Jump to content

HollyW

When a teaching changes after baptism.....

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

HollyW -
Witness -
105
3231

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

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

  • Forum Statistics

    61,691
    Total Topics
    114,643
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,512
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    pastel
    Newest Member
    pastel
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • All jokes have to have an element of truth ..... and THIS one certainly does!
    • It's a difficult doctrine, with an easy explanation. The Earth is about 3.5 billion years old. Each creative day is (3.5 billion divided by 7 = 500,000,000) about 500 million years.. Armageddon will occur at the "End of Days". Therefore ... "Stay Alive, 'till 500,001,975". See? The math works out perfectly, AND it agrees with fossils ! TA DA! Plus! --- the .ORG gets a LOT of "wiggle room". As Marvin Webster sez: "Ya'll think about it."    
    • Like you, I find it difficult to envision Christ's enthronement in 33 CE, for pretty much the same reasons as you. The urgency and keeping on the watch would almost seem cruel, if it was to last nearly 2000 years. Unless you think about those who have been waiting since the end of the 1800's and that have now died. Well for them, it was a lifetime of waiting anyway, so pretty much we could say that there would be no difference between someone waiting their whole lifetime in the middle ages and dying, than someone waiting their whole lifetime and dying now. I mean with respect to the individual. It seems like the scripture "Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace"  would have practical meaning for both individuals. I am assuming that most ordinary folk (at least in Christianized nations) were aware that if they lived a good and godly life they would land in heaven. That was the reward. But you do make a good point when you say that the holy writings were not accessible to ordinary folk, and most couldn't read so would they even know  what Peter wrote about in 2 Peter ch3? On top of that, "Christian" religion, Catholicism, did not advocate millennialism much, if at all. It wasn't until the protestant reformation in the 16 the century that millenialism was revived. Excerpt from the Catholic encyclopedia: (I don't expect you to read it all, just here for info) " Protestant fanatics (lol) of the earlier years, particularly the Anabaptists, believed in a new, golden age under the sceptre of Christ, after the overthrow of the papacy and secular empires. In 1534 the Anabaptists set up in Münster (Westphalia) the new Kingdom of Zion, which advocated sharing property and women in common, as a prelude to the new kingdom of Christ. Their excesses were opposed and their millenarianism disowned by both the Augsberg (art. 17) and the Helvetian Confession (ch. 11), so that it found no admission into the Lutheran and Reformed theologies. Nevertheless, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries produced new apocalyptic fanatics (lol) and mystics who expected the millennium in one form or another: in Germany, the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren (Comenius); in France, Pierre Jurien (L'Accomplissement des Propheties, 1686); in England at the time of Cromwell, the Independents and Jane Leade. A new phase in the development of millenarian views among the Protestants commenced with Pietism. One of the chief champions of the millennium in Germany was I.A. Bengel and his disciple Crusius, who were afterwards joined by Rothe, Volch, Thiersch, Lange and others. Protestants from Wurtemberg emigrated to Palestine (Temple Communities) in order to be closer to Christ at His second advent. Certain fantastical sects of England and North America, such as the Irvingites, Mormons, Adventists, adopted both apocalyptic and millenarian views, expecting the return of Christ and the establishment of His kingdom at an early date. Some Catholic theologians of the nineteenth century championed a moderate, modified millenarianism, especially in connection with their explanations of the Apocalypse. So it would appear that anyone living from 33 C.E  up to the 16th century (apart from the disciples and early Christian congregation, and some early church fathers) would have no idea about even the existence of the coming of Christ as king of a 1000 year kingdom...  
    • No idea. The primary point was that people would tremble at such signs in the heavens. A space race with military implications was already hinted at in part of the yw book, which was already about Daniel and therefore had the king of the north in its sights.
    • Another sinister feather in the cap of the northern king. Did he want to tie in the Daniel prophesy?
    • Since you are asking, I'll take a cue from 1 Peter 3:15 and let you know what I'm thinking here. First of all we already believe that Jesus began to rule in 33. (I hope that was a mistake where you said 1933.) (Colossians 1:13-20) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens. There is no indication here that the Kingdom of God's Son is any different than the Kingdom of God which had now become the Kingdom of his Christ. In fact, you might notice a couple of other parallels between Colossians and Revelation, including the hurling down of Satan (rescuing us from the authority of the darkness). Also, perhaps by coincidence, the immediate context of Colossians also discussed the salvation and the power and the Kingdom and the authority and the conquering through the blood of the Lamb. (Revelation 12:10, 11) . . .Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. The idea that Satan was cast down in 33 is also repeated several times in the Greek Scriptures.
    • One unanticipated personal consequence of going digital is that I read nothing until the week it is to be considered at meeting. I have not read the new Ezekiel book yet. Back in the day of subscriptions, I would read that entire Watchtower at the nearest opportunity. Doesn’t happen anymore. I never think to download the latest until I need it. In recent years I’ve come to think a lot about Paul’s counsel to follow the pattern of the healthful words. At first, the healthful words are retrieved and spit out verbatim—it is the nature of much of our research. But if you’ve been around long enough, you soon to learn to pick up on the pattern and you can originate them yourself.  It is as Mike Tussin used to say, a real person from No Fake News whose name I changed with the most sordid upbringing and the most telling common sense. He would explain how it was with the GB (in the 1970s). “They study and study and one of them notices a point and discusses it with the others. After subsequent discussion reaches agreement, it gets into print. Now, in your own personal study, you may have noticed that point, too,” I can hear him explaining now, “and if this was Christendom, you’d go out and start your own religion over it.”  For a brief time, he was a roommate of mine. He drove me nuts in taking literally the admonition to read God’s Word “in an undertone day and night.” In time, he learned that he had better not do it in my presence.
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • 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.