Jump to content

JOHN BUTLER

Apostles, Judas, GB, Raymond, Satan, Holy Spirit

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN BUTLER -
Space Merchant -
430
5206

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Just curious. Wasn’t that Fred’s point. Not to have the present day governing body be as the first century, the governing body.

His point was, basically, that the body of elders at the Jerusalem congregation, even though it included James and some of the apostles, could not constitute a "governing body" or "ecclesiastical body" of authority to make decisions incumbent on the rest of the the Christian congregations. There was an occasion when it did do that, but not because it was an authoritative body, but because that's who started the problem and it was important to get their problem fixed and announce how they resolved it, since it was detrimentally affecting other congregations. As evidence he used the example of Paul, who says he never got appointed from this body in Jerusalem. And how Philip and Barnabas and others were not appointed by a central body in Jerusalem. How, for some purposes, we might as well say that Antioch served the function of such a body. This was all given as evidence that there is no need for a first-century type Christian governing body of the type we imagine Jerusalem had. He derided that idea very sarcastically denying that anyone would have thought that they needed to check in with that body of elders in Jerusalem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

More emphasis on the power of prayer and even faith in setting the mental and heart attitude that should lead them to the right Scriptures, lead them to see through previous mistakes and resolve them with a consistent picture obtained from Scripture, and on the ability of each of them to bring further and additional scriptures to the table that each of them appreciate as being in consistent harmony with the spirit of the Bible and of an over-arching view of Christianity. There should be more emphasis on speaking in agreement with one another, seeing the value of these decisions in producing a more loving organization producing more love and other fruits of the spirit. Also emphasis on the evidence of Jehovah's blessing through the success of these decisions in how they are appreciated by the worldwide body of Witnesses as a whole. How problems are resolved. How lives are changed for the better.

Of course I agree with everything you say, and I am sure GJ would too. He obviously didn't want to go into so much detail. The last part of your quote would have no doubt made a good impression on the commission as it could have been linked to the child abuse issue and its resolution. You are probably thinking of the misapplication of scripture which led to problems for the worldwide body of Witnesses in the past. I think now though these are being considered much more, and I would say lives are changed for the better. But this can also be a matter of opinion, because some things are still being judged as a "law" rather than a principle and left to be a matter of conscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:
  • Who gets called "The Oracle"?
  • Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'?
  • Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"? 
  • Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned?
  • Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not?
  • Who would rant angrily that Jesus can't be the mediator of "every Tom Dick and Harry" but is only the mediator of the 144,000?
  • Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking? Example: 

Yes.... I know, I know. He obviously had strong opinions. Perhaps he was covinced these opinions were guided by holy spirit? But were his intentions bad? I think you said everyone at Bethel though he acted haughty and self righteous, and that that was just his way. I wonder how he was received at his final calling. I wonder if he is speaking beyond the veil to the new "kids on the block", telling them not to make the same mistakes. Perhaps he already did, through, Raymond's book :)

Share this post


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

Here is how Franz put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205):

Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant"
, who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us;
. . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months."
That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 

I know some brothers  who will use very similar expressions with very specific things to do with assignments for  KH cleaning for instance. This is only a slightly exaggerated example; "Jehovah's direction is to use the swifter rather than a mop and bucket to clean the floor in the restrooms". Some people just have a knack....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s right. Jehovah has always had an “Organization” . 

“Jehovah’s direction is to use the swifter” .... many of our dear r and f (rank and file) loved ones use “Organization” and  “Jehovah” interchangeably.

To these ones - in many cases our still in - close family physically in mentally in, PIMI 

to them, sadly the words and concept ORGANIZATION + JEHOVAH mean exactly the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Exactly the same point I have often made. This is why I don't blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions I have made, and this is why I never complain that I lost out on anything.

Edited to add: This is why I also have never expressed any kind of resentment, because I don't feel any. Someone on here who comments very little could testify that it was just early this morning when he asked me what I thought of my time at Bethel and my complete answer was:

  • I enjoyed it. I learned a lot. Loved the work. I'm an artist and worked in the art department. Then I got a lot of research assignments, so I got to go to the library a lot.

I don't want  to labour this point as it's not too important but, it has been known for JW parents to put pressure on their children to do certain things or live a certain type of lifestyle. Now of course that is not God's fault, nor the JW Org's fault, but the parents have obviously been instructed/directed to bring up their children in a certain manner. Elders especially have to have their 'own house in order', keeping the kids under control. So maybe some children do not have any personal choices when they are young, and that could include their education... We know that 'in the world' some youngsters are expected to follow in the father's / grandfather's footsteps in the military for instance. So it is in the JW Org, some youngsters are expected to follow their parents into the ministry and for young men to follow into 'positions of responsibility'. I think that is why many leave home and leave the Org asap when they get a job, to get away from parental pressure. 

Share this post


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

That’s right. Jehovah has always had an “Organization” . 

“Jehovah’s direction is to use the swifter” .... many of our dear r and f (rank and file) loved ones use “Organization” and  “Jehovah” interchangeably.

To these ones - in many cases our still in - close family physically in mentally in, PIMI 

to them, sadly the words and concept ORGANIZATION + JEHOVAH mean exactly the same thing.

Too bad then. Because God is far superior to any man made organisation. 

It is wrong to interchange those words. 

An organisation is good as God is a God of order not disorder. 

However, the organisation has to have God's approval and be guided by God's Holy spirit.

The GB and the JW Org show that it does NOT have God's approval and is NOT guided by God's Holy spirit.

So it is not doing God's will properly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

His point was, basically, that the body of elders at the Jerusalem congregation, even though it included James and some of the apostles, could not constitute a "governing body" or "ecclesiastical body" of authority to make decisions incumbent on the rest of the the Christian congregations. There was an occasion when it did do that, but not because it was an authoritative body, but because that's who started the problem and it was important to get their problem fixed and announce how they resolved it, since it was detrimentally affecting other congregations. As evidence he used the example of Paul, who says he never got appointed from this body in Jerusalem. And how Philip and Barnabas and others were not appointed by a central body in Jerusalem. How, for some purposes, we might as well say that Antioch served the function of such a body. This was all given as evidence that there is no need for a first-century type Christian governing body of the type we imagine Jerusalem had. He derided that idea very sarcastically denying that anyone would have thought that they needed to check in with that body of elders in Jerusalem.

I see I see. The confusion is on the particulars. While you are referring to the first CHRISTAIN congregation my thought was more elaborate to the time. There has always been a Jerusalem governing body, before, during, and after Christ walked this earth. I was appealing to the governing body while Jesus was still alive.

Now we're getting somewhere. Your reference is when the CHRISTAIN congregation was finally composed after the 120 anointed that ended comprising the first church of about 3000 thousand baptized members.

Yes, that certainly would hold what the present day governing body function is. I believe after Judas was replaced by Matthias, James was appointed to head the church in Jerusalem. Then followed Paul after his dramatic conversion which was confirmed by James, Peter, and John as an apostle to the gentiles. Does this make Paul the 13th, apostle?

I would imagine this is why the apostles being preeminent authorities to the first church, gave them the ability to anoint the first church elders. Instructed them the doctrine and gospel, the conduct of a true Christian; that is perhaps lost here, and back up their words by pairing scripture.

I guess the same way the Watchtower under the guidance of Jehovah’s Witnesses has refined that to the better. It’s good there were sensible people like Rutherford, Knorr, and Fred.

While the news grew, it became clear to those that headed the first church, there was a need to expand on the leadership role to newly formed churches throughout the cities. That, of course, was to maintain the standards that Christ taught.

Yes, I don’t see any difference with how the Watchtower is handled today. I also knew that Fred Franz was referring to BOTH standards of leadership. We were not to conform ourselves to the prevailing governing body while Jesus was alive, but live our Christian life in unison with leaders capable of teaching what Christ left for us. Therefore, I never lumped those two issues together.

The similar reason how the first Christian congregation leaders dealt with problems like in Samaria and Antioch. It’s amazing how the same thing can be achieved in modern times. To be living the past in modern times.

This is why Fred took the presidency seriously. To be the mouthpiece for God and Christ. I guess that is why some foolish people misunderstood Fred, just like they did with Rutherford, and Russell before him. Mouthpiece, sole channel, etc. misunderstood nonsense comes to mind. Of course, administratively, there was a need for a governing body just as the first-century Christian congregation, but the presidency also dealt with other logistical needs. Unfortunately, it seems people just can’t seem to keep those 2 apart.

Especially when tainted rhetoric and misapplied watchtower literature is produced as evidence.

I could also see the apostasy of today with what was being developed in the second and third century. Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, 2 Thessalonians 2

However, you must excuse me. I usually write things from memory. I don’t take 24 hours to research something or 2-3 days to respond. Enjoy your day, and say hi to your friend and admirer Butler. 😉

Share this post


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

Wasn’t that the same assumption apostate’s use for Pastor Russell? That he, in a subtle way was saying the end of the world would come in 1914 when he never directly or indirectly made that claim. It was a wait and see.

It's true that many ex-JWs, apostates and interested persons mistakenly believe that Russell predicted 1914 as the end of the world, when 1914 was NOT supposed to be the end of the world. It was only the final date for the "rapture" of the remnant of Christ's Bride, and the year when Gentile kingdoms would cease ruling, and all religious and political institutions would plunge into their final chaos, which could last until the end of 1915, perhaps even a months beyond.  At the same time, 1914 would also see a non-Gentile government in Jerusalem become established, which would begin to administer the earthly part of a one-world government for everyone on earth except Christians, who would all go to heaven (including the great crowd, also considered to be anointed.)

Many ex-JWs, apostates, and interested persons also mistakenly believe that F.Franz and/or the Watchtower Society predicted that 1975 would be the end of the "world." But in this case absolutely nothing was predicted that would definitely happen in that particular year. It was always about how close 1975 must be to the time when Armageddon was expected because of the unscriptural significance given to the end of 6,000 years of man's existence. F.Franz must have sincerely thought that there was some scriptural significance to "the end of 6,000 years. And of course, this fit perfectly with the idea already being promoted that the end must come before the lifespan ended of those who were teenagers in 1914. In other words they would already be about 75 years old in 1975. And you are right that this was seen to fit a host of other "signs of the times."

Share this post


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

Jehovah's direction is to use the swifter rather than a mop and bucket to clean the floor in the restrooms". 

When cleaning the Kingdom Hall, there is nothing I like to do more than sing out: “A fine privilege opening up soon here in connection with cleaning a toilet!”

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I think that is why many leave home and leave the Org asap when they get a job, to get away from parental pressure. 

To the extent that this is true, it is pretty much true anywhere. There is a well-known saying among religious persons that “the preacher’s kid is the worst kid in town.’ Either he chafes at being raised in a fishbowl, or he perceives a lack of attention because the preacher is attending to others.

In fact, it is not even religion, and perhaps it is more egregiously true elsewhere. Witness the kid who hates his successful businessman because his attention is everywhere but home.

Share this post


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

but some of us knew Fred in a personal level. 

Since personalities have become the topic, if you knew him, I’d like to hear your take - that is, if you think such is appropriate here, and you may not. JWI gives what seems to be his honest assessment, but it is still an assessment. I recall a verse somewhere about a first viewpoint carrying the day until a contrasting one is heard, that turns everything on its head.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I enjoyed it. I learned a lot. Loved the work. I'm an artist and worked in the art department. Then I got a lot of research assignments, so I got to go to the library a lot.

This is true. He has said the substance of this many times. Doesn’t seem bitter at all. Alas, I am trying to keep up with too many things & don’t read everything closely.

BTW, does he know of a Chris K who worked the art department at about the same time, give or take, and who now streams his work on I-gram? (did I mention this before?)

Also, we were driving through the mountains & just to break up the drive, we stopped in a small town & discovered there a small art gallery. I got to chatting with the proprietor (a Gary someone or other - I have his card somewhere), and upon my identifying myself as a Witness, he said that his wife was out in service at that very hour. As to him, he had gone inactive, and we spoke a bit further about his reasons. Maybe he is on this forum now as one of the bad guys. (No particular reason for me to think it...I just threw it in. He could as likely weigh in as a closet good guy.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2019 at 10:57 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Who is this newcomer so skilled in verbiage...

 

and strange tongues?   :)

Its Spanish for oh my goodness. I was around from time to time because I am looking for music from the dramas in mp3 format. One person who is close to me loves music from the song books, and asked if the dramas at mp3s of some songs.

I am on and off sometimes because of school. Right now I am we have a day off because of cold weather. To be honest, the cold is more brutal than the snow this year.

Share this post


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

Since personalities have become the topic, if you knew him, I’d like to hear your take - that is, if you think such is appropriate here, and you may not. JWI gives what seems to be his honest assessment, but it is still an assessment. I recall a verse somewhere about a first viewpoint carrying the day until a contrasting one is heard, that turns everything on its head.

I am afraid I disagree with that assessment. It takes much more than just having breakfast with the GB at Bethel to really know someone. You seem to forget, these are highly spiritual people that won't involve themselves in the daily struggles of their personal lives. They concentrate on the spiritual needs of all the worldwide brotherhood. 

That in itself is a monumental task to think of others before your own. JWI assessment is of an angry hateful person bent on maligning FRED, bottom line. Therefore, NO! it's not an honest assessment by any standard. Since you are an author, I would think your research is for the truth, not some halfbaked drawn conclusions by an individual that has made up his mind to align himself with opposers and try to persuade people he still holds the truth in his heart. I'm, sorry friend, the world doesn't revolve around JWI, for as much as you admire his limited knowledge of Bethel. I would enjoy hearing what the excuse is going to be, come judgment day.

This is another indicator:

·  Who gets called "The Oracle"?

·  Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'?

·  Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"? 

·  Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned?

·  Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not?

·  Who would rant angrily that Jesus can't be the mediator of "every Tom Dick and Harry" but is only the mediator of the 144,000?

·  Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking? Example:

  • Here is how Franz put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205): 

Yes, it was among the favs from the apostate site free-minds. I don’t know if they are still around, but it’s an oldie but goodie by opposers. I would encourage any sensible person to read the full context of “Righteous Requirements” for themselves instead of relying on a misrepresented, snipped. Although, I have no clue if Fred was the author of that article piece, if someone lays claim to being absolute it was FRED, I would ask for proof. After all, we need to distinguish rants from one another. The only thing proven here is personal resentment and hatred for one individual. The good thing, it’s all meaningless.

*** w71 12/15 p. 760 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***

 

Once again, I would refer people to read the full context to understand how the presidency and the governing body worked at that time. It appears the misinformation is laying a foundation into a false claim.

*** w71 12/15 p. 755 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***

A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation

 

I believe the topic of how the Holy Spirit works by different people has been proven by scripture which can be tied to the operation of the Watchtower. Ex’JW’s insist in combining everything to make their argument solid. It hasn’t worked yet.

Now I'm not saying the early leaders weren't direct. If you asked a stupid question, you would get a profound hard response. One thing is dealing with imperfection, it's quite another thing to say they were doing things, for themselves. Only a blind man cannot see the advances and changes the Watchtower has adapted to by generation.

Share this post


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

Fact is,  NO JW can make unseen itself in the Kingdom Hall....   Every week, another group is cleaning Jehovah's  Holy-house.  Btw, Jehovah is watching us all, every sec.😀

I don't actually think God is watching every one of us every second. 

God has the ability to do so of course, but probably chooses not to. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2019 at 9:48 AM, Witness said:
On 1/30/2019 at 12:30 PM, Anna said:

I have never heard the organization compared to the "temple" or a priesthood. Can you post a quote indicating this? Jerusalem above is comprised only of the Christ and the anointed in heaven.

 

It is subtle in many ways, Anna.  If the organization is necessary for salvation, then it takes the place of the Temple of God.  Jesus is our salvation, nothing can replace that.  God’s House is his dwelling place, which is found in the “living stones” – the anointed ones.  The organization teaches that IT is God’s dwelling place, since it is “spirit-directed”.

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 1 Cor 3:16

you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  1 Pet 2:5

in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. Eph 2:21,22

Ok, we have heard that the kingdom hall is God’s house.  We hear that Warwick is Bethel; and there are Bethels all around the world.  Bethel means “House of God”. I think what is the most blatant example, was the video about an assembly hall and maintaining it, as compared to the early temple.  I can’t find the video, but it seemed to be filmed in the southwestern U.S.   Although now a new one is up, calling the dedicated assembly hall, a gift from God. 

God has one House/dwelling place – his Temple built on Christ.  Why would he bless and call the material endeavors made by men, “God’s House” when he is building it upon his Son?  John 2:19-22  “Greater than Solomon is here”.  Luke 11:31 Since the organization calls its buildings "God's House", can you see how they replace the true house/dwelling of God?

God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.  Acts 17:24-25

 

@Queen Esther 

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:
2 hours ago, Queen Esther said:

Fact is,  NO JW can make unseen itself in the Kingdom Hall....   Every week, another group is cleaning Jehovah's  Holy-house.  Btw, Jehovah is watching us all, every sec.😀

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.

Greek meaning for "created things" - "the act of founding, establishing, building, etc; creation i.e. thing created..."

For the true temple, House of God, Paul states: 

What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will live with them
    and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.”

17 Therefore,

“Come out from them
    and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
    and I will receive you.”[

    Hello guest!
]

18 And,

“I will be a Father to you,
    and you will be my son and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”  2 Cor 6:16-18

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, FelixCA said:

It appears you are reading too much into the article. There is nothing between the lines. You misread your own tea leaves.

You could be right about this one. Especially the part where I made a big deal about how F.Franz says we shouldn't be "toying with Jesus' words." Those words were in the August 15, 1968 Watchtower:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***

  • One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.

But you pointed something out in the May 1, 1968 Watchtower that tells me I need to correct something I've said here. I still think it's wrong to write an article in such a way that so many points are ambiguous. But I don't think that the above highlighted words mean that F.Franz was saying not to think about and apply Jesus' words. I have never seen the Watchtower say to ignore a scripture. If the writer means to override the common meaning given to a scripture, it will provide another scripture or some logic that shows how it shouldn't be applied in every case, at least in the way we might think. 

So I don't think that F.Franz is saying that we should ignore Jesus words, or that we shouldn't invoke them as a caution to potential over-speculation. Someone might have thought I was saying that this was like F.Franz saying, "Don't try to use Jesus' words against me on this, because you would just be toying with them." Or, it could sound as if he was saying that no one else knows how to use Jesus' words, so don't toy with them: don't try to put a stop to all of this talk with your one little scripture." I do NOT think this is what F.Franz meant.

And, of course, this scripture is usually used among ourselves to remind us that we should avoid speculation. That's the way it is used with almost identical sounding logic and very similar context in the May 1, 1968 issue that @FelixCA already quoted:

*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***

8 Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly.

In this May 1st issue, its meaning is clearly to be cautious not to go overboard with speculation. Jesus had used it in the original context, not primarily about speculation, but primarily as a reason to avoid complacency, knowing that the end will come at any time as if a complete surprise; so be ready at all times.) But the meaning is slightly different from both of those prior meanings in the later August 15 issue. Here the most likely meaning is "Don't go making light of Jesus warning that no one could put a date on the end of the system, and therefore start thinking that it could therefore be far off in the future."  

If that's the meaning --"not to let Jesus' words make you complacent"-- and I think it very likely considering the following paragraph in that Watchtower, then it is not a wrong application at all. (It's also not wrong to use it in a way that tells us to avoid speculation.) What I still find wrong is how it's made to fit in the context of the entire article. It's as if it's saying the following, paraphrased:

"It's absolutely certain that 6,000 years of man's existence will be up soon, yes, within this generation, and if you read carefully what we just said, it was pretty much proven that those 6,000 years will be up in 1975, and that the actual 7th day (after Eve's creation) must have begun at most a few weeks or months, but not years after the fall of 1975. So that final millennium of the 7th day is going to be here very close after 1975. So don't any of you go thinking that just because Jesus said no one knows the day or the hour that this means we shouldn't be looking into all this. Don't go thinking that those words of Jesus mean that it could still be a ways off just because after all "we don't know; no one knows." To the contrary, we do know something here that's very important and significant about how close that end must be."

If that's the meaning in context, then it is used in a way that tends to supersede or outweigh the original meaning in Jesus' context: "No one knows so it MUST be close." This of course fits not just the context of the paragraph and article, but the entire context of all publications that year. (The Truth book with a half-a-dozen 1975 quotes from experts, later removed in the next version. Articles pushing urgency, from January through December: January Watchtower: "THE TIME IS SHORT" . . . December Watchtower: HOW WE KNOW IT IS GETTING NEAR")

And as you say, I could be mistaken on this point especially, by reading too much into it. And this was August 15, only a few months after the May 1 issue, when the Watchtower had published nearly the same idea, but had used it with a meaning that was made perfectly clear by the context.

The problem with the May article is that it had another problem/mistake in the context that was just ridiculous. Perhaps it's a mistake that the August 15 issue is trying to correct, but if it is, it doesn't correct it by much. This is the mistake.

*** w68 5/1 p. 270 par. 2 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
With accurate knowledge of Jehovah and his purposes, the Christian rejects the speculations of men.

Good so far.

According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation.

This is speculation of men about what time of year he was created, but that's not the problem.

*** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 4 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed.

Now we have speculation but it is properly labeled as such by saying "it is logical that..." rather than "it is definite." There's a bit of speculation in the idea that God's 7th day, his "rest" day immediately followed Eve's creation. But the main point here is that we are speculating that Eve was created in 4026 BCE, within 12 months of Adam in a year that is counted from autumn to autumn.

Now the next paragraph:

*** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 5 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. From the autumn of that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E., there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of 1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025 and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years from the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day.

So this article is saying that we KNOW that the full end of the 6th day was 4026 B.C.E. and that we KNOW --no speculation-- that the autumn of 1975 is "fully 6,000 years into God's seventh day, his rest day."

This article is basically rewritten in August, just a few months later. In this one we don't speculate about the time for Armageddon even though we KNOW that 1975 marks the last 1000 years of the 7th day, God's rest day. In the re-write we are back to looking an UNKNOWN gap between Adam and Eve and THIS is why we can't speculate as to the time when the millennium will most likely be timed. It puts a different flavor on the use of Jesus' cautionary words in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.

Share this post


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

 

·  Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'?

·  Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"? 

·  Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned?

·  Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not?

Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking?

But isn't this based on facts? Or are you saying it wasn't Fred who wrote these things, but someone else in the writing department? But even if that was the case, Fred would sanction everything before going to print, so he would have had to agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    59,440
    Total Topics
    105,242
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    15,939
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    fesahayonatan
    Newest Member
    fesahayonatan
    Joined




×
×
  • 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.