Jump to content

JOHN BUTLER

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

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN BUTLER -
Space Merchant -
414
5827

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But back to your question that starts out with the words, "So if Raymond was a proven liar." I'm not sure what you are referring to. I've never heard anyone claim that R.Franz was a proven liar. If anyone ever said that, I'd be very interested in what they were referring to. It might be very useful to point to something inaccurate* in his book. I'm sure the average Witness who never knew him could easily get the idea he was "liar," but I have never heard anyone who knew him at Bethel ever say that anything in his book was inaccurate. Quite the opposite in fact.

[I found a couple inaccuracies, by the way, such as when in CoC, he mentioned that the Pope and bishops can speak as if they are "infallible" in the minds of Catholics. He should not have said "and bishops" unless he was referring only to previous "bishops of Rome," which are the popes.]

Apparently, you must not have known the Franz’s as well as you claim including other governing body members. However, having read Raymond books, I can unequivocally state I reject the claims about the organization. Therefore, your argument is incorrect. Here is a man that found confusion with cynicism. Who put him up to it?

One area which is true would be how the POPE saw itself. In the beginning, they saw themselves as equal to Christ, thus being incapable of doing wrong. This, of course, is ludicrous since no one made the pope perfect. It doesn’t take Raymond’s books to bring to light something that should be already known to Christians. Therefore, a poor example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Apparently, you must not have known the Franz’s as well as you claim including other governing body members. However, having read Raymond books, I can unequivocally state I reject the claims about the organization.

So it appears that you don't have any evidence to give for your claim that the book was "challenged" by Fred Franz or others who knew him.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If you have evidence to the contrary you should share it

You didn't even say what claims about the organization that you reject. You should at least be able to point to one inaccuracy. Or someone should.

Share this post


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

But the problem, as best as I can see it, was not that he said anything untrue, but that his motive was

You made important point. If someone can not defeat your arguments or evidences then they questioning your motives. So pathetic!!! 

"Yes, it can be how this what he said was happened, but WHY HE said this? ... because HIS MOTIVES are bad". 

And WHO are you? to judge my motives ! :)))  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember watching a very stupid 'horror' film about monsters in the mist. 

A man was in his car with his parents who were very old, in thick mist, and they could hear the monsters getting closer. 

The man had a gun with only two bullets in. He didn't want the monsters to get his parents so they decided the best plan was to use the two bullets to kill both his parents. They did this. And then the man was just sat there in the car with his dead parents, waiting for the monsters to get him. But all of a sudden the armed forces arrived with tanks and big guns, the mist started to clear, and the man was saved. However to others it would have looked like he had just murdered his parents. The film ended with the man stood by his car watching the armed forces attacking the monsters. 

I recall that because it helps me to realise that a person has to act on the situation / facts known, that they have at that particular time. A person's motives may be for the good, but to others it looks as if they are for the bad. 

It is therefore a wonderful thing that God, and Jesus Christ, can see all things and know all things. They know us better than we know ourselves. They judge us from a standpoint that we will never understand. Their ways are much higher than our ways. 

Raymond Franz, I would say it is not our place to judge him.

However I do think it is the place of JW's to judge the GB or GB decisions, because the GB run the JW Organisation. And i do think it is the right of JW's to judge the way the organisation is being run and the 'rules' it is run by. 

Therefore I think there should be more clarity, more openness, in the JW Org. So that members can make a fair judgement of whether they want to be part of such an organisation. 

I do think that in the first century, the running of the Christian 'organisation' was much simpler and more open.  

Acts 15 v 28 & 29

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

Those people hearing those word would have fully understood what they meant. It seems to be all that was needed at that time. 

So when some on here try to compare those days to now, in my opinion it is not possible to make a real comparison. 

Ex-JW's that have known and still remember problems from within the JW Org should of course whenever possible warn others of any dangers of being part of the JW Org. A good person would not want to send anyone into a cage of lions, even if those lions were purring like pleasant pussy cats. 

JW's still in the JW Org should also, and probably even more so, warn others of problems / dangers within the JW Org, but it is a danger for them to do so. 

I think that the more the JW Organisation pushes about Satan ruling the world, and that everyone outside the Org is part of the devil's world, then the more those that have information should push to show Satan's influence inside the JW Org. It's called balance, and honesty.

The Watchtower and the CCJW are not God. The GB are not God. The Elders are not God nor Jesus Christ.

So do not let anyone replace God or Jesus Christ with humans of any kind or status. 

Share this post


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

So it appears that you don't have any evidence to give for your claim that the book was "challenged" by Fred Franz or others who knew him.

Can we also say you don’t have proof Fred Franz didn’t? Try not to overreach and backtrack on your earlier sentiment about knowing the GB when it’s obvious that’s an exaggeration.

I’m not mentally challenged spiritually to accept apostate literature that you seem to want to promote. Sorry.

A final reason, resulting from the previous two, is that of conscience. What do you do when you see mounting evidence that people are being hurt, deeply hurt, with no real justification? What obligation does any of us have—before God and toward fellow humans—when he sees that information is withheld from people to whom it could be of the most serious consequence? These were questions with which I struggled. What follows expands on these reasons.”

How convenient to all of a sudden develop a conscience to justify his own actions as a member of the 18 Governing Body. Not only is this untrue but disingenuous as to his motive.

Perhaps you fall for sob stories, but it takes time to know a person. This person angered over being overlooked for president is a classic case of narcissism.

If you’re a person that is looking for excuses to fade or leave, promote this book if you must, just keep the Watchtower and faithful followers of Christ out. Perhaps JW only would be more suitable to discuss this among yourselves since no one will be able to refute misguided understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 12:00 PM, Witness said:

Are you equating this to the GB, or Raymond Franz as being “handpicked by Jesus” to do good, or evil?

No actually, I was not equating it, or at least if it appeared so, I did not mean that. My point was that anyone can do good or evil, no matter what lofty position they have, and no matter who they are picked by. Jesus could have chosen a different path if he had wanted to, and of course the most infamous example is of Satan, who was originally a perfect angel. So my point was that we should not be surprised if someone we previously considered good turns bad. With regard to RF, that is of course a matter of opinion whether he was good or bad. I do not believe however that Judas was "destined" to be bad, as that would have deprived him of the freedom of choice that has been given to all intelligent creatures in heaven and on earth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Felix like a baby throwing his toys out of the pram again. 

Quote Felix "How convenient to all of a sudden develop a conscience to justify his own actions.. "

Um, one can only develop a conscience over time as one put things together. Things build up over time as one gathers information. So one's conscience builds with the more information one has on a subject.

But then it seems Felix has suddenly been given power from 'above' to judge Raymond Franz. 

Quote "I’m not mentally challenged spiritually .". That makes no sense at all. Spiritual things give wisdom from God.. Whereas we think mentally of our own choice. 

And this silly word 'apostate' is so misused now it really has no meaning at all. 

Remember, an apostate is someone that turns away from a former religion. They do not necessarily turn away from God or Jesus Christ. 

So it seems that Raymond Franz chose to serve God and not serve the GB or JW org. Hence the GB got annoyed with him. 

And once again we see typical GB / JW org attitude whereby Felix thinks he has the right to tell someone where to post his comments. 

As for faithful followers of Christ. A lot of them are already out, out of JW Org that is :) ....

Share this post


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

No actually, I was not equating it, or at least if it appeared so, I did not mean that. My point was that anyone can do good or evil, no matter what lofty position they have, and no matter who they are picked by. Jesus could have chosen a different path if he had wanted to, and of course the most infamous example is of Satan, who was originally a perfect angel. So my point was that we should not be surprised if someone we previously considered good turns bad. With regard to RF, that is of course a matter of opinion whether he was good or bad. I do not believe however that Judas was "destined" to be bad, as that would have deprived him of the freedom of choice that has been given to all intelligent creatures in heaven and on earth. 

Freedom of choice ? I mentioned in a topic that i started, about predestination, that a few people seem to have been chosen to do things before they were even born. Jacob being an example, chosen over his brother whilst still in the womb. 

Share this post


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

Jesus could have chosen a different path if he had wanted to, and of course the most infamous example is of Satan, who was originally a perfect angel. So my point was that we should not be surprised if someone we previously considered good turns bad.

 

54 minutes ago, Anna said:

I do not believe however that Judas was "destined" to be bad, as that would have deprived him of the freedom of choice that has been given to all intelligent creatures in heaven and on earth. 

This can bring us to interesting discussion with interesting people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,689
    Total Topics
    114,598
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,511
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Rosjes128
    Newest Member
    Rosjes128
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • For 2010 to 2019, it was 213 times for those years. But this includes the superspike for the 100 year anniversary when both 2013 and 2014 included 121 between them, representing more than half of the decade in just those two years. If those two years had been normal years, the total would have been just 213-121+9+9=110. 2013 and 2014 included the preparation and finale of a big push for a 1914 centennial. And maybe it's just me, but I have a feeling that it fell kind of flat. There was another of these "anniversaries" (70th) that was built up in 1983 and 1984, where that decade's yearly average was doubled in '83 and tripled in '84 -- very similar to what happened in 2013 and 2014 when that average was quadrupled in 2013 and then septupled in 2014. (BTW, if you made a chart that broke this into 5 year intervals, a trend would seem much more obvious.) Still, I don't think it's being slowly phased out. I think that it gets mentioned less as it seems less important, and less practical to our current issues. It is no longer a field service "draw" based on the generation that would not die out as it would have been in 1983/4 when the generation meant something else. Once something has lost some of its importance, someone will start reconsidering whether it was ever that important at all, and this might encourage a reconsideration of the Gentile Times doctrine into a simpler, more Biblical teaching. (Just my opinion of course.) My sentiments exactly! I noticed. I was speaking about giving evidence. You should have. It would provide even more evidence for what I was saying. You are the only one I know who repeatedly tries to call me an "expert." I have never claimed this about myself. I just happen to have had several assignments that gave me an opportunity to read all of Russell's writings in the Bethel Library between about 1977 and 1982. And I have enjoyed reading further and refreshing my memory on some of this now that almost everything Russell wrote is so easily accessible online, and checkable against my physical library that contains most (but not all) of Russell's writings.
    • You are right. I was equating the importance not so much in the number of times it is mentioned, but that it is mentioned at all! I just tried to create a graph, but alas, since I've never done one either in word or excel, I failed miserably. I got the horizontal axis right, but I just can't find how to create the vertical axis and how to change the data (numbers) for the vertical axis so I completely messed up. In any case, the chart would show that since 1950 Watchtowers, the mention of 1914 has a sharp downward trend. During 1950 to 1959, it was mentioned 891 times, and during 2000-2009 it was mentioned 216 times. I don't have data for the years 2010 to 2019. So comparatively there is a big difference, but it still seems like too many mentions, if we are thinking along the lines of it slowly being phased out. In my opinion anyway....  
    • I just woke up startled, from my afternoon nap. I had a really scary nightmare, about the Presidential Impeachment effort now going on. I dreamed I was a Democrat Congressman, and in the dream I thought I was possessed by a demon that controlled me like a puppet. And in fighting that double whammy of being a Democrat Congressman, and a demon, I was trying to fight the evil that possessed me. I thought "Could it be that we are just whiney bullies, completely divorced from reality, trying to railroad and frame a man for crimes that do not even exist, but are merely policy differences between adversaries?" I thought "Could it be that this is just a vendetta, for his unspeakable crime of making us and all out friends look like complete fools, in predicting Hillary would win in a landslide of historic proportions?" I thought "Could it be that our hatred for this man, and his continuous string of accomplishing what he promised to do in his campaign is making us hate him even more, giving us NOTHING to run on in 2020?" I thought " Could it be that this unfair sham of a trial to get him impeached is merely to mortally wound him so he will lose the 2020 Presidential Election, especially since every one of our candidates are either senile, or bat-crap crazy .... or both?" And then I came to the unconsious realization ( ... as I was in fact dreaming ...) that "NAAAAH! ... merely a spot of indigestion."        
    • Nice try! Nothing has changed with word manipulation. Face it, its was you, JTR, TTH, Anna that get people banned. But here we go, I prove you wrong, and now you're using it as an excuse to ban. So, let's not contradict yourself, why people get banned because of spamming. It doesn't have anything to do with being rude or anything else. It has to do with people here not wanting to be proved wrong. I don't wish to give anything. I just don't like manipulating other peoples words to come out with a false claim. I could go even further about Russell's spoken words. Put you're the researcher and ranking expert here. Your supposed to know all that already.
    • You are going to have to do some serious explaining, to justify that statement, as it makes no sense at all. Further, if Thor is the reaction you get when eating a Thanksgiving Day meal, you need to take some Athpirin.
    • Watch out, you just admitted that it was you who got people banned from this forum. And up until now, I'm sure no one had any idea that it was you getting yourself banned all those times. 🙄 You said: "Russell didn't care for the Pyramid scheme" and now it appears you wish to give, as evidence, the fact that Russell wasn't sure if the Pyramid indicated anything for the year 1910. If you read what Russell said, however, he claimed that the Pyramid perfectly supported 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1914. He had several times predicted related events timed to about 1910, but he could not distinctly find them in the Pyramid, as he claimed to have found for other dates. Even in 1911, just months after this 1910 question was answered, Russell said in the March 15, 1911 Watch Tower: "No doubt all of our readers have read STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, Vol. III, the last chapter of which describes the Pyramid and sets forth much of the wonderful symbolic teachings shown in its construction. It shows the Pyramid to be in exact harmony with the Bible. Indeed, some, after reading this volume, have referred to the Great Pyramid as 'The Bible in Stone.'" Just because Russell didn't care for how well the scheme supported 1910, doesn't mean he didn't care about how it was in EXACT harmony, he claimed, with 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1914. The 1917 Finished Mystery book bragged about how Russell's chronology was written before he ever saw the Pyramid, and before he even saw any of Edgar's abundant evidences of the accuracy of Bible chronology in the Pyramid. In 1920 Rutherford went to see it, and the Watch Tower in Dec 15 reported that all the other pyramids were built under the direction of Satan except "the Great Pyramid, which was built under the Lord's supervision." In the June 15 1922 Watch Tower Rutherford published that the "present-truth chronology . . . the correspondency of dozens of measurements proves that the same God designated both pyramid and plan. . ." By 1924, it was claimed of course in the May 21, 1924 Golden Age that the Pyramid, the "Scientific Bible" verified the importance of 1874, 1914 and 1925. (This addition of the 1925 date is actually kind of hilarious if you have carefully read Charles Piazzi Smyth and Joseph Seiss, and see how Russell had re-used their material.) Also in 1924, The Way to Paradise, showed the Pyramid with the caption "GOD'S PLAN WRITTEN IN STONE." Here, it was conjectured that Shem probably built it. Russell had conjectured it was Melchizedek. This was repeated in 1925, and as late as 1926, the Watch Tower said that "advanced Bible Students believe that the Great Pyramid at Gizeh is the witness to the Lord in the Land of Egypt mentioned by the Prophet. (Isa. 19:19)" It was not until 1928 that it became a monument built "under the direction of Satan the Devil." It was now Satan's Bible and no longer "Jehovah's Witness" in stone. This was one of the reasons for the controversy when Rutherford insisted that this false information in Volume III, continue to be sold and advertised in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, etc. And still made available for sale by the Society even in the 1940's. Special deluxe editions of the Studies in the Scriptures were still mentioned in the Kingdom Ministry as late as July 1967.
  • 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.