:25)

“As we receive teachings from Jehovah, it should be our desire to gain “accurate knowledge.” Without it, how could we apply God’s Word properly in our own lives or explain it correctly to others? (

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
) Gaining accurate knowledge requires that we read carefully, and if a portion is deep, we may need to read it more than once in order to grasp the sense of it.” Keep a firm grip on the word of God  Wt chapt 3 pp 23-31 

 

    Hello guest!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggest "Witness" that you read my last post. 

Further, I lived through 1975.  Guess what?  No heartbreak.  I think the heartbreak you speak of is vastly smaller than one might imagine.  I know of no one back then who experienced heartbreak.  We, as you said, adapted and it wasn't a problem.  Everyone I knew thought that 1975 could be an interesting date, but our loyalty to Jehovah was much greater than that date.  We don't serve Jehovah based on a date anyway.   

And by the logic you suggest, there would be no progress since everything would have to be exactly correct from the get-go.  That's the mistake they cling to in Christendom and so they are locked into things like the "Nicene Creed" of 325 and 381 C.E. 

But progress doesn't work like that.  And teachers don't teach like that.  I took astronomy in college, pre-Hubble, and some of the things they believed and taught back then turned out to need to be adjusted, changed, and reversed.  But progress has been made and we know more about the physical heavens now than we ever did.  In fact, you'll commonly hear professors of every discipline regularly say, "It turns out that........", indicating that at one time they believed one thing, but after more discovery and consideration they've reconsidered and come to a better understanding of a subject. 

Why are you so adverse to the logical progression of Biblical knowledge, the steadily growing light of progress and understanding?  Fear of not getting it exactly right could easily be the killer of progress, and certainly much worse than remaining stagnant because one might feel obligated to stick to what was originally presented.  We search for truth. We grope for truth. We pray for truth.  But that doesn't mean we always get it perfectly correct the first time.  Sometimes it's not the right time as in when Jesus withheld info from the disciples because at a certain point of time they were unable to bear it.  But progress comes in time, if one doesn't allow themselves to be stumbled, and if they remain loyal to Jehovah, whose organization feeds Jesus' sheep as they were instructed to do....now in over 700 languages and throughout the earth, as per Jesus commands.  That fact alone should be enough to cause a person to examine themselves to see where they may have erred, as opposed to trying to blame someone else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LloydSt said:

Why are you so adverse to the logical progression of Biblical knowledge, the steadily growing light of progress and understanding?  Fear of not getting it exactly right could easily be the killer of progress, and certainly much worse than remaining stagnant because one might feel obligated to stick to what was originally presented.  We search for truth. We grope for truth. We pray for truth.  But that doesn't mean we always get it perfectly correct the first time.  Sometimes it's not the right time as in when Jesus withheld info from the disciples because at a certain point of time they were unable to bear it.  But progress comes in time, if one doesn't allow themselves to be stumbled, and if they remain loyal to Jehovah, whose organization feeds Jesus' sheep as they were instructed to do....now in over 700 languages and throughout the earth, as per Jesus commands.  That fact alone should be enough to cause a person to examine themselves to see where they may have erred, as opposed to trying to blame someone else.

So tell me this, if you or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. You were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that you were right, what would that say to you? You were forced to believe the WT instead of what you knew to be correct. Wouldn't this be the same as those folks who died without a organ transplant? Since it has changed, is the blood on the hands of the WT over these people? You are required to adhere to every teaching they tell you, without question and without harboring your own personal thoughts on the matter, right? How does that make any sense? I mean that's what those people did who died without an organ transplant. 

 

a side note, the issue may be a small one but still addresses my point:

Are the people of Sodom and Gomorrah going to be resurrected? 

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

these are the answers given to the witnesses over the years. Is this progression? Is this light getting brighter? or is this a who knows we'll just fly by the seat of our pants because all of the witnesses HAVE to believe what we tell them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

Suggest "Witness" that you read my last post. 

Further, I lived through 1975.  Guess what?  No heartbreak.  I think the heartbreak you speak of is vastly smaller than one might imagine.  I know of no one back then who experienced heartbreak.  We, as you said, adapted and it wasn't a problem.  Everyone I knew thought that 1975 could be an interesting date, but our loyalty to Jehovah was much greater than that date.  We don't serve Jehovah based on a date anyway.   

 

Hello Lloyd,

I grew up in a farming community, and in 1975 I remember my father saying  JW farmers he knew were selling their land, home, everything in anticipation of Armageddon.  Are you saying that because it didn't affect you, that it didn't affect anyone of a worthy amount in God's eyes?

Surely you have heard of the talk given in 1967 at District Convention by DO Charles Sunutko, "Serving with Everlasting Life in View".  

"Well now, as Jehovah's Witnesses, as runners, even though some of us have become a little weary, it almost seems as though Jehovah has provided meat in due season. Because he's held up before all of us, a new goal. A new year. Something to reach out for and it just seems it has given all of us so much more energy and power in this final burst of speed to the finish line. And that's the year 1975. Well, we don't have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then. As one brother put it, "Stay alive to Seventy-Five"" 

The growth rate of publishers in 1974 was 14%, 1975 - 10%, 1976 - 4%, 1977 - -1%, 1978 -1%, 1979 - 0%. (jwfacts)

I will attempt to comment more later.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>" So tell me this, if you or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. You were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that you were right, what would that say to you?"

It would tell me that I lacked patience and was unwilling to wait on the organization Jehovah is using, and furthermore, thought more of myself and my own abilities than the organization that made so many things clear and published those things worldwide in over 700 languages as per Jesus' command.  And that I was quite happy relying on my own understanding rather than taking the advice at Proverbs 3:5 to NOT rely on my own understanding.  It would tell me than I had some serious Eve-like tendencies to do what I imagined was best.  

That goes straight to the "main plot", the main theme of the Bible, namely that Jehovah's ways are best, and I would hope that the elders would make that plain to me and I would pray that I would have the humility to accept that counsel.  I would hope that just because I hit on a point or points that were ultimately correct that I wouldn't feel superior to others or try and push ahead.  If I lived in Jesus' day and happened on the info that he said that the disciples couldn't bear, I would hope that I wouldn't start telling my fellow disciples about what I discovered, knowing that Jesus would reveal what he had to reveal at the time he thought most appropriate, even as he said.

And so I would make a promise to myself that I would never again press my own ideas onto others, flagrantly trusting in myself.  I would realize that I might get something right this time, but that might not be true the next time.  I would hope that I would be humble and not let my pride force me to try and justify myself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"I grew up in a farming community, and in 1975 I remember my father saying  JW farmers he knew were selling their land, home, everything in anticipation of Armageddon.  Are you saying that because it didn't affect you, that it didn't affect anyone of a worthy amount in God's eyes?"

Did I say that?

"Surely you have heard of the talk given in 1967 at District Convention by DO Charles Sunutko, "Serving with Everlasting Life in View".  

"Well now, as Jehovah's Witnesses, as runners, even though some of us have become a little weary, it almost seems as though Jehovah has provided meat in due season. Because he's held up before all of us, a new goal. A new year. Something to reach out for and it just seems it has given all of us so much more energy and power in this final burst of speed to the finish line. And that's the year 1975. Well, we don't have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then. As one brother put it, "Stay alive to Seventy-Five"" 

And how long have you let this stumble you? 

How long will you let the unpublished words of an over-zealous District Overseer keep you from serving Jehovah whole-souled? 

And would you let those words deprive you of everlasting life where suchlike things will be as nothing in comparison?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LloydSt said:

Holly, as I have explained several times now, investigation of Bible truths is similar to investigation of the physical heavens or the human cell or a jillion other matters. Progression in understanding is the natural normal way for things to go.  There may be the occasional misunderstanding, but the path is generally positive, and upward.  Quibbling about whether new information conflicts with the older, to what extent, and whether or not that would violate Russell's maxim, "new light never extinguishes older light," has little value.   It does seem obvious however that Russell was likely speaking about basic, well-established truths and not looks at things that may need need further clarification.  In physics, math, and astronomy for instance, there are well established truths such as Newton's Laws and Archimedes' Principle.  But that doesn't mean that nothing new can be learned and that adjustments can't be made where needed.   

Then too, as was written in the Revelation Climax book:

"It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times."

I'm certain Russell would agree that what he wrote was not infallible, don't you?  

Look, in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940;s, 1950's and so on, Astronomy was taught to students.  There were tests to be taken and answers had to be given according to the progress in knowledge up to that point in time.  In the 1920's the answers given on tests might have resulted in a high score.  But those same answers might have resulted in a much lower grade in 2016.  That's how things work.  Progress.  An increase in light or knowledge.  I don't think we can define exactly just to what extent Jehovah points the way or to what extent we grope in the direction he gives, but no matter.  He remains the Father of Light and we do well to progress in understanding.   

I don't think Russell believed he was quibbling in his comments about new light never extinguishing old light. ;)  

Accepting that your understanding of what the Bible teaches will keep changing as the natural and normal way of things (and because that understanding is coming from fallible men), is it reasonable for the WTS to require the entire range of these teachings be believed and taught as the truth on pain of excommunication?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Witness said:

The WT holds fast to the term “food at the proper time”, which also would be considered “new light”.  As you have brought out Holly, James 1:17 says there is no variation or shifting shadows if we keep in God’s light.  Can we not all agree that adaptation is expected when changes are enforced by the organization?  If one looks over the entire span of its history and its changes, we also must consider how these changes affected thousands of lives who held fast to the teaching of the moment.  There is a WT entitled, “Rejoice in the knowledge of Jehovah”.  (2001)  Would those who embraced either an early generation teaching or the 1914/1925 date of Armageddon, the suggested 1975 date also of Armageddon, rejoice in the knowledge of “Jehovah” if their lives were turned upside down by such anticipation?  Would Jesus rejoice in such changes if he sees the heartbreak of those who put trust in a present teaching?

 

It is easy to narrow our focus down to ourselves and our ability to adjust to present teachings, shutting our eyes to those who stumbled through years of big change.  When thinking of Rutherford sending brothers and sisters away as outcasts because they questioned his leadership role; and then, in the 70’s a theocratic “governing body” was formed, does this not make one wonder what our Father thinks of such oppressive man rule in any form, yesterday or today?  And those that were cast out, what happened to them?  Does God view them as the unrighteous ones, or Rutherford, since his desire as sole ruler was later changed by the introduction of a governing body?  Jer 23:1

 

 Are such changes enforced at the loss of sheep really a “safeguard” provided by God? 

 

“Jehovah provides something else to safeguard us: spiritual food at the proper time”.  W 02/12/15 p 13-18

 

Requirement to believe past teachings appears to be only a requirement if it stays the same.  Once “new light” is introduced, this is considered truth!  Which leads one to believe that truth in the organization wears many faces.

 

“For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations…Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon. 

 

“Previously, we thought that the judging of people as sheep or goats would take place during the entire period of the last days from 1914 onward. We concluded that those who rejected the Kingdom message and who died before the start of the great tribulation would die as goats—without the hope of a resurrection.”

 

“In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read 

    Hello guest!
.We understood that the “arriving” mentioned in verse 46 was linked to the time when Jesus came to inspect the spiritual condition of the anointed in 1918 and that the appointment of the slave over all the Master’s belongings occurred in 1919. (
    Hello guest!
) However, a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy indicates that an adjustment in our understanding of the timing of certain aspects of Jesus’ prophecy is needed. “

 

“After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, and it would finish at Armageddon.”  “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be"

 

“So we needed to change the way we understood some parts of the prophecy.”

 

All the above quotes are from WT 13/7/15 pp 3-8

 

David Splane, when introducing the new teaching of the generation alluded to liking the “idea”. Doesn't this sound like it is destined to change, simply because it is an idea?  Jer 23:26-32  

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”  2 Tim 4:3,4

 

If one is expected to assimilate and idea set forward by a group of men who admit that they “thought” their teachings were right in the past, by listening and embracing such new ideas, isn’t this slaving for men and not Christ? 1 Cor 7:23  Jesus promised that each one us that approaches him directly with our earnest desire will know the truth.  John 8:32,36; John 5:39-44; Prov 2:1-9

 

If we consider how often the WT uses terms such as “likely”, “evidently”, “seems so”, “must be”,  we must realize that assumptions and personal speculations made by such anointed ones are not in the likeness of Christ’s teachings, who spoke with authority.  John 16:13,14    Why are these speculations still being made, if not because of a snowball effect?  

 

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”  John 14:26

 

In order for any of us to rejoice in the knowledge of God, shouldn’t we question any teaching from an anointed one, not gulping it down and expecting God to forgive the misleading of thousands with thoughts and ideas?  Is this truly how the Helper brings to remembrance all things from Christ?  Matt 12:33  Would not past failed teachings in need of an overhaul, be considered “thorns” and stumbling blocks, to those who wholeheartedly had accepted them as truth?  Luke 6:43-45

 

“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? 
Num 23:19

 

 

But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.  Matt 5:37 (Eph 4:25)

 

“As we receive teachings from Jehovah, it should be our desire to gain “accurate knowledge.” Without it, how could we apply God’s Word properly in our own lives or explain it correctly to others? (

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
) Gaining accurate knowledge requires that we read carefully, and if a portion is deep, we may need to read it more than once in order to grasp the sense of it.” Keep a firm grip on the word of God  Wt chapt 3 pp 23-31 

 

 

    Hello guest!

 

 

Thank you, Witness, for your very powerful and insightful post.  I think you can see that even though the men on the governing body say they don't claim to be infallible, what they determine to be a Bible teaching must be accepted just as though they do claim to be infallible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LloydSt said:

Suggest "Witness" that you read my last post. 

Further, I lived through 1975.  Guess what?  No heartbreak.  I think the heartbreak you speak of is vastly smaller than one might imagine.  I know of no one back then who experienced heartbreak.  We, as you said, adapted and it wasn't a problem.  Everyone I knew thought that 1975 could be an interesting date, but our loyalty to Jehovah was much greater than that date.  We don't serve Jehovah based on a date anyway.   

And by the logic you suggest, there would be no progress since everything would have to be exactly correct from the get-go.  That's the mistake they cling to in Christendom and so they are locked into things like the "Nicene Creed" of 325 and 381 C.E. 

But progress doesn't work like that.  And teachers don't teach like that.  I took astronomy in college, pre-Hubble, and some of the things they believed and taught back then turned out to need to be adjusted, changed, and reversed.  But progress has been made and we know more about the physical heavens now than we ever did.  In fact, you'll commonly hear professors of every discipline regularly say, "It turns out that........", indicating that at one time they believed one thing, but after more discovery and consideration they've reconsidered and come to a better understanding of a subject. 

Why are you so adverse to the logical progression of Biblical knowledge, the steadily growing light of progress and understanding?  Fear of not getting it exactly right could easily be the killer of progress, and certainly much worse than remaining stagnant because one might feel obligated to stick to what was originally presented.  We search for truth. We grope for truth. We pray for truth.  But that doesn't mean we always get it perfectly correct the first time.  Sometimes it's not the right time as in when Jesus withheld info from the disciples because at a certain point of time they were unable to bear it.  But progress comes in time, if one doesn't allow themselves to be stumbled, and if they remain loyal to Jehovah, whose organization feeds Jesus' sheep as they were instructed to do....now in over 700 languages and throughout the earth, as per Jesus commands.  That fact alone should be enough to cause a person to examine themselves to see where they may have erred, as opposed to trying to blame someone else.

Lloyd, even the governing body back in the 1980's admitted they had promoted more than just an "interest" in the 1975 date, saying that considerable expectation had been aroused by them in WT publications which made 1975 more of a probability than a mere possibility.  

Also, they had commended those who had sold their homes and property and planned to finish out the rest of their days before 1975 in the pioneer service:

[km 5/74 p.3] Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.—1 John 2:17.

But when 1975 turned out to be incorrect, these same ones were accused of having an unbalanced view and were chided for taking 1975 so seriously:

[w76 7/15 p.440]It may be that some who have been serving God have planned their lives according to a mistaken view of just what was to happen on a certain date or in a certain year. They may have, for this reason, put off or neglected things that they otherwise would have cared for. But they have missed the point of the Bible’s warnings concerning the end of this system of things, thinking that Bible chronology reveals the specific date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

So tell me this, if you or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. You were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that you were right, what would that say to you? You were forced to believe the WT instead of what you knew to be correct. Wouldn't this be the same as those folks who died without a organ transplant? Since it has changed, is the blood on the hands of the WT over these people? You are required to adhere to every teaching they tell you, without question and without harboring your own personal thoughts on the matter, right? How does that make any sense? I mean that's what those people did who died without an organ transplant. 

 

a side note, the issue may be a small one but still addresses my point:

Are the people of Sodom and Gomorrah going to be resurrected? 

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

these are the answers given to the witnesses over the years. Is this progression? Is this light getting brighter? or is this a who knows we'll just fly by the seat of our pants because all of the witnesses HAVE to believe what we tell them? 

It's the same with "this generation: of Matthew 24:34:  Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur. [NWT]

In a recent publication, the question is asked about "This generation." Did Jesus have in mind unbelievers? No. (see pg 11 of God's Kingdom Rules, 2014).

Up to 1914, the answer was "Yes."

Then in 1927, the answer was "No."

But in 1952 it was "Yes" again.

And it continued to be "Yes" until 2008 when it became "No" again.

 

 
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LloydSt said:

How long will you let the unpublished words of an over-zealous District Overseer keep you from serving Jehovah whole-souled? 

That is something to consider.  Jesus’ words:

 “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”  Matt 22:37-40

Now, this first commandment is something that I strive to do every day of my life.  Lloyd, there is no organization, and no man, that stands in my way of serving both God and Christ with my whole soul, strength and mind.  This is worshiping in “spirit and truth” as Christ directed.  John 4:23,24  The organizational setup is contrary to every teaching by Jesus and the apostles.  Only the Body of Christ is an “organization” sanctioned by God. 1 Pet 2:4,5  Your dedication and service toward the organization robs you of giving whole souled devotion to the Father and Jesus.  Matt 6:24  I can serve the Father in Heaven without the need of an earthly organization, and it is acceptable to Jesus also.  James 1:27; Acts 17:24,25

“Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,”  which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?  These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.”  Col 2:20-23

The second commandment is also much easier to follow, since I don’t disfellowship my brother or sister for various reasons, but use good judgment in my association.  I also would not disfellowship you for your belief as different from mine, which the organization does continually.  This places a mark on one’s fellow sheep as “spiritually dead”.  By judging someone in this manner, love for one’s neighbor is wiped out. How can you love someone that you have “killed”?   

Who has been given the authority to judge?   Rom 14:4

"There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?"  James 4:12

The ever changing doctrines of the organization may well be called “laws”, since refusing to follow these unique doctrines results in disfellowshiping; yet, we see the scriptures say there is only one lawgiver.

Rom 14:10 - "But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Batwell Soko said:

I feel either you are misled or you criticise unnecessarily.

Thank you for sharing your feelings, Batwell. :)  Since you didn't quote anyone, I'm not sure whose post made you feel that way.  Could you elaborate a bit on the opinion you've given as to who is misled or being unnecessarily critical?  And, did you have any feelings about how you would answer the question in the OP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LloydSt said:

>" So tell me this, if you or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. You were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that you were right, what would that say to you?"

It would tell me that I lacked patience and was unwilling to wait on the organization Jehovah is using, and furthermore, thought more of myself and my own abilities than the organization that made so many things clear and published those things worldwide in over 700 languages as per Jesus' command.  And that I was quite happy relying on my own understanding rather than taking the advice at Proverbs 3:5 to NOT rely on my own understanding.  It would tell me than I had some serious Eve-like tendencies to do what I imagined was best.  

That goes straight to the "main plot", the main theme of the Bible, namely that Jehovah's ways are best, and I would hope that the elders would make that plain to me and I would pray that I would have the humility to accept that counsel.  I would hope that just because I hit on a point or points that were ultimately correct that I wouldn't feel superior to others or try and push ahead.  If I lived in Jesus' day and happened on the info that he said that the disciples couldn't bear, I would hope that I wouldn't start telling my fellow disciples about what I discovered, knowing that Jesus would reveal what he had to reveal at the time he thought most appropriate, even as he said.

And so I would make a promise to myself that I would never again press my own ideas onto others, flagrantly trusting in myself.  I would realize that I might get something right this time, but that might not be true the next time.  I would hope that I would be humble and not let my pride force me to try and justify myself.

Lloyd, I believe you've presented exactly what baptism as a JW means, "to wait on the organization Jehovah is using", and that means you've agreed, by your dedication and baptism identifying you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the organization you believe Jehovah is using, to change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them.  This tends to give "the truth" a rather fluid quality.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>" to change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them.  This tends to give "the truth" a rather fluid quality. "

Again with the black and white thinking Holly?

It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels

Again, please try and grasp the similar scientific concept wherein there are many things that are established, such as Newton's Laws and Archimedes Principle that will never change, at least for the normal environment in which we now live.  But the fact that there are many things that are established and that will never change, does not mean that in other more nuanced investigations, new things might be learned in time.  

You did hit the target however when you said this, "you've agreed by your dedication and baptism [that I wish to be identified] as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the organization you believe Jehovah is using."

Quite true.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My family found the truth in 1957, I the oldest child was baptized in 67, the date of 75, was never taught to us as nothing more than the end of 6000 yrs. of human existence on earth. We were never looking forward to Armageddon. My father bought a home for my mother and siblings, I went off to college. Just as I had planned. He became an elder in the congregation, which he stayed u til his death. Yes, this organization changes. It is imperfect. Each one that has been used by Jehovah in scripture has done no better. Why is this one set on such a high pedestal of standard? To be part of the Jewish organization there were regulations that would identify one was following after this nations standard of worship. The same is with us as Witnesses. Using the Bible, we do not tolerate what is normal in the mainstream as life choices. And ones who act and think are so removed.

 We we do good to follow after this way, even if we do not understand. Did not Peter do so? The way of everlasting life is here, not anywhere else. Life was onboard the arc, even if the person did not like Noah, he could have been save just by being onboard the ark. That is what we tell people today. Read your Bible for yourself, learn and come be among people of like faith and understanding. All the stumbling that happened in the past, is painful. But it harms that person and any who listens. Jehovah saw all what happened. Any wrongs will be made right. Any who died, will be raised. That is the beauty of this. We forget to see it fro Jehovah's viewpoint, which is what he is telling us to do. We are fighting, arguing among ourselves with all these posts, but in the end Jehovah as all the answers. If Sodom will come back, be there to see. Those you thought done wrong by this organization, be there to see Jehovah happily give them life again. That is what scripture tells us. Be there to see all the promises Jehovah holds out. Love we should have, not this arguing, the hate. That will not be there and any who foster such feelings will neither. Agape, my friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LloydSt said:

It would tell me that I lacked patience and was unwilling to wait on the organization Jehovah is using, and furthermore, thought more of myself and my own abilities than the organization that made so many things clear and published those things worldwide in over 700 languages as per Jesus' command.  And that I was quite happy relying on my own understanding rather than taking the advice at Proverbs 3:5 to NOT rely on my own understanding.  It would tell me than I had some serious Eve-like tendencies to do what I imagined was best.  

So you would accept that the org is right even though you know that they are not. That is called Cognitive dissonance. 

Who according to the Bible is to teach us all things? Who is to be called "teacher"? Who directs us? The answer to all of these is most definitely not an organization. 

18 hours ago, LloydSt said:

and I would hope that the elders would make that plain to me and I would pray that I would have the humility to accept that counsel.

So your hope is in the elders to tell you what to do and what not to do. This is not the "main plot" or theme of the Bible. 

 

18 hours ago, LloydSt said:

I would hope that just because I hit on a point or points that were ultimately correct that I wouldn't feel superior to others or try and push ahead.

No one said anything about feeling superior to others or tooting your own horn. 

 

18 hours ago, LloydSt said:

And so I would make a promise to myself that I would never again press my own ideas onto others, flagrantly trusting in myself.  I would realize that I might get something right this time, but that might not be true the next time.  I would hope that I would be humble and not let my pride force me to try and justify myself.

This statement is a conditioned one in assuming that someone would puff themselves up on being correct, none of which was said. This is the thinking that has been ingrained in followers to not think for themselves, or else they are being proud or boosting their own ego. This keeps people toeing the company line and turning in those who think differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, LloydSt said:

if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that

This tells me that you are following MEN and not God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, John Houston said:

We we do good to follow after this way, even if we do not understand. Did not Peter do so? The way of everlasting life is here, not anywhere else. Life was onboard the arc, even if the person did not like Noah, he could have been save just by being onboard the ark. That is what we tell people today. Read your Bible for yourself, learn and come be among people of like faith and understanding. All the stumbling that happened in the past, is painful. But it harms that person and any who listens. Jehovah saw all what happened. Any wrongs will be made right. Any who died, will be raised. That is the beauty of this. We forget to see it fro Jehovah's viewpoint, which is what he is telling us to do. We are fighting, arguing among ourselves with all these posts, but in the end Jehovah as all the answers. If Sodom will come back, be there to see. Those you thought done wrong by this organization, be there to see Jehovah happily give them life again. That is what scripture tells us. Be there to see all the promises Jehovah holds out. Love we should have, not this arguing, the hate. That will not be there and any who foster such feelings will neither. Agape, my friends.

This is why an organization is not needed. This is why Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day. Groups who lord over the masses instill rules that were never supposed to be there. It is our job to help those who are unaware of God's grace and freedom. God does not reside in a building nor in a organization, but rather in the hearts of those who receive Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Witness said " I can serve the Father in Heaven without the need of an earthly organization"

You cannot and at the same time fulfill Jesus command to, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you."

You cannot at at the same time with all the brothers, "speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."

You cannot and at the same time, "in the midst of the congregation I will praise you with song."

You cannot and at the same time, "consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, not forsaking our meeting together." 

Look man.  You've gotta come to grips with reality.  You cannot isolate yourself, perhaps only "gathering" with some folks every now and then who also want to criticize JW's at a home or online.  How's that inciting to love and fine works? 

Further, it's a group effort, and by definition that involves organization.

Let go of pride, self-righteousness, and that independent spirit.  Taking hold of Eve's hand, almost the entire world bows down to the spirit of independence like it was a god.  They are all on the wide road that Jesus spoke of.  Brass it out, show a little courage and break free, and soon you'll find yourself once again enabled to serve shoulder to shoulder with those, imperfect though they may be, whose foremost intent is to uphold Jehovah's sovereignty by obeying him willingly from the heart.

Look, before you go firing off a response, check out this video I watched myself for the first time last night.  Kinda long: 42 minutes, but well worth it.  I think you'll be able to identify.

    Hello guest!

   

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holly said:"I think you can see that even though the men on the governing body say they don't claim to be infallible, what they determine to be a Bible teaching must be accepted just as though they do claim to be infallible."

Another swing and a miss. 

Your conclusion that the reason Bible teachings are agreed upon as they are revealed is NOT because the governing body wants to be accepted as "infallible".

But I'm gonna give you a little hint.  What does 1 Cor. 1:10 say?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

>" to change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them.  This tends to give "the truth" a rather fluid quality. "

Again with the black and white thinking Holly?

It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels

Again, please try and grasp the similar scientific concept wherein there are many things that are established, such as Newton's Laws and Archimedes Principle that will never change, at least for the normal environment in which we now live.  But the fact that there are many things that are established and that will never change, does not mean that in other more nuanced investigations, new things might be learned in time.  

You did hit the target however when you said this, "you've agreed by your dedication and baptism [that I wish to be identified] as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the organization you believe Jehovah is using."

Quite true.

If your belief changed to what you think is the truth, what you changed it from wasn't the truth.  I mean, you don't believe you're changing what is true, do you?  For instance, for many years you believed the truth was that the identity of the faithful slave was the 144,000.  You don't believe that's the truth any more, you believe the truth is that the governing body is the faithful slave.  That means what you used to believe is no longer the truth, even though you called it the truth when you believed it.

If the men on the WTS governing body received new light about the Trinity teaching, I'm sure they would approach this new teaching in bits that you would be able to accept and believe are based on the Bible, just as all the other changes that you have already accepted.  After all, they already say if you read the Bible alone without reading anything else, you'll end up believing in the Trinity.  That might be a way for them to receive new light about the Trinity, by reading the Bible alone or in groups.

Being identified as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the WTS, you've accepted at your baptism that you will change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Houston said:

My family found the truth in 1957, I the oldest child was baptized in 67, the date of 75, was never taught to us as nothing more than the end of 6000 yrs. of human existence on earth. We were never looking forward to Armageddon. My father bought a home for my mother and siblings, I went off to college. Just as I had planned. He became an elder in the congregation, which he stayed u til his death. Yes, this organization changes. It is imperfect. Each one that has been used by Jehovah in scripture has done no better. Why is this one set on such a high pedestal of standard? To be part of the Jewish organization there were regulations that would identify one was following after this nations standard of worship. The same is with us as Witnesses. Using the Bible, we do not tolerate what is normal in the mainstream as life choices. And ones who act and think are so removed.

 We we do good to follow after this way, even if we do not understand. Did not Peter do so? The way of everlasting life is here, not anywhere else. Life was onboard the arc, even if the person did not like Noah, he could have been save just by being onboard the ark. That is what we tell people today. Read your Bible for yourself, learn and come be among people of like faith and understanding. All the stumbling that happened in the past, is painful. But it harms that person and any who listens. Jehovah saw all what happened. Any wrongs will be made right. Any who died, will be raised. That is the beauty of this. We forget to see it fro Jehovah's viewpoint, which is what he is telling us to do. We are fighting, arguing among ourselves with all these posts, but in the end Jehovah as all the answers. If Sodom will come back, be there to see. Those you thought done wrong by this organization, be there to see Jehovah happily give them life again. That is what scripture tells us. Be there to see all the promises Jehovah holds out. Love we should have, not this arguing, the hate. That will not be there and any who foster such feelings will neither. Agape, my friends.

John, when you say you found the truth......what is that?  Did you find the one who is the Truth, Christ Jesus?  Or are you saying you found a religious organization whose teachings you agreed with at the time, even though many of the things being taught as truth are no longer considered to be the truth?

If your family was taught only that 1975 marked the end of 6000 years of human existence on the earth and nothing more than that, you could not have been very zealous for what the WTS was printing and saying.  Children were told they would not finish school before Armageddon came, JWs were praised for selling their properties in order to pioneer until the end came in 1975.  Even the governing body admitted their own culpability in raising JW hopes for the end to come in 1975, saying the date had been based on false premises. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, LloydSt said:

Holly said:"I think you can see that even though the men on the governing body say they don't claim to be infallible, what they determine to be a Bible teaching must be accepted just as though they do claim to be infallible."

Another swing and a miss. 

Your conclusion that the reason Bible teachings are agreed upon as they are revealed is NOT because the governing body wants to be accepted as "infallible".

But I'm gonna give you a little hint.  What does 1 Cor. 1:10 say?

 

If the men on the governing body did claim to be infallible, what would that change for you?

As you posted earlier, 1 Cor. 1:10 was Paul admonishing the Christians in Corinth to be in agreement and not be looking to a person nor promoting one person over another, even if that person were himself or one of the apostles.  It's a call for Christian unity, not a call for uniform acceptance of teachings that keep changing.

Don't you count on those in other churches to ignore this very scripture and change their beliefs to yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

This tells me that you are following MEN and not God. 

I don't think Lloyd meant he would change his belief about the Trinity, but quite the opposite, if I read his post correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HollyW said:

I don't think Lloyd meant he would change his belief about the Trinity, but quite the opposite, if I read his post correctly.

But he did say he would believe it:

"In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels "

This demonstrates the power the WT has over his beliefs. He is willing to accept whatever he is told "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not." - wt Nov 2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit late to the table, but would like to share my thoughts using science as an example. One hundred years ago, science knew all they could know at that time. Today, with the exception of some, many of those facts have changed. Were they wrong? No, not for their time. Today, one hundred years later, yes they are. Why? Because there are various limitations in our abilities at any given time. One hundred years ago, we simply did not have the technology to allow us to see more of what's out there. Right now, we understand that we are limited in our abilities to understand some things, but we can predict what we think should be out there with mathematics and physics calculations. Often we have to wait for the technology to become available to test out those "theories". Some things get proven right, others get disproved and so we must move with the evidence.

So to with spiritual truths, in one hundred years time, spiritual truths will be quite different to how we know them today. A friend of mine died in 2009. Since then there have been so many changes that if he came back today he'd be mind blown! Now, think back a couple thousand years, the apostle Paul was given a vision of the third heaven. But he could speak about the things he saw. It is quite possible that part of what he saw was the spiritual paradise we enjoy today (according to current thinking) But what we know today, might be "words that cannot be spoken and that are not lawful for a man to say." Like scientists who wait for the technology to be invented to allow them to understand deeper truths about the universe, we too must wait on Jehovah, through Christ, to shine light on things we cannot see - isn't that what having faith is?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

But he did say he would believe it:

"In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels "

This demonstrates the power the WT has over his beliefs. He is willing to accept whatever he is told "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not." - wt Nov 2013

You're right that in that if it actually did happen, he would believe it, but he was saying the opposite because in context he was paraphrasing what I had said:

Quote

Lloyd, I believe you've presented exactly what baptism as a JW means, "to wait on the organization Jehovah is using", and that means you've agreed, by your dedication and baptism identifying you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the organization you believe Jehovah is using, to change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them.  This tends to give "the truth" a rather fluid quality.

I believe he was saying that what I have in bold there is foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HollyW said:

You're right that in that if it actually did happen, he would believe it, but he was saying the opposite because in context he was paraphrasing what I had said:

I believe he was saying that what I have in bold there is foolish.

gotcha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's start with this:

1. Shiwiii purported that Lloyd wrote: "if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that"       This tells me that you are following MEN and not God."

What I actually wrote was pretty much the opposite.  Here it is:

"It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you [Holly] want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels."

See those words "which is foolishness"? 

2. Shwiii wrote: "So you would accept that the org is right even though you know that they are not. That is called Cognitive dissonance. 

"

Again an attempt to put words in my mouth, a common tactic called a "straw man" argument where one takes issue with something that is easy to contend with, but which is quite different from the original discussion. 

But the answer is that if I thought I might have happened onto something that seemed more correct than what we had thought, I hopefully would just keep my big mouth shut and wait on Jehovah.  How would I really know that I was correct about a matter anyway?

3. "Who according to the Bible is to teach us all things? Who is to be called "teacher"? Who directs us? The answer to all of these is most definitely not an organization."

So is it you?  You're the one that has presumed to know more than the organization right?  Further, who did Jesus tell, 3 times, to feed my little sheep?  Who made the decision about circumcision that was distributed to the congregations?

  As I have already said, it is a group effort and by definition that involves organization.  They try their best to understand the Great Teacher and what is said in the scriptures and to use that understanding to build up those who want to be Jehovah's servants.  Try to grasp that.

4. Shiwiii said, "So your hope is in the elders to tell you what to do and what not to do. This is not the "main plot" or theme of the Bible."

Again, I never said that.  Just another straw man argument that Shiwiii relies on quite heavily. 

What I hoped that the elders would do in a case where I broke from the unity of Jehovah's people is to point out that I was embarking, like Eve did, on a course of independence.  And yes, choosing independence, as Eve did, over submission to Jehovah IS the main plot! 

5. Shiwiii wrote: >Lloyd: "I would hope that just because I hit on a point or points that were ultimately correct that I wouldn't feel superior to others or try and push ahead."  Shiwiii: "No one said anything about feeling superior to others or tooting your own horn."

Dude, YOU asked me, and I quote, "So tell me this, if YOU or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. YOU were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that YOU were right, what would that say to You?" (caps mine)

See the words, "What would that say to YOU?"  You are asking me to come at this as if I was the one with the problem, not you.  And if I was embracing beliefs that would break unity with Jehovah's people, i would feel like I was being superior and tooting my own horn, at least in my mind.

6. Shiwiii said: "This is the thinking that has been ingrained in followers to not think for themselves, or else they are being proud or boosting their own ego. This keeps people toeing the company line and turning in those who think differently.'

Wow. You really have no idea how Jehovah's people think, do you?  Dude, we've studied, sometimes for years and pondered deeply over just exactly what we are doing, thinking for ourselves, and coming to the conclusion that this is the way.  What you call "toeing the company line" is in reality a purposeful decision to remain loyal to an organization that obeys Jesus command to preach and teach the good news worldwide and has done so in over more than 700 languages with more to come, in some cases risking imprisonment or even death, and in almost all cases being made fun of, or how did Paul put it?  Ah yes, "we have become as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things."

You think that's fun?  But we endure because we choose Jehovah's side, and not the independent side.  We try to be patient, show a waiting attitude, and don't push ahead.  Yeah, we know lots of people have lots of different ideas, but we know from intense study that what we have been taught, coming from an organization that is actually doing what Jesus said to do before the end comes, is generally vastly superior to anything else.  So we don't take issue.  Instead, having received this vastly superior knowledge, we try and show gratitude and deep appreciation.  If one receives a beautiful work of art, is it wiser to condemn that art because there is a minor flaw somewhere, or would it be wiser to express gratitude that you even were able to own such a masterpiece?

Fact is, you know the drill, and it seems that you have made your choice.  But you have precious little time to become humble, and pray that Jehovah allow you to return.  Everyone would think most highly of you if you did so.  But I'm gonna guess that you will remain stubborn, remain independent, and continue to choose Eve's way.  Big mistake.  Big.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LloydSt said:

Ok, let's start with this:

1. Shiwiii purported that Lloyd wrote: "if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that"       This tells me that you are following MEN and not God."

What I actually wrote was pretty much the opposite.  Here it is:

"It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you [Holly] want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels."

See those words "which is foolishness"? 

 

Hi Lloyd,

I think the point Shiwii is making is that you would accept the Trinity doctrine, or any other doctrine you were told to accept, in order to, as you've said, not break unity with the other members of the WTS.  This would be looking to men and not to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

I'm a bit late to the table, but would like to share my thoughts using science as an example. One hundred years ago, science knew all they could know at that time. Today, with the exception of some, many of those facts have changed. Were they wrong? No, not for their time. Today, one hundred years later, yes they are. Why? Because there are various limitations in our abilities at any given time. One hundred years ago, we simply did not have the technology to allow us to see more of what's out there. Right now, we understand that we are limited in our abilities to understand some things, but we can predict what we think should be out there with mathematics and physics calculations. Often we have to wait for the technology to become available to test out those "theories". Some things get proven right, others get disproved and so we must move with the evidence.

So to with spiritual truths, in one hundred years time, spiritual truths will be quite different to how we know them today. A friend of mine died in 2009. Since then there have been so many changes that if he came back today he'd be mind blown! Now, think back a couple thousand years, the apostle Paul was given a vision of the third heaven. But he could speak about the things he saw. It is quite possible that part of what he saw was the spiritual paradise we enjoy today (according to current thinking) But what we know today, might be "words that cannot be spoken and that are not lawful for a man to say." Like scientists who wait for the technology to be invented to allow them to understand deeper truths about the universe, we too must wait on Jehovah, through Christ, to shine light on things we cannot see - isn't that what having faith is?

 

Thank you for joining in Mr V. :) Others have also posted using the comparison of science to what we believe the Bible teaches.  I don't agree with this comparison because of what the Bible tells us. 

For instance, Paul did not expect his teaching to change: Galatians 1: 8  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

He also cautioned against being "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine," Ephesians 4:14.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Holly said: " If the men on the governing body did claim to be infallible, what would that change for you?"

Why do I feel like I'm being set up for some quote from many years ago that someone might interpret as the governing body or a Watchtower president saying they are infallible?

So let's skip ahead.  Here's the answer to that upcoming quote (if I have guessed right).  While it may appear that they had been saying that they were infallible, actually they likely did believe that what they had come to believe was correct, perhaps even as if it came from Jehovah's mouth.  But in that, they could have been somewhat mistaken.  The happy conclusion is that, as demonstrated by the quote from the Revelation book, that, as a group, they humbled themselves and purposefully admitted that they were NOT infallible.

2. Holly said: "As you posted earlier, 1 Cor. 1:10 was Paul admonishing the Christians in Corinth to be in agreement and not be looking to a person nor promoting one person over another, even if that person were himself or one of the apostles.  It's a call for Christian unity, not a call for uniform acceptance of teachings that keep changing."

How is it even possible to speak in agreement if there is no agreement about the tenets of the group?  That makes no sense.  When there was a disagreement about circumcision, the governing body of Biblical times decided what was correct and sent out a decree to the congregation so that they would all be in agreement.  This is basic.   

3. Holly said, "Don't you count on those in other churches to ignore this very scripture and change their beliefs to yours?"

I'm not sure I know what you mean.  I know, as I'm sure you do to, that there is an almost shocking lack of agreement amongst even individual denominations, not to mention the so-called "Christian" groups as a whole, and amongst almost all other religions as well, witness the disharmony amongst Muslim religions today.  However, we welcome folks to come out from those non-unified religions to become part of one that is unified on a worldwide basis, in harmony with 1 Cor 1:10.

 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holly wrote: "I think the point Shiwii is making is that you would accept the Trinity doctrine, or any other doctrine you were told to accept, in order to, as you've said, not break unity with the other members of the WTS.  This would be looking to men and not to God."

And if pigs could fly.............

That's just a word trap that he's trying to led me into. 

The governing body would never accept the trinity and neither would I.  If one doesn't know that, then one doesn't know who Jehovah's Witnesses are.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Holly said: "Others have also posted using the comparison of science to what we believe the Bible teaches.  I don't agree with this comparison because of what the Bible tells us. 

For instance, Paul did not expect his teaching to change: Galatians 1: 8  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

Holly c'mon.  Seriously?  We're talking about the attempt at understanding the Bible to be able to preach what it says correctly.  You comment would mean that anything written by anyone in an attempt to understand God's word would by definition be "another gospel".  And it would require that someone be absolutely right about what they wrote on their first attempt and that they couldn't change.  That is ridiculous and unreasonable.  We've already covered this  

2. Holly said: "He also cautioned against being "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine," Ephesians 4:14."

May I suggest that the very winds Paul was talking about are the non-witness ideas being floated here!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

2. Shwiii wrote: "So you would accept that the org is right even though you know that they are not. That is called Cognitive dissonance. "

Again an attempt to put words in my mouth, a common tactic called a "straw man" argument where one takes issue with something that is easy to contend with, but which is quite different from the original discussion. 

But the answer is that if I thought I might have happened onto something that seemed more correct than what we had thought, I hopefully would just keep my big mouth shut and wait on Jehovah.  How would I really know that I was correct about a matter anyway?

Your answer here is exactly what I was saying:

Lloyd St.- I would hope that the elders would make that plain to me and I would pray that I would have the humility to accept that counsel.

It is not a "straw man", it is what you said, unless you choose to clarify further. Here you stated that if you knew better, you would still seek the elders to tell you what you really are supposed to believe. You said you would even pray that you would accept it.

1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

2. Shwiii wrote: "So you would accept that the org is right even though you know that they are not. That is called Cognitive dissonance. "

Again an attempt to put words in my mouth, a common tactic called a "straw man" argument where one takes issue with something that is easy to contend with, but which is quite different from the original discussion. 

But the answer is that if I thought I might have happened onto something that seemed more correct than what we had thought, I hopefully would just keep my big mouth shut and wait on Jehovah.  How would I really know that I was correct about a matter anyway?

The same quote of yours I quoted in the response of #1. above is the words out of your "mouth" that supports my statement. 

Why in the world would you want to keep your mouth shut? Is your opinion not worth anything? Of course it is, and the only way "progression" happens is by people questioning things. 

1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

3. "Who according to the Bible is to teach us all things? Who is to be called "teacher"? Who directs us? The answer to all of these is most definitely not an organization."

So is it you?  You're the one that has presumed to know more than the organization right?  Further, who did Jesus tell, 3 times, to feed my little sheep?  Who made the decision about circumcision that was distributed to the congregations?

  As I have already said, it is a group effort and by definition that involves organization.  They try their best to understand the Great Teacher and what is said in the scriptures and to use that understanding to build up those who want to be Jehovah's servants.  Try to grasp that.

No, I am no teacher of the Bible. I am only a person who reads it and tries to apply it to my life. I am one to question things when they claim to be of the Bible and are not. I do know quite a lot about the organization, but in no way do I know everything. You never did answer my questions, but I'll answer them for you. The Holy Spirit is to teach us of all things (John 14:26), The Christ is to be called "teacher" (Matthew 23:1-10), God directs us (Psalms 48:14). Actually Jesus only said to Peter once to feed His sheep, He asked him 3 times if he loved Him. Peter and Paul both said that circumcision was of no real value. 

Trying your best is admirable, forcing others to obey you and your belief without question is not. Building up people who want to serve God is great, it is something we all should do, but totalitarianism is the exact opposite of building up. 

1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

4. Shiwiii said, "So your hope is in the elders to tell you what to do and what not to do. This is not the "main plot" or theme of the Bible."

Again, I never said that.  Just another straw man argument that Shiwiii relies on quite heavily. 

What I hoped that the elders would do in a case where I broke from the unity of Jehovah's people is to point out that I was embarking, like Eve did, on a course of independence.  And yes, choosing independence, as Eve did, over submission to Jehovah IS the main plot! 

I understand you believe that the organization is Jehovah's organization, and submission to the org is the same as submission to God. However there is no proof of this tie between the two. Enough said on this one. 

 

1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

5. Shiwiii wrote: >Lloyd: "I would hope that just because I hit on a point or points that were ultimately correct that I wouldn't feel superior to others or try and push ahead."  Shiwiii: "No one said anything about feeling superior to others or tooting your own horn."

Dude, YOU asked me, and I quote, "So tell me this, if YOU or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. YOU were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that YOU were right, what would that say to You?" (caps mine)

See the words, "What would that say to YOU?"  You are asking me to come at this as if I was the one with the problem, not you.  And if I was embracing beliefs that would break unity with Jehovah's people, i would feel like I was being superior and tooting my own horn, at least in my mind.

Yes, I see your point, it is what you would feel. I did ask how you would feel. I was being short sighted in thinking that one would not become proud and boastful in the discovery of truth before the org did. I was thinking more along the lines of how one would deal with the knowledge they attained and still support the org's view. It never crossed my mind that a person would gain a large ego over it. 

 

1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

6. Shiwiii said: "This is the thinking that has been ingrained in followers to not think for themselves, or else they are being proud or boosting their own ego. This keeps people toeing the company line and turning in those who think differently.'

Wow. You really have no idea how Jehovah's people think, do you?  Dude, we've studied, sometimes for years and pondered deeply over just exactly what we are doing, thinking for ourselves, and coming to the conclusion that this is the way.  What you call "toeing the company line" is in reality a purposeful decision to remain loyal to an organization that obeys Jesus command to preach and teach the good news worldwide and has done so in over more than 700 languages with more to come, in some cases risking imprisonment or even death, and in almost all cases being made fun of, or how did Paul put it?  Ah yes, "we have become as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things."

Jehovah's people? Who gets to draw the lines of who is and who isn't? Anyway, back on track. When you say "we've" do you mean you helped create the doctrines to which you now follow, or do you mean "we" as a collective org? 

1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

a purposeful decision to remain loyal to an organization

while I know I have taken just a portion of your statement here, it is still within context. 

The organization prides itself on the persecution that it gets as proof, the problem is that it is usually self inflicted. Take for example the Australian Royal Comission, Candice Conti, San Diego Superior Court. The most recent is the San Diego one. The org is being held in contempt of court and sanctioned $4000 a day, yes a day for failing to provide unaltered documents in which they had previously had provided altered beyond legibility. 

2 hours ago, LloydSt said:

Instead, having received this vastly superior knowledge, we try and show gratitude and deep appreciation.  If one receives a beautiful work of art, is it wiser to condemn that art because there is a minor flaw somewhere, or would it be wiser to express gratitude that you even were able to own such a masterpiece?

This vastly superior knowledge is changing on a regular basis. What kind of trust can you put into something that is going to change next week/month/year? 

Would you drink a glass of water if it had just a little poison in it? 

2 hours ago, LloydSt said:

Fact is, you know the drill, and it seems that you have made your choice.  But you have precious little time to become humble, and pray that Jehovah allow you to return.   Everyone would think most highly of you if you did so.  But I'm gonna guess that you will remain stubborn, remain independent, and continue to choose Eve's way.  Big mistake.  Big.

It matters not what everyone thinks of me, what matters is what God thinks of me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HollyW said:

Thank you for joining in Mr V. :) Others have also posted using the comparison of science to what we believe the Bible teaches.  I don't agree with this comparison because of what the Bible tells us. 

For instance, Paul did not expect his teaching to change: Galatians 1: 8  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

He also cautioned against being "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine," Ephesians 4:14.

 

I think that is a misapplication of the two verses. God's qualities are clearly seen from "Creation" onward. Jesus was present as the word or logos when the universe was being made. Roman 1: 20; John 1: 1- 3. There is nothing contrary about using science to explain things. Do we not read in Job how Jehovah formed everything and put laws in place to govern those things? Did Job know everything at that time? What was Job's conclusion about creation? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

I think that is a misapplication of the two verses. God's qualities are clearly seen from "Creation" onward. Jesus was present as the word or logos when the universe was being made. Roman 1: 20; John 1: 1- 3. There is nothing contrary about using science to explain things. Do we not read in Job how Jehovah formed everything and put laws in place to govern those things? Did Job know everything at that time? What was Job's conclusion about creation? 

Where you and I differ is in using new discoveries in science as a basis for changing what you believed the Bible was really teaching when you were baptized.  Paul certainly did not expect what he was teaching to keep changing.  Discovering another planet, or that a planet really isn't a planet, can not be used as an excuse for being wrong about, say, the identity of the faithful slave, or about certain medical procedures that once were banned as being displeasing to God.  Or was that what your thoughts were when you were told the identity of the faithful slave wasn't what you had been taught it was---reasoning that since science had been wrong about a planet, it's okay for Christians to be wrong about who the faithful slave is?

btw....love the sheep. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2016 at 1:19 PM, LloydSt said:

Why are you so adverse to the logical progression of Biblical knowledge, the steadily growing light of progress and understanding? 

Of course, logical progression makes sense, if one is guided by the Holy Spirit’s direction.  But as has been brought out, the progression on doctrine has not followed logic.  Lloyd, The term “wait on Jehovah” or as you have said, “wait on Jehovah’s organization” (notice how God and the organization are as one – a duplicity Isa 46:5) in the scriptures, does not mean waiting for God to make us do what is right.  He gave us two choices, placed before us.  He doesn’t serve a spiritual plate, then later remove it by saying wait on me, because I may want you to toss out that previous spiritual gift that was flawed, and I will provide you with a new one.  Deut 30:15,19

Truly, he is waiting for us to choose life or death, through the use of our free will by obeying all of HIS direction and warnings set out in the bible.  The lie is a “spiritual paradise” where one believes safety exists(1 Thess 5:3; Jer 6:13-15); that any and all corruption that may occur within – either from wayward teaching, the wrongs done to individuals - will be fixed by God in order to keep ourselves alive while in it!  As individuals, we take action for our own sake just as Noah did. Matt 24:37; 1 Cor 10:11; Rom 12:1; Ps 146:3

 “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” Luke 13:24 There is only one gate, Jesus Christ; any other one that we may enter can rob us of life.  John 10:7-10

"So when we obey elders, we show respect for Jehovah and Jesus, the two greatest Shepherds"  WT 11/2013

By signing your identity over to an organization, you willingly put yourself in men’s hands as a servant to obey, following their direction, when God says to us as he said in Moses’ day,

 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them18 I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. “  Deut 30:15-18; Heb 12:25

 When do we wait on the Lord?  Scriptures refer to this when we, personally, are suffering from persecution from an adversary, or when we are weak –

But those who wait on the Lord
Shall renew their strength;
They shall mount up with wings like eagles,
They shall run and not be weary,
They shall walk and not faint.  Isa 40:31

Teach me Your way, O Lord,
And lead me in a smooth path, because of my enemies.
12 Do not deliver me to the will of my adversaries;
For false witnesses have risen against me,
And such as breathe out violence.
13 I would have lost heart, unless I had believed

That I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.

14 Wait on the Lord;
Be of good courage,
And He shall strengthen your heart;
Wait, I say, on the Lord!  Ps 27:11-14

He will be as a sanctuary,
But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense
To both the houses of Israel,
As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 And many among them shall stumble;
They shall fall and be broken,
Be snared and taken.”

16 Bind up the testimony,
Seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait on the Lord,
Who hides His face from the house of Jacob;
And I will hope in Him.  Isa 8:14-17

For evildoers shall be cut off; But those who wait on the Lord, They shall inherit the earth.”  Ps 37:9

Wait on the Lord; Be of good courage, And He shall strengthen your heart; Wait, I say, on the Lord!  Ps 27:14

The organization has taken this term and has convinced the sheep that by remembering to "wait on Jehovah" God will correct their own flawed teachings, that God will fix them, as if saying it is talisman, a charm.  God or Jesus have never told us to listen to false prophesy or to or serve anyone but them.  Matt 16:6

“Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; They speak a vision of their own heart, Not from the mouth of the Lord.”  Jer 23:16

“Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,” says the Lord, “and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all,” says the Lord.”  Jer 23:32

The teaching that the organization is “Jehovah’s organization” is an operation of error prophesied for the time of the end. Brushing aside the New Covenant as a new way to worship, the organization has developed its own “laws” of burden as did the Pharisees, with an elder “priesthood” displacing God’s chosen priesthood; the GB supporting false prophesy and continued visions of their own minds, as well as shunning their own brothers in Christ based on a present doctrine at hand. 1 Pet 2:5,9,10; Dan 8:11,24; 1 John 3:15; 2:9-11

On 7/6/2016 at 1:19 PM, LloydSt said:

We don't serve Jehovah based on a date anyway.   

 

 

Those outside the organization might not serve God  based on a date, but in the organization you will be disfellowshiped if you choose to make known that you will NOT serve God based on any date accepted as present doctrine by the organization.  

4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2014/06/operation-of-error.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Revelation 1:1, 2) A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. 

This is the "chain of command" Jehovah > Jesus > Faithful Slave (GB). We cannot say we're loyal to Jehovah without being loyal to Jesus and the organization. The good thing, though, is that Jehovah and Jesus are at the top of the chain, so I don't think that the GB will/can mess up so badly that it affects all the publishers around the world negatively. Just remember who is in charge.

Maybe good to watch the video "Respect Jehovah's authority" again.

Have a great day all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HollyW said:

Where you and I differ is in using new discoveries in science as a basis for changing what you believed the Bible was really teaching when you were baptized.  Paul certainly did not expect what he was teaching to keep changing.  Discovering another planet, or that a planet really isn't a planet, can not be used as an excuse for being wrong about, say, the identity of the faithful slave, or about certain medical procedures that once were banned as being displeasing to God.  Or was that what your thoughts were when you were told the identity of the faithful slave wasn't what you had been taught it was---reasoning that since science had been wrong about a planet, it's okay for Christians to be wrong about who the faithful slave is?

btw....love the sheep. :)

Holly, maybe you've not read 1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13? What was it that Paul expected to change? What was the current system in Paul's day? What would eventually happen? Even though some things would change, what would remain unchanged? What then is the identifying mark of Jesus followers? John 13: 35 compare 1 Corinthians 13: 8a

By the way, the personality of sheep varies from country to country, not all sheep are naturally meek or obedient. Jesus however, did say that his sheep know his voice. John 10.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

Holly, maybe you've not read 1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13? What was it that Paul expected to change? What was the current system in Paul's day? What would eventually happen? Even though some things would change, what would remain unchanged? What then is the identifying mark of Jesus followers? John 13: 35 compare 1 Corinthians 13: 8a

By the way, the personality of sheep varies from country to country, not all sheep are naturally meek or obedient. Jesus however, did say that his sheep know his voice. John 10.

 

I was just referring to the cute drawing of the sheep in your profile. :)

How do those scriptures support the idea of being required to accept certain teachings you believed were the true teachings of the Bible, only to have them changed later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CharlieM said:

(Revelation 1:1, 2) A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. 

This is the "chain of command" Jehovah > Jesus > Faithful Slave (GB). We cannot say we're loyal to Jehovah without being loyal to Jesus and the organization. The good thing, though, is that Jehovah and Jesus are at the top of the chain, so I don't think that the GB will/can mess up so badly that it affects all the publishers around the world negatively. Just remember who is in charge.

Maybe good to watch the video "Respect Jehovah's authority" again.

Have a great day all!

Thanks Charlie, but up until a few years ago you were saying the chain of command was Jehovah > Jesus > Faithful Slave (144,000).  And that had been changed from being just the one man, Russell, which belief his successor felt was doing violence to scripture by excluding the rest of the 144,000.  Was this also an error, as they say 1975 was, that Jehovah permitted the faithful slave to make in order for them to understand they need to always look to him and the Bible?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LloydSt said:

1. Holly said: "Others have also posted using the comparison of science to what we believe the Bible teaches.  I don't agree with this comparison because of what the Bible tells us. 

For instance, Paul did not expect his teaching to change: Galatians 1: 8  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

Holly c'mon.  Seriously?  We're talking about the attempt at understanding the Bible to be able to preach what it says correctly.  You comment would mean that anything written by anyone in an attempt to understand God's word would by definition be "another gospel".  And it would require that someone be absolutely right about what they wrote on their first attempt and that they couldn't change.  That is ridiculous and unreasonable.  We've already covered this  

2. Holly said: "He also cautioned against being "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine," Ephesians 4:14."

May I suggest that the very winds Paul was talking about are the non-witness ideas being floated here!

 

1. If it's just a mere attempt at understanding the Bible, should it really be presented as being the truth that all members of the WTS must accept or be cast out?  These attempts, as you call them, by the WTS were said to be the true teachings of the Bible and had to be accepted in order for a person to qualify as approved association for the other members of the WTS.

2. Could you be more specific?  Earlier I think you said the winds of Ephesians 4:14 were referring to the doctrines Christians have believed for nearly two centuries.  Did you have something else in mind now?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HollyW said:

1. If it's just a mere attempt at understanding the Bible, should it really be presented as being the truth that all members of the WTS must accept or be cast out?  These attempts, as you call them, by the WTS were said to be the true teachings of the Bible and had to be accepted in order for a person to qualify as approved association for the other members of the WTS.

2. Could you be more specific?  Earlier I think you said the winds of Ephesians 4:14 were referring to the doctrines Christians have believed for nearly two centuries.  Did you have something else in mind now?

 

The edit option expired so I'll attempt it this way:  Actually it was the darkness  of 1 John 1:5 that you said "referred to the major misunderstandings that Christendom still promotes today," ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, LloydSt said:

1. Holly said: " If the men on the governing body did claim to be infallible, what would that change for you?"

Why do I feel like I'm being set up for some quote from many years ago that someone might interpret as the governing body or a Watchtower president saying they are infallible?

So let's skip ahead.  Here's the answer to that upcoming quote (if I have guessed right).  While it may appear that they had been saying that they were infallible, actually they likely did believe that what they had come to believe was correct, perhaps even as if it came from Jehovah's mouth.  But in that, they could have been somewhat mistaken.  The happy conclusion is that, as demonstrated by the quote from the Revelation book, that, as a group, they humbled themselves and purposefully admitted that they were NOT infallible.

 

The point I was making is that nothing would change for you even if the men on the governing body did claim to be infallible.  You accept and obey what they say just as though they do claim to be infallible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HollyW said:

I was just referring to the cute drawing of the sheep in your profile. :)

How do those scriptures support the idea of being required to accept certain teachings you believed were the true teachings of the Bible, only to have them changed later?

1 Corinthians 13: 8 Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, 10 but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. 12 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. 13 Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love.

These verses show that not only would changes happen but that Paul may have even expected them in his lifetime. We know now that he did not live to see the cessation of miraculous gifts. However, on a number of occasions he even dealt with people in the congregation denying or refusing to accept the changes from Judaism to Christianity - accepting physical uncircumcision, eating meat sacrificed to idols, the resurrection were some such changes - the meat thing was more about being guided by your conscience rather than a rule. But even greater changes were coming, and Paul may have thought they were coming in his lifetime...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

1 Corinthians 13: 8 Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, 10 but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. 12 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. 13 Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love.

These verses show that not only would changes happen but that Paul may have even expected them in his lifetime. We know now that he did not live to see the cessation of miraculous gifts. However, on a number of occasions he even dealt with people in the congregation denying or refusing to accept the changes from Judaism to Christianity - accepting physical uncircumcision, eating meat sacrificed to idols, the resurrection were some such changes - the meat thing was more about being guided by your conscience rather than a rule. But even greater changes were coming, and Paul may have thought they were coming in his lifetime...

 

You can't really be saying Paul was teaching wrong expectations and misunderstandings that he had adjust later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2016 at 10:02 AM, LloydSt said:

You cannot and at the same time fulfill Jesus command to, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you."

Hi Lloyd,

I do appreciate your concern, very much.  You have sincere fervor to be a spiritual person, but Jesus gave us warning after warning of deception in our day before his return that we cannot ignore.  I know the following is long, but please bear with me. 

At one time the organization’s baptism questions reflected this scripture. Thanks to jwfacts, the sly change in questions over the years is all on one page that you can reference, but I will present part here:

  WT 1944, 2/1 p. 44:   “Have you recognized yourself as a sinner and needing salvation from Jehovah God and have you acknowledged that this salvation proceeds from Him and through his Ransomer Christ Jesus?  On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for redemption, have you consecrated yourself unreservedly to do the will of God henceforth as that will is revealed to you through Christ Jesus and through God’s Word as His holy spirit makes it plain?”

Notice how, in 1955, being baptized was NOT in the name of an organization as the above question also relates:

"A Christian, therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit." Watchtower 1955 Jul 1 p.411

Baptism questions from 1956:

“Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as a sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him the Father through his Son Jesus Christ? “

“On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightenment of the holy spirit?"

So far, these question are still in line with Matt 28:19

Wt 1966 10/1 pp 603-4 "We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organization. No, we dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a very personal relationship between us and Jehovah." 

 Where did our necessary relationship with Jesus go in this quote?  But still, no dedication to an organization is considered acceptable. As the years have gone by, false doctrine regarding one’s dedication subtly appeared as you will see. 

1973 baptism questions:  “Have you repented of your sins and turned around, recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ? 

"On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?”

Please Lloyd, take note of your baptism questions today:

Wt 1985/6/1 p. 30:  “On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?” 

“Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?”

Looking over the changes of the source of salvation and dedication, what do you conclude is the basis of my own salvation, is it an organization or is it Christ?  Can you see from the  baptism questions that as you now “preach” to lead one to baptism, the words of Matt 28:19,20 are a far cry from the recent baptism questions and lead one to “membership” into the organization?  These questions are now short and to the point, lacking spiritual substance, with emphasis on the organization.  I not only have dedicated myself to God and Jesus, but I identify myself to them in my continual efforts to imitate them.  

Compare this quote from above…

Wt 1966 10/1 pp 603-4 "We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organization. No, we dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a very personal relationship between us and Jehovah." 

To this quote from 1990:

"Bible students need to get acquainted with the organization of the “one flock” Jesus spoke about at John 10:16. They must appreciate that identifying themselves with Jehovah’s organization is essential to their salvation. (Rev. 7:9, 10, 15) Therefore, we should start directing our Bible students to the organization as soon as a Bible study is established." KM 11/’90 p 1 

Matt 28:20 – “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Has the organization observed all the things Jesus commanded in Matt 28:19?  No, since discreetly the organizational requirement has snaked its way in covertly as “salvation”!  Can I say that Jesus is with the organization if his clear, precise commandments are not followed to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? No!

“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought themand bring on themselves swift destruction.  And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.”  2 Pet 2:1-3

Our greatest test in the time of the end is discerning “fine fruit” from the lips of anointed ones.

 “And Jesus, answering them, began to say: “Take heed that no one deceives you.  For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many.”  Mark 13:5,6

We know the meaning of the name “Jesus” is “YHWH is Salvation”.  What does the organization say?

“Come to Jehovah’s organization for salvation”  WT ‘81/11/15 p 212  For many will come in My name, saying ‘I am He’” – “Jehovah”/organization is Salvation.  Jesus is salvation leading to God!

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.  Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. Mark 13:22,23

Have you stopped watching, being on guard, now that you reside in the organization – a “spiritual paradise”?  1 Pet 5:8; Matt 10:34

“For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”  Matt 24:24

“Christ” means anointed; the GB are anointed and support false prophesies. 

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”  Gal 1:8

Can you see that “another gospel” is supported by the “faithful and discreet slave” to have all preach that the organization is one’s salvation, and dedication to it is necessary to receive salvation?  2 Cor 11:4

"How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?  The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped, Since they have rejected the word of the Lord, what kind of wisdom to they have?"  Jer 8:8,9

 “He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.”  John 7:18

“It is a great privilege to get baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  w16 March pp. 3-7

Lloyd, I have broken free from the oppression by men who believe they can rule over another.  While the GB declares themselves as “faithful”, they willingly “trample” their own in Christ, along with all believers so subtly, using the word “love” to support their own “godliness”, but instead “denying its power”.  2 Tim 3:1-9; Mark 13:14 

Somewhere here, you mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses are the “scum of the earth”, when in reality it is those who declare salvation in the Father and Christ alone who are indeed viewed as the scum of the earth in the eyes of JWs, as a result of disfellowshiping; this is a sign of the end times.

“They will put you out of the synagogues (Greek-“congregations) . Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you (“figuratively to destroy”) will think he is offering service to God.”  John 16:2 (Rev 20:4)

Have JWs been put out of any congregation in the world?  One’s own brother consistently transgresses against another.  Matt 10:35-39; Mark 13:12,13; Heb 13:13; John 15:20; Please read Luke 12:49-53

On 7/7/2016 at 10:02 AM, LloydSt said:

You cannot at at the same time with all the brothers, "speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."

The GB is successful in doing this by shutting up their fellow anointed ones, in the same manner as Diotrephes:

“I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.”  3 John 1:9-11

This is a time of the sifting of hearts, Lloyd, not to be swayed by a false "peace and security".  God allows it, in order for those seriously seeking God whole souled will find him, through turning to Christ for pure truth.  Luke 22:31; 2 Thess 2:1-12; John 14:6; Rev 3:18; 3:20; Luke 17:22-37

 

    Hello guest!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Witness said:

Somewhere here, you mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses are the “scum of the earth”, when in reality it is those who declare salvation in the Father and Christ alone who are indeed viewed as the scum of the earth in the eyes of JWs, as a result of disfellowshiping; this is a sign of the end times.

Lloyd, in retrospect, I believe it was someone else, somewhere else that used this term.  Sorry for the misquote; perhaps, though it becomes clear just who are the "scum of the earth". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, HollyW said:

You can't really be saying Paul was teaching wrong expectations and misunderstandings that he had adjust later.

Holly, I wonder what you hope to achieve. When you answered so quickly without giving yourself time to think about your reply, I knew for certain, that you are not interested in actually changing you position. But like I said and I hope you are willing to at least agree to disagree. I don't hope to change you. But I would like to hear your opinion of Pauls statements. What was Paul saying, if not that changes should be expected?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

Holly, I wonder what you hope to achieve. When you answered so quickly without giving yourself time to think about your reply, I knew for certain, that you are not interested in actually changing you position. But like I said and I hope you are willing to at least agree to disagree. I don't hope to change you. But I would like to hear your opinion of Pauls statements. What was Paul saying, if not that changes should be expected?

Those scriptures there in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 don't apply to the question asked in the OP, unless you're saying what Paul  was teaching were expectations and understandings that would have to be adjusted to other expectations and other understandings later in the future.  IOW that Jehovah had purposely let him teach errors in order for him to realize his need to look always to Him and His Word.

But if you believe those scriptures do apply to the changes and adjustments the WTS has made in what is supposed to be considered as true Bible teachings, let's take another look at them with that in mind.

1 Corinthians 13:8   Love never fails. But whether there are [gifts of] prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; 10 but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with. 11 When I was a babe, I used to speak as a babe, to think as a babe, to reason as a babe; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the [traits] of a babe. 12 For at present 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 shall know accurately even as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, there remain faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. 

Is Paul saying that he expected prophesies themselves to be wrong and need adjusting, or that there would come a time when the Holy Spirit would not move anyone to prophesy because all prophecy had been fulfilled and prophesying would no longer be needed?

Was he saying that what the disciples spoke in tongues was wrong and would be adjusted sometime later, or was he saying there would be a time when the gift of tongues would not be needed....not that the messages and interpretations given for them had been mistaken.

If the knowledge Paul mentions in verse 8 is the ordinary knowledge common to all mankind thru experiences and studies, that of course would change, but he isn't referring to that kind of knowledge, is he.  He's referring to spiritual knowledge we receive thru the Holy Spirit.  Is he saying that the knowledge imparted by the Holy Spirit would be in need of re-examination and adjustment, or is he saying there would be a time when this gift of knowledge would not be needed?

You would have Paul saying that the partial knowledge and the partial prophesying he had was itself wrong, but what he's saying is that it is partial and not complete yet.  He's not saying he misunderstood anything and had to make adjustments in his understanding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your tendency to seek the worst case scenario and go to one extreme or another. The text is quite clear that what you teach a baby is not the same thing as what you know as an adult. I think you know that deep down. A baby is not able to walk immediately is it? It is not able to speak immediately is it? It cannot think or reason like an adult can it? I wonder if you are a mother, if so does your child know all of your intentions and plans for them? I think understanding this would help an honest hearted person. But solid food only belongs to mature people doesn't it? I am not an elder, nor am I anything special in the congregation, but I took the rafter out of my own eye a long time ago, so I think I have freeness to speak on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

I disagree with your tendency to seek the worst case scenario and go to one extreme or another. The text is quite clear that what you teach a baby is not the same thing as what you know as an adult. I think you know that deep down. A baby is not able to walk immediately is it? It is not able to speak immediately is it? It cannot think or reason like an adult can it? I wonder if you are a mother, if so does your child know all of your intentions and plans for them? I think understanding this would help an honest hearted person. But solid food only belongs to mature people doesn't it? I am not an elder, nor am I anything special in the congregation, but I took the rafter out of my own eye a long time ago, so I think I have freeness to speak on this matter.

Well, Mr V, you pressed me for my opinions about Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 and I gave them.  Please tell me how anything in those scriptures apply to the changes the WTS has made in what they said were true Bible teachings, especially those since you were baptized.

Why do you consider what I've posted as being a worst case scenario?  

Even the WTS says that these scriptures are not applicable to the growth and knowledge humans go thru from babyhood to adulthood.  And Paul is not talking about that either.  He is speaking about spiritual matters, gifts of the Holy Spirit.  Nor is he talking about teaching wrong understandings and having to correct them.

Your analogy to a baby would only apply if you believed the leaders of the WTS resembled babies when they began back in the 1870's and still haven't reached adulthood, therefore you continue to follow what they say are true Bible teachings with the expectation that sometime in the future they will finally reach maturity and be able to teach as mature adults and not need to correct any misunderstandings.

But that isn't what you believe, is it.  You believe they are teaching what our heavenly Father and Christ Jesus want them to teach and that's why you are willing to accept what they tell you the Bible teaches, even if that changes what they told you the Bible was teaching when you were baptized.  Isn't that how you would answer the question in the OP?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holly, I feel like I'm regurgitating over and over again. I thought that by quoting the text about "babes" would be enough to explain itself. I;m going to simplify dramatically and just use very plain language. I hope you don't mind:

To explain how the scriptures apply to changes we've made since I was baptized

  • My baptism has no bearing on the changes made by the organization. The changes would have occurred whether I became a witness or not
  • 1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13 demonstrates that gifts like knowlegde, prophesying and tongues would one day cease. These gifts were temporary things in order to grow the early congregation. 

Why do I consider what you've posted as being a worse case scenario?

  • I consider you statements as only focusing on the faults of the Governing Body. You have not shown a balanced unbiased approach

Paul speaking about the growth of humans from babies to adults

  • I agree Paul was not speaking about literal Babies, he was using similitude to demonstrate spiritual growth, which involves adjustments
  • This time and others he was involved in adjustments in thinking: For example, uncircumcision became allowed, previously not allowed 
  •  

When does the baby analogy apply

  • That is correct, according to current thinking, in the 1870's God's people were still a work in progress and will be until the end of the thousand year reign (wt 92 7/15 Pg 30) 

I am willing to accept what they tell me

  • My relationship is with Jehovah first, I care for this firstly by Bible reading and study. It is inferred that the organization is an extension of Jehovah's sovereignty his visible representative such as were the kings of Israel. Hence, if ever the king was to take the nation into apostasy, I must still respect the anointed one of Jehovah, just as David did Saul. It does not mean that I have to take part in anything that would affect my relationship with Jehovah.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

Holly, I feel like I'm regurgitating over and over again. I thought that by quoting the text about "babes" would be enough to explain itself. I;m going to simplify dramatically and just use very plain language. I hope you don't mind:

To explain how the scriptures apply to changes we've made since I was baptized

  • My baptism has no bearing on the changes made by the organization. The changes would have occurred whether I became a witness or not
  • 1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13 demonstrates that gifts like knowlegde, prophesying and tongues would one day cease. These gifts were temporary things in order to grow the early congregation. 

Why do I consider what you've posted as being a worse case scenario?

  • I consider you statements as only focusing on the faults of the Governing Body. You have not shown a balanced unbiased approach

Paul speaking about the growth of humans from babies to adults

  • I agree Paul was not speaking about literal Babies, he was using similitude to demonstrate spiritual growth, which involves adjustments
  • This time and others he was involved in adjustments in thinking: For example, uncircumcision became allowed, previously not allowed 
  •  

When does the baby analogy apply

  • That is correct, according to current thinking, in the 1870's God's people were still a work in progress and will be until the end of the thousand year reign (wt 92 7/15 Pg 30) 

I am willing to accept what they tell me

  • My relationship is with Jehovah first, I care for this firstly by Bible reading and study. It is inferred that the organization is an extension of Jehovah's sovereignty his visible representative such as were the kings of Israel. Hence, if ever the king was to take the nation into apostasy, I must still respect the anointed one of Jehovah, just as David did Saul. It does not mean that I have to take part in anything that would affect my relationship with Jehovah.

 

Even though knowledge, prophesying, and tongues would one day cease, this does NOT fit the changes being made by the WTS for all these decades.  That's why I explained to you in some detail how these scriptures are not applicable to either the question in the OP nor to the history of the WTS.  Even in simple terms, it doesn't seem to have registered with you yet.

What would you consider to be a balanced and unbiased approach to a group of men who say to listen to them as you would to the voice of God?

If they said that because they are still babies, would you consider it wise to listen to them as you would to the voice of God?

The changes made between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant were inspired by God and outlined in his Word, such as circumcision being a spiritual event rather than a physical one, and in no way can this be used as an excuse for the changes the governing body has been making to the beliefs of JWs for all these years. 

That you are willing to accept what they tell you to believe reveals your dedication at baptism was not to God but to the governing body of the WTS organization, which is why you believe you are to change your beliefs about what the Bible really teaches whenever the men on the WTS governing body tell  you to change them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. The OP is about what happens when there is a change in understanding after your baptism. You are implying that you were tricked somehow. However, if you had been studying for several months you would've learned that changes happen, especially if you prepared for your studies well. That way when you were baptized you wouldn't be under any illusion as to what may happen after your baptism. But let;s just say you feel tricked or fooled what is the common reply. It is 1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13 and Proverbs 4: 18 they are used hand in hand. But let's go further and say, you don't understand what either of those texts have to do with changes after baptism. The next thread of thinking, is to take you through history from Adam to present day showing you all the adjustments that took place leading down to Jesus then on to our day. I've touched on some of those things. But personally, it is so clear to me that adjustments in thinking have been happening since the beginning it is irrefutable, but maybe you don't believe the taking away of the kingdom from the Jews and to spiritual Israel was a significant adjustment. Did the apostles complain? Saying "this is not what I was baptized into."
 Did they look for excuses to disregard every explanation given or did they accept each adjustment? When they met with the older men of Jerusalem and the result was Acts 15: 28, 29, then it was conveyed to the existing congregations, do you think that was from men or God? I'm interested in your answer to that.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

The agreement to disagree is a disgraceful defeat if it means surrendering the hope of agreement through deeper understanding. 

1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

The next thread of thinking, is to take you through history from Adam to present day showing you all the adjustments that took place leading down to Jesus then on to our day. I've touched on some of those things. But personally, it is so clear to me that adjustments in thinking have been happening since the beginning it is irrefutable, but maybe you don't believe the taking away of the kingdom from the Jews and to spiritual Israel was a significant adjustment. Did the apostles complain? Saying "this is not what I was baptized into."
 Did they look for excuses to disregard every explanation given or did they accept each adjustment? When they met with the older men of Jerusalem and the result was Acts 15: 28, 29, then it was conveyed to the existing congregations, do you think that was from men or God? I'm interested in your answer to that.

It was not changes it was clarification to the people of what was meant. Who was it that made these "changes"? Was it a group of men or was it God? The answer is clear, it was God who corrected the people. There was no group of men changing things back and forth claiming to speak for God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

The agreement to disagree is a disgraceful defeat if it means surrendering the hope of agreement through deeper understanding. 

It was not changes it was clarification to the people of what was meant. Who was it that made these "changes"? Was it a group of men or was it God? The answer is clear, it was God who corrected the people. There was no group of men changing things back and forth claiming to speak for God. 

 
 
 

Thanks for your opinion, but I disagree with you thoroughly. This is not about being right, it's about maintaining the peace and dignity of all concerned. If you're only interested in arguing you have missed Paul's words on not getting into foolish disputes and arguments about words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

Thanks for your opinion, but I disagree with you thoroughly. This is not about being right, it's about maintaining the peace and dignity of all concerned. If you're only interested in arguing you have missed Paul's words on not getting into foolish disputes and arguments about words.

So why don't you tell me who made those "changes"? I said God did and not men. I don't think I said anything about being right. The Bible tells us that God corrected the people. The Bible doesn't say that God changed His mind, but rather opened the mind of people. 

As far as my understanding of Paul, that is between me and God. You can have your opinion about me and what I believe, its ok. I am open to your criticisms and will listen, but that doesn't mean I will change to your views on things. I have the freedom in Christ to do so. If my questions bother you, then by all means let me know. I can rephrase them for clarity. I am simply going off the Bible, and if we both agree that the Bible is the Word of God, then there should be no problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2016 at 8:46 AM, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

1 Corinthians 13: 8 - 13 demonstrates that gifts like knowlegde, prophesying and tongues would one day cease. These gifts were temporary things in order to grow the early congregation. 

 

Hello VHC,

  The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.  Prov 4:18

We know this morning sun is Jesus, which before his appearance, causes knowledge to increase – until the fulfillment of the Kingdom. Matt 17:2 Rev 1:16; 2 Cor 4:6; Rev 22:16; Luke 1:78; Acts 3:20; Gal 3:27

1 Corinthians 13: 8 – 13  Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

10 – or “that which is perfect”  - God’s Kingdom.

This speaks to individuals of the Body of Christ, and to all of us, not to an earthly fleshly organization. Rom 13:14   Has knowledge passed away? Has prophesy ceased?  Not according to scripture.   Acts 2:17; Rev 11:3

If one in Christ, a righteous one following the path of Christ, stays on course, “priests” will  instructed in knowledge through Holy spirit. Mal 2:7  If we perceive a wavering of teachings that are truly off course, with false prophesy, changing doctrine, then priests who present false knowledge have left the path of Christ, as well as the laws written on their heart.  Heb 10:16  It has been prophesied to happen, do we ignore prophesy?

my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.  Hos 4:6

“The days are coming,” declares the Sovereign Lord, “when I will send a famine through the land— not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the Lord.  Amos 8:11

There is a time period before Jesus arrives where his people do not reflect the light of the Sun, but stumble in darkness. Joel 3:15; 2:10; Ezek 32:7; Mark 13:25; Rev 6:12,13; Ezek 7:27; Matt 24:29; 5:14,16 

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.  Isa 5:20  Organization’s old light has become bitter; rejected and replaced for something sweet and appealing. How long will that last?

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.  2 Tim 4:3,4

Only by turning to Jesus who is Truth, clothing ourselves with him, which is identifying our self with him(Gal 3:27),  and away from men who speak visions of their own, will the path of our own righteousness appear as the morning sun.  Jer 23:16; Ps 4:2

Is it not true that previous generation teachings and previous set dates have come to nothing?  Ps 119:118  The knowledge of God builds on a strong foundation and continues until that which is perfect arrives – God’s Kingdom  Matt 7:24-27 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

So why don't you tell me who made those "changes"? I said God did and not men. I don't think I said anything about being right. The Bible tells us that God corrected the people. The Bible doesn't say that God changed His mind, but rather opened the mind of people. 

As far as my understanding of Paul, that is between me and God. You can have your opinion about me and what I believe, its ok. I am open to your criticisms and will listen, but that doesn't mean I will change to your views on things. I have the freedom in Christ to do so. If my questions bother you, then by all means let me know. I can rephrase them for clarity. I am simply going off the Bible, and if we both agree that the Bible is the Word of God, then there should be no problem. 

 

You said it was a defeat to "agree to disagree" this implies that one is right and the other was not, as it would only be a defeat if the matter was one of right or wrong.

God commissions his people to search his word themselves and he dignifies them by allowing them to draw conclusions based on the available evidence. Hence, the "light" or understanding gets brighter with time. If you read Daniel 12, in the final part of the days men would rove about or search in God's word and such knowledge would abound. There have been great increases in Bible knowledge in the last 100 years, understanding in Bible languages, new documents being found, timing of events and as a result better translations have been produced which more accurately render verse that in the past have been difficult to translate. I believe

There are a number of times that the Bible shows that Jehovah "regretted" and subsequently changed his mind about some action. One example is the case of Jonah and the Ninevites. God first intended to destroy them. But when they showed repentance he was willing to change his view of the Ninevites. Another example is that of the Judges. When the people would drift into apostasy, God's anger would blaze against them. Judges 2: 18 has the phrase "moved with pity". The footnote reads "felt regret". To regret is to no longer think the same way about a matter. In other words, to change one's mind. Today, when Jehovah deals with us individually he does something similar. When we show repentance for some sin we have committed he is willing to forgive based on the value of Jesus' life. Otherwise none of us could stand.

This is a forum, it is a place where people should feel free to express their views. I agree, you can keep your viewpoint, just as I. I haven't come into this trying to convert anyone. I find it a great source of information and resources, though some may disagree. I think, there's a difference between having an opinion and a personal attack. But if that should ever happen we all have the choice to report any offending posts to let the Mods deal with. I find that on other forums, Bible discussions descend into attacking each other easily. It'd be great if we could remain civil.

Saying that you are simply going off the Bible is a little bit like saying the other person is wrong lol. The problem with saying that is that if the other person also says they are going off the Bible then the two must inherently be in agreement, one mind and one thought. We are not in agreement on all matters. The issue really is, what have each person "missed"? With the knowledge that you have of the Bible, what is it that you have missed that I have pointed out? Alternatively, with the information that I may have, what have I missed? For example, if I have not read the whole Bible maybe I missed a part that had something different to say on a matter I had come to understand one way. I have shown you two or three instances that you may not have thought of. Judges, Jonah and forgiveness of sins today. If you are familiar with scripture there should be no need to quote or cite verses, you would recognize where I have quoted scripture.

Thanks for posting, I'm goign to answer one other person then, I'll be back later if you want to keep talking.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

There are a number of times that the Bible shows that Jehovah "regretted" and subsequently changed his mind about some action. One example is the case of Jonah and the Ninevites. God first intended to destroy them. But when they showed repentance he was willing to change his view of the Ninevites. Another example is that of the Judges. When the people would drift into apostasy, God's anger would blaze against them. Judges 2: 18 has the phrase "moved with pity". The footnote reads "felt regret". To regret is to no longer think the same way about a matter. In other words, to change one's mind. Today, when Jehovah deals with us individually he does something similar. When we show repentance for some sin we have committed he is willing to forgive based on the value of Jesus' life. Otherwise none of us could stand.

My point was that God made the corrections to men, not men making corrections to men. When you have a group that changes from left to right and back to left again, then you must know that this did not come from God. Could God use this left right left to His advantage? sure, He uses people and circumstances to His advantage all the time, to work out His will. When a group claims to speak for God and these changes become apparent, it is not that hard to see God is not using this group as His mouthpiece. 

You know the saying that the WT uses, the one about tacking into the wind as a sailboat does? A few things came to mind about that. One, if this is describing the mode of operation of the WT how does this compare to say John the Baptist?  John made the pathway before God straight (Isa 40:3/Matt 3:3/John 1:23/Mark 1:3/Luke 3:4). John preached one thing, repentance,  and this didn't change. He did not say "repent" one day and then the next "you don't need to repent yet". The second point that came to mind was how if by tacking, a sailboat gains distance traveled, the sailboat also has a course set out and a destination. What ground/distance is gained in a flip flop of doctrines? It is reversing to a previous point, not advancing. What destination is there in mind when a complete reversal takes place?

1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

This is a forum, it is a place where people should feel free to express their views. I agree, you can keep your viewpoint, just as I. I haven't come into this trying to convert anyone. I find it a great source of information and resources, though some may disagree. I think, there's a difference between having an opinion and a personal attack. But if that should ever happen we all have the choice to report any offending posts to let the Mods deal with. I find that on other forums, Bible discussions descend into attacking each other easily. It'd be great if we could remain civil.

I completely agree with this, we are here to bounce opinions and ideas off of each other in a civil manner. 

1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

Saying that you are simply going off the Bible is a little bit like saying the other person is wrong lol. The problem with saying that is that if the other person also says they are going off the Bible then the two must inherently be in agreement, one mind and one thought. We are not in agreement on all matters. The issue really is, what have each person "missed"? With the knowledge that you have of the Bible, what is it that you have missed that I have pointed out? Alternatively, with the information that I may have, what have I missed? For example, if I have not read the whole Bible maybe I missed a part that had something different to say on a matter I had come to understand one way. I have shown you two or three instances that you may not have thought of. Judges, Jonah and forgiveness of sins today. If you are familiar with scripture there should be no need to quote or cite verses, you would recognize where I have quoted scripture.

The difference between us both sticking with the Bible and not being in agreement, it that of a bias we have within ourselves. I am content in using the Bible alone and allowing it to support itself. Are you? 

I agree that neither of us can understand everything there is, and we will miss things along the way, but our willingness to bring forth our ideas for criticism is what helps us remove our bias. Without an independent party (others on this forum and elsewhere) giving us what they see in both our view as well as their view, then we have a group who might as well believe the sky is falling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2016 at 10:06 AM, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. The OP is about what happens when there is a change in understanding after your baptism. You are implying that you were tricked somehow. However, if you had been studying for several months you would've