Jump to content

HollyW

When a teaching changes after baptism.....

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

HollyW -
Witness -
105
3230

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

>" 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.

https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODProgramsEvents/pub-jwbrd_201601_10_VIDEO

   

 

 

 

 

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

  • Forum Statistics

    61,681
    Total Topics
    114,539
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,509
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Rosjes128
    Newest Member
    Rosjes128
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just for interest, here is an interview with prince Andrew. It's acutely embarrassing the excuses  he makes and the denials.... Read comments, they are entertaining  
    • Yes. Just watched it. I like that you talk about the broad effects of the impact whistleblowing has had in this particular area. It's not just the Witnesses, but many institutions. Many guilty people would have probably got away with sexual abuse 20 years ago, but not so much today. Even royalty have been put under the microscope. History is rife with stories of rich dirty old men having sex with underage girls and getting away with it. When enough people make noise, it can't be ignored.
    • Maybe this was in the sense of these "bad elders" rejecting the counsel given by "good elders" who were quoting Bible books and the Mosaic Law (as transmitted through angels), or these "bad elders" were speaking out against sayings of Jesus and inspired writings of the apostles, as if they held no value to this time they were in, so many decades after Jesus originally spoke them. Also (less likely) Jude quotes the book of Enoch, specifically a part about the judgment of angels, and he appears to refer to another book about the "Assumption of Moses." We don't know how much more of those books were accepted other than the portions referenced, but these books were part of a genre that gave names to dozens of angels and referenced many more hierachies of thousands of angels. Good point! I doubt it. There are too many scriptures, and too much context that shows what Paul was up against in trying to get the congregations to accept and understand the concept of "grace" or "undeserved kindness." (Along with "law" "legalism" "works" "righteousness" "sin" "conscience" etc.) Paul had to write chapters, nearly whole long letters, on the subject, and it even put him for a short while at odds with the Jerusalem council. Probably it is sometimes. But the whistleblowing of the CSA cases all over the world have drawn attention to a lot of things that go on in the world where the abused victims felt powerless. In many institutions, including once-hostile work environments, this is actually changing for the better. The threat of monetary sanctions has made even rich men who could once get away with anything (as Trump claimed), think twice. It has definitely helped in some suburban schools and even corporations I once worked for. I suspect that many priests and elders who once thought they would get away with anything are now more apt to think again before abusing persons.
    • The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said: Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time. From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT).  A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus: (Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine. (Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins. Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.) We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time." Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses: (Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked. (Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in: Will you find the opportunity to do this? Will you find the time to do this? Not: Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this? We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.  
    • Elon Musk shows himself to rather out of touch with science. He is using his money to make a name for himself by driving forward with some outlandish plans. He is an embarrassment to his own employees sometimes when he quotes pseudo-scientific ideas that have been obsolete for decades. (One of these was the idea of using nuclear explosions to make Mars inhabitable.) But his optimism to get employees to "make it happen" will drive some scientific progress in spite of himself. Even here, however, he has often just attached his name to some idea that came out of Japan or China or some US or European scientific think tank that was never associated with Musk. He attaches his own unrealistic timelines to these ideas, however, and then begins to lose credibility.  This particular idea has some merit, but there is a lot more expense in creating the infrastructure than people realize. There is the mining of the elements that go into solar cells, the manufacture of solar panels, the trucking of materials to such a solar hub, the infrastructure to build out the lines from the hub across the USA. Currently these types of expenses reduce the ROI value of this particular type of renewable energy so much that it makes carbon (coal/oil/petroleum) seem much more desirable for generating power, and for which an infrastructure is already in place. When viable, I would like to see how close to Hoover Dam this could be built to re-use some power lines that emanate from there, and already reach to many southwest states. Perhaps an even better idea would be to find a place near Yuma or Mexicali, so that half of the power would be used to desalinate water for Mexico and the US by piping saltwater from the Gulf of California, then freshwater back out with a mountain or salt and minerals as a byproduct.    
    • I think that's exactly correct. But we know that as Christians we are still under under a duty to question, reflect, test, prove, meditate, and "make sure of all things." We must do this even if it were an angel out of heaven giving us the interpretation, according to Galatians 1 and 2. And Paul specifically applied that thought to the way the Galatian congregation(s) should have tested and made sure of the incorrect counsel coming from council of elders at Jerusalem, because evidently some were too quick to accept that counsel just because it came from those who seemed to be pillars in the congregation. To Paul, he said, it didn't matter who those men were, or what they seemed to be, and he even included Peter, James and John in that idea of who to question. John himself later wrote that we should test the inspired utterances (1 John 4:1). I have. And the Watchtower has also claimed to have found MANY previous misinterpretations of prophecy which interpretations they said came from God, and yet warranted a redefinition of that interpretation. In fact I quoted you one of several places where the Watchtower has admitted exactly what you say you have not found: *** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures *** At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. I've seen you accuse others here of blasphemy, when they defended the Bible, and yet you are able to make a statement such as that! Yes, certain Bible Student congregations continued to follow the Barbour/Russell advent timeline, which included Rutherford and the Watchtower editorial board, up until about 1927, with some intermediate adjustments over time to what Russell had said about 1914, and 1915, and with some brand new ideas about 1918, and 1925. Russell's concerted effort to "finally understand his own chronology" barely changed a thing, except for a few changes to some Great Pyramid measurements, and some vacillations between 1914 and 1915, and a change around 1904 to push the period of tribulation to the few months after 1914 instead of the few months (or years) before 1914. I would agree that Edgar's pyramid scheme hardly influenced Russell. That's because Edgar only wanted to get even more details on the subject, and completed most of this work after Russell had already published all he had to say on the Pyramid. Also, Russell was already satisfied enough with the details he had borrowed from Joseph Seiss. You say: "Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies" but there is no need for any confusion at all. Russell's works include all the necessary details, and they are all easy to find. If we wish to discuss Russell's own published views, we don't need to worry about the many other groups that sprung from Barbour's and Russell's teachings. I think I know what you are talking about. I think the admins or moderators here consider it spamming when someone overuses a long string of a dozen or more dislike emojis at the rate of one per minute on the posts of people they dislike, and a string of a dozen or more "like" emojis at the rate of about one per minute on their own accounts of different names. I think once a person is caught doing this once, it's dangerous to keep doing this with even with a smaller string of up-votes and down-votes. Sometimes the give-away to the game is when the down-vote is simply a negative response to a Scripture or a direct quote from the Watchtower.
    • I would like to expand on the above quote. New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule". So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood. So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"? (Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) (Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)        
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.