Jump to content

JOHN BUTLER

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

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN BUTLER -
Space Merchant -
430
5159

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I am afraid I disagree with that assessment.

Okay. Still, you seem to indicate that you knew him, too. What was he like?

6 hours ago, FelixCA said:

for as much as you admire his limited knowledge of Bethel. 

Yeah. That’s fair. I guess I do. I mean, he’s been where I haven’t.

Whether it’s a good idea for him to blab away as he does, I have no idea. I was livid about it at first, but I have grown used to it. The point is, he is going to do it whether I am here or not, so I just glean what I can, always keeping in mind that it is through the eyes of another. That’s why I asked about how it looks through your eyes.

6 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Since you are an author, I would think your research is for the truth

I am probably one of the few here who has not read Ray’s book. I might someday but have no immediate plans. Such things are just red herrings to me, a distraction. I mean, if my books were about personalities, I would go there. But they’re not. My books are what of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done, not so much the individuals in it. I tell a lot of stories, but internal ‘power struggles,’ if they are that, do not interest me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I am on and off sometimes because of school.

Are you really still in school? Well well well. Most here are far older. You express yourself uninhibitedly.

7 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Right now I am we have a day off because of cold weather. 

What!? A day off? For cold weather??!!!

You kids are soft!

Why, back in MY day....

#WalkFiveMiles #Uphill #BothWays.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

but internal ‘power struggles,’ if they are that, do not interest me.

I just want to pipe up here. The internal struggles ARE what shaped "what Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done" . I know, and I agree, we do't want to focus on the negative. But in my personal opinion it helps to know these things sometimes because it helps us become more grounded in reality, rather than what we think is the reality, and then get disappointed, to the point of being stumbled. I don't know if I have explained that very well. I'm not talking about fault finding or criticism. Just reality.

Share this post


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

The internal struggles ARE what shaped "what Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done"

I suppose. 

But somewhere there is a story of some old-time Bethelite who, when the younger ones would start squabbling over something, would tilt back and marvel at how Jehovah was able to do SO MUCH with what little he had to work with.

I mean, there’s always going to be people. They’re always going to do things. How God pulls a rabbit out of his hat with them around I’ll never know, but he consistently does.

It’s not my area of focus, that’s all. If I was shocked at it, I wouldn’t be here.

You commented a while back about pulling back the curtain at Oz. The fact that GB members show themselves on TV indicates to me that they pull back the curtain upon themselves as well.

Share this post


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

The fact that GB members show themselves on TV indicates to me that they pull back the curtain upon themselves as well

To a certain extent yes. But we will never know what is being discussed behind closed doors. I would say it doesn't matter, it's not our business, but it is, because it affects everyone of us. (When I get around to it I want to make this a topic in the closed club, here is not the best place)

Share this post


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

 ......marvel at how Jehovah was able to do SO MUCH with what little he had to work with......  How God pulls a rabbit out of his hat with them around I’ll never know, but he consistently does.

I agree!

Share this post


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

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, paraphrase

Yes, I can understand your sarcasm and your obsession with Fred and the year 1975. I'm sure your motive goes beyond this site into others that share the same view as you do. It was a very interesting year that brought many changes to humanity. This, of course, was the urgency Fred was referring to. Time was of the essence to prepare the faithful sheep for hard times too difficult to deal with. By god, if that revelation didn’t come true if we are here arguing about 1975. 2 Timothy 3:1-17

 

Therefore, your subtle perspective is still only your opinion, based on how you are viewing the information cited.

Therefore, how can you justify Raymond Franz blatant disregard for Bible truth when he cited that others besides the 144,000 would join Christ in heaven. Give a scriptural example? You might as well tell people once they die, they go to heaven as Michael waits to welcome them at the pearly gates of heaven.

If you knew Raymond, you don't need to read his book. 😉

Share this post


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

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.

This would depend on how you see the operation of the Presidency versus the Governing Body. Who is anointed, and who worked closely with the anointed enough though they were not part of the anointed class.

People seem to forget Brother F. Franz knew C.T. Russell. What CTR administrative obligations were and what he would delegate to a board of directors. Did F.Franz proofread the writing department articles to see if they were consistent with scripture, or was that a responsibility he passes on to the GB? The GB does that now.

I can recall an assembly talk where Fred stated, that's what the book says, its here in print. NO one really truly knew the Presidents just like they don't really know the GB. Those are hypotheticals by witnesses that "interact" at some point with them. Therefore no one has the right to speak about someone they truly don't know. That's the bottom line if you want to continue calling ourselves Christian.

The problem with Bethel at that time was a cleansing of apostates. Perhaps JWI lost a good friend by being disfellowshipped. But still, that's no excuse under God's law. Yes, Fred was the framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clean under scriptural bases. That didn't make him a hardnose, or an inhumane person to stick with the bylaws of scripture.

That was part of the Bethel gossip along with his ability to understand scripture. Some people thought he wasn't qualified. That was a question I asked JWI. Fred was more qualified than anyone at that time. That's why he enjoyed translating scripture into different languages.

There is far more that can be said, it would take a book to yield such information.

Share this post


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

 July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205) 

For anyone who wants to read the whole article in context:

    Hello guest!

 

 

ITS MISSION

THIS journal is published for the purpose of enabling the people to know Jehovah God and his purposes as expressed in the Bible. It publishes Bible instruction specifically designed to aid Jehovah's witnesses and all people of good-will. It arranges systematic Bible study for Its readers and the Society supplies other literature to aid in such studies. It publishes suitable material for radio broadcasting and for other means of public instruction in the Scriptures.

It adheres strictly to the Bible as authority for its utterances. It is entirely free and separate from all religion, parties, sects or other worldly organizations. It is wholly and without reservation for the kingdom of Jehovah God under Christ his beloved King. It is not dogmatic, but invites careful and critical examination of its contents In the light of the Scriptures. It does not indulge in controversy, and its columns are not open to personalities.

 

1) It adheres strictly to the Bible as authority for its utterances  

Plenty of doctrinal and instructional, corporative changes from 1943 to today reveals that so called "Bible authority" as base for WT articles was questionable intention. Is it Bible itself questionable authority that is not able to provide clear idea to those who reading Bible text? Is it human perception of very same Words some kind of trap that unable clear understanding?  What is general or particular Bible Idea? To create only true "religious organization"?  Really ?!

WT publications in general and here WT magazine as particular paper for dispensing spiritual food  clearly proved that it can't be trusted for it's readers. 

IN LIGHT OF THIS CONCLUSION, it is very significant how text continues with this: 

2) It is not dogmatic, but invites careful and critical examination of its contents In the light of the Scriptures.

The WT Magazine was Not dogmatic? If authors aka publishers and writers of The WT articles of those period of time were had such idea about own presentation of spiritual food, than that is for praise, undoubtedly. What was changed in meantime??

If you as author of your articles made claim that you and your written ideas are not dogmatic, and how all other are invited to make Careful and Critical Examination of ITS contents, than All Open Discussion, Reasoning, Pro et Contra Argumentation, Accuracy and Wrongness will Never be Sanctioned by Those in "Charge" , from so called "Spiritual Authority", who ever they are in particular time.   

No Shunning or Disfellowshiping  of those who have Other Opinion, because even Official doctrines are only this, Current Point of View, Current Opinion and nothing more, as reality shows us until this day!    

 

Curiosity for fun;

interesting terminology from 1943

."...while we were on Watchtower street work..."         :))) good title for preaching service :))))

Share this post


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

For anyone who wants to read the whole article in context: 

    Hello guest!

I especially thought this was a truthful admission from page 202, 203:

image.png

However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

Share this post


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

Therefore, your subtle perspective is still only your opinion, based on how you are viewing the information cited.

Of course, it is. I will never claim otherwise. It's impossible to get into the mind of another person, no matter how many clues they give us, or how much we hear about them from others. A person can seem haughty and presumptuous and sarcastic, like F.Franz, but be motivated by good intentions. A person can seem always friendly, humble and spiritual, like R.Franz, but have murderous intentions that we might never know about.

All we can do is try to evaluate their stated perspectives from evidence and experience.

Share this post


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

Therefore, how can you justify Raymond Franz blatant disregard for Bible truth when he cited that others besides the 144,000 would join Christ in heaven. Give a scriptural example? You might as well tell people once they die, they go to heaven as Michael waits to welcome them at the pearly gates of heaven.

I do not wish to justify R.Franz' doctrines, per se. If some of his ideas seem worth looking into, I am only concerned with evaluating the evidence he offered for his perspective. I did not know that R.Franz thought that the 144,000 was a symbolic number until I read his book. I was not surprised however, because it was fairly common to hear brothers ask about why it had to be literal if the number 12,000 was symbolic, or the number 24 was symbolic (symbolic of the 144,000!?!, at that). And I knew that at least two other persons in the Writing department had been discussing this question.

Personally, I do not know if the 144,000 is a literal number or not, so I cannot give a scriptural example. Before I left for Bethel, I moved to another city away from my home congregation, and pioneered almost exclusively with a group of 4 brothers, instead of the 3 sisters that I pioneered with previously. One brother in this group was a well respected elder who was the first person I ever heard wonder about the literalness of the 144,000 and he also wondered about the "other sheep" of John 10 as being the Gentiles who were soon to start flocking in after Jesus was finished going to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I tended to forget about this because even if the great crowd of other sheep were Gentiles, and the little flock of current sheep were the Jewish believers, it still could have been that they represented "spiritual Jews" and "spiritual Gentiles" in Revelation 7 and 14 and, of course, especially so in our modern times. After all:

(Romans 2:29) . . .But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code.. . .

12 hours ago, FelixCA said:

If you knew Raymond, you don't need to read his book. 😉

Funny you say that, because just to be sure, I had to review what R.Franz said about the topic. I hadn't remembered anything too specific about his own view of this this in "Crisis of Conscience," and still have not read that much of "Christian Freedom." I knew that R.Franz had implied that there wasn't enough Bible evidence to prove that the number 144,000 had to be literal. But I didn't recall him stating his own belief. I assumed he didn't think it necessarily literal, and assumed that he would probably think it wasn't. I just don't think he had said for sure. I had no idea how he views the difference between those who aspire to an earthly hope and those who aspire to a heavenly hope. He seemed to have thought that no one should be "too extreme in their statements." (p.238)

I know that R.Franz spoke about the problems that were ensuing due to the focus on 1935, and I think this is another issue for which R.Franz predicted a change would need to be made. I think R.Franz book provided the impetus for the Governing Body to make that correction after they saw the points he made. 1935 is no longer looked at as a strict date that closed the door for all but the replacements of anointed who had proved unfaithful. This may become even more important as the number of anointed claimants rises to about 30,000 then 40,000, etc., because it would otherwise indicate that ALL the original pre-1935 anointed might be suspected of having become unfaithful. 

At any rate, I think that R.Franz probably believes that the number 144,000 is not a literal number, based on the fact that it is built on a foundation of 12 non-literal numbers of 12,000 from each tribe. Based on some of what I remember from "Christian Freedom" he probably also believes that the "other sheep" and "great crowd" represent gentiles, and the 144,000 represent Jews. Without knowing anything about what R.Franz thinks about this, I already have presented my own view that this is my own opinion, too. It's based on Paul's description of the ONE olive tree that represents the Jews so that the a number of Jewish persons would be sealed, and that the grafting into the same tree from the gentiles would continue until even "jealousy" motivated the full number of Jews to fulfill their invitations.

Since Paul says he was an apostle to the Gentiles/Greeks, just as Peter was to the Jews, this appears to be the symbolic reference to the two olive trees in Revelation also.

(Romans 11:7-24) . . .What, then? The very thing Israel is earnestly seeking he did not obtain, but the ones chosen obtained it. . . . 11 So I ask, They did not stumble and fall completely, did they? Certainly not! But by their false step, there is salvation to people of the nations, to incite them to jealousy. 12 Now if their false step means riches to the world and their decrease means riches to people of the nations, how much more will their full number mean! 13 Now I speak to you who are people of the nations. Seeing that I am an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry 14 to see if I may in some way incite my own people to jealousy and save some from among them. 15 For if their being cast away means reconciliation for the world, what will the acceptance of them mean but life from the dead? 16 Further, if the part of the dough taken as firstfruits is holy, the entire batch is also holy; and if the root is holy, the branches are also. 17 However, if some of the branches were broken off and you, although being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the richness of the olive’s root, . . . 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree!

(Revelation 11:1-4) 11 And a reed like a rod was given to me as he said: “Get up and measure the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshipping in it. . . . 3 I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy . . . .” 4 These are symbolized by the two olive trees . . .  standing before the Lord of the earth.

Whether the full number of Jews, means literal Jews or symbolic Jews, I couldn't say. Whether it means a literal 144,000 or a symbolic 144,000 I couldn't say. It's compared with a great crowd which no man can number, which is a fair reason to conclude that it might be a literal number, but that's not definitive. (And even then we don't want it to refer to literal Jews.) We already teach that the 12,000 cannot be a literal number in the exact same context, so I wouldn't insist.

The illustration of the Gentile "wild olive tree" grafted into Israel's holy, "garden olive" tree and then growing together reminds me of Jesus saying that he has other sheep not of this fold but which must be brought in to be one flock. In "Christian Freedom," R.Franz sees the similarity in another scriptural passage:

(Ephesians 2:11-19) 11 Therefore, remember that at one time you, people of the nations by fleshly descent, were the ones called “uncircumcision” by those called “circumcision,” which is made in the flesh by human hands. 12 At that time you were without Christ, alienated from the state of Israel, strangers to the covenants of the promise; you had no hope and were without God in the world. 13 But now in union with Christ Jesus, you who were once far off have come to be near by the blood of the Christ. 14 For he is our peace, the one who made the two groups one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. 15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, in order to make the two groups in union with himself into one new man and to make peace, 16 and to reconcile fully both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself. 17 And he came and declared the good news of peace to you who were far off, and peace to those near, 18 because through him we, both peoples, have free access to the Father by one spirit. 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God,  ... [cf. "one flock, one shepherd"]

For reference, I would add:

(Matthew 10:5, 6) . . .These 12 Jesus sent out, giving them these instructions: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; 6 but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

(Acts 15:1-11) . . .Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” . . . 3 So after being escorted partway by the congregation, these men continued on through both Phoe·niʹcia and Sa·marʹi·a, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations and bringing great joy to all the brothers. . . . 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also. 9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. . . . 11 On the contrary, we have faith that we are saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way that they are.”

(Galatians 2:7-9) . . .On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations— 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised.

(Romans 1:16) . . .For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

(Romans 2:9-11) . . .on the Jew first and also on the Greek; 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who works what is good, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

(Romans 10:11, 12) 11 For the scripture says: “No one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. . . . (Compare, 'no more wall that fenced them off into a different pen.' (John 10:16 and Ephesians 2:14.)

 

Share this post


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

I especially thought this was a truthful admission from page 202, 203:

image.png

However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

This is soooo funny. 

There is no religious organisation that ... oh um just a minute, yes there is it's us. :) 

Just so funny. 

And the bit about : -

"and composed of His spiritual remnant.. "  Well um, only 8 of them as bosses at the moment it seems. 

But it's all good for a laugh. 

Share this post


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

I especially thought this was a truthful admission from page 202, 203:

image.png

However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

Excellent and amazing founding, revelation. Nail in coffin, as some would say. Controversy in full measure, despite written statement in preface of magazine that say:   

ITS MISSION

............

 It does not indulge in controversy, and its columns are not open to personalities". .............

No controversy? Writers are generate Controversy  in the Core Itself. Listen what is written in the magazine:

quote: "Such "society" is not legal society or corporation, chartered according to the laws of some state or nation, ...." they said.

They are exactly what they claim they are not !! Hey JW people,  AWAKE! Dear people, this is official hoax on paper.

Watchtower and all entities under Mother Organization are pure Corporations worldwide, and all, every single of them have Charter/s!!  

Share this post


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

However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

Yes, I noticed that too. I think this is the same pattern of reasoning as in AW 7/09 "Is wrong to change your religion".

Share this post


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

However I think it shows cowardice and the lack of confidence in your own beliefs. 

You are taking yourself too seriously John. You should know TTH sense of warped humour by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    59,384
    Total Topics
    105,045
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    15,929
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    laosiklx016
    Newest Member
    laosiklx016
    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.