JW Insider

On 3/1/2016 at 2:06 AM, Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης said:

under the question  Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not celebrate Valentine's Day?  I read that:
Jehovah's Witnesses only formally celebrate the one event that Jesus commanded his followers. The memorial of his death (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

They also celebrate other events which are referred to favorably in the Scriptures such as marriages, anniversaries, the birth of a baby, graduations and many other happy occasions. But why don't Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate St. Valentine's Day?

What I don't understand here is that WE CAN celebrate the first birthdays of a child but WE CANNOT continue beyond that date in the following years.

When this came up elsewhere on jw-archive someone quoted the Watchtower article on Valentine's Day. I won't do that here, but I'm sure you know the information. Valentine's Day is still tied, in name at least, to a "saint." That ties it a little too close for comfort to a religious celebration, no matter how non-religious it is. Anyway, that wasn't even your question, since it was about birthdays. And there is nothing "religious" about birthdays.

I have an old talk outline where celebrating a child's birthday was tied to "creature worship" by giving too much undue attention to the child who had not really accomplished anything more than surviving for another year. Of course, the primary reason we give is that the Bible only mentions two birthday celebrations and they were both by wicked pagans who also happened to suborn a murder on their birthday.

At the meeting last night, it occurred to me that we are often asked to make assumptions and treat them as "gospel." One of these assumptions ties directly to our main public reason for avoiding birthdays. I'll just give a few examples so you can understand what I was thinking.

1. They played the introduction to Esther video that makes very bold and direct statements and gives dates with a high degree of authority in the voice. Nowhere do we ever admit that these dates are assumed dates, and that we often use dates that we KNOW are 10 to 20 years off the dates that ALL the evidence points to, just because we need to make those dates fit another preconceived assumption.

2. The Imitate book (ia) says that "Ahasuerus is widely thought to have been Xerxes I" and later it says that Xerxes I (per Herodotus) did the following: "when a wealthy man begged that his son be excused from joining the army, Xerxes had the son cut in half, his body displayed as a warning."  Yet, per the CLAM workbook (Christian Life and Ministry) it says "Once, he ordered a man to be cut in half and displayed as a warning." There is barely even a hint that this is from a source OUTSIDE the Bible. Yet, of course, the comment at the meeting turned this into a FACT, not about Xerxes I, but about Ahasuerus.

3. The meeting also made a special point to say that Esther was modest because she didn't ask for extra jewelry. (2006 Watchtower) Really? Does the Bible even mention as a FACT that extra jewelry was an option? Could she have asked for LESS jewelry, or only six months of those spa treatments she was given instead of the full year? Again, the speaker turned this assumption about jewelry into a FACT.

4. The other assumption was not at first turned into a fact by the speaker, but by an answer given in audience, and the speaker then agreed 100% and made a point to say how thankful we should be for KNOWING these things. (That Mordechai refused to bow to Haman for historical reasons, but forgetting that the CLAM workbook said "Why MIGHT Mordechai have refused...?")

These were still good points to think about, and there are good reasons to discuss what MIGHT have been going through the minds of these Bible characters. My only point is that we have trouble seeing what MIGHT be true when it goes against a view we hold, but we turn the "MIGHT" into "FACT" when it supports a view. Even a point or two in the book study on Elijah went in this direction, but the main point is about the banquets of Ahasuerus:

At the first banquet, there was drunkenness apparently, and this may have been the reason Vashti was summoned, perhaps even summoned immodestly by the king. Yet at the second banquet, ("THE BANQUET OF ESTHER") the king did this:

(Esther 2:18) . . .And the king held a great banquet for all his princes and his servants, the banquet of Esther. He then proclaimed an amnesty for the provinces, and he kept giving gifts according to the means of the king.

What occurred to me is why we never look at the differences between those two banquets and make an assumption from this about celebrations. Here we have a celebration by a pagan that did NOT end up in a murder, but in just the opposite. So we MIGHT decide that there is a lesson here about parties and celebrations. Bad things happen when there is drunkenness and abuse of power at birthdays (or licentious dancing, too, in the case of Herod). Yet, we also have a lesson about GOOD that can come of birthdays when modesty and proper influences abound. 

Thanks, Anke. My first post over here. I like the idea of being able to highlight and use formatting. I didn't quite get it right, but I'll get better, I hope.

This was a demonstration of how to use the phonographs. It was at the Columbus, Ohio convention in 1937. That's Grant Suiter in the center, who was the Secretary Treasurer. He was a member of the Governing Body, probably started at Bethel around 1928. Brother Suiter joined the administrative offices in Brooklyn in 1928, became a director in 1938 (the year after this picture) and became Secretary-Treasurer of the Watch Tower Society (PA & NY) in 1947.

*** w09 12/15 p. 24 par. 20 The Messiah! God’s Means of Salvation ***
Since 1914 we have been living in the period of Christ’s pa·rou·siʹa, or presence. Although his presence as King of God’s Kingdom is invisible, it is obvious from the fulfillment of prophecies. (Rev. 6:2-8) *** end of quote ***

The most complete official explanation was in the February 15, 2008 Watchtower, where it is also presented as the equivalent of the "synteleia" (conclusion), the "generation" that sees the sign, the "last days," etc.. Portions of that article are re-quoted here. This was written before the single life-time "generation" was recently extended so that it could mean TWO overlapping lifetimes:

*** w08 2/15 pp. 21-25 Christ’s Presence—What Does It Mean to You? ***

NEARLY two thousand years ago, a question was raised by four of Jesus’ apostles in a private conversation with their Master on the Mount of Olives. They asked: “When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” (Matt. 24:3) In that question, the apostles used two very interesting expressions, “your presence” and “the conclusion of the system of things.” To what do those expressions refer?

² To take the second expression first, consider the term “conclusion,” the translation of the Greek word syn·teʹlei·a. In the New World Translation, this word is consistently rendered “conclusion,” whereas a related Greek word, te’los, is translated “end.” The difference in the meaning of these two words can be illustrated by describing a talk given at the Kingdom Hall. The conclusion of the talk is the last section, in which the speaker spends a little time reminding the audience of what he has been discussing and then shows how that information applies to them. The end of the talk is when the speaker walks off the platform. In a similar way, Biblically speaking, the term “the conclusion of the system of things” refers to the period of time leading up to and including its end.

³ What of the “presence” that the apostles asked about? This is the translation of the Greek word pa·rou·siʹa. Christ’s pa·rou·siʹa, or presence, started with Jesus’ installation as King in heaven in 1914 and continues on to include the “great tribulation,” during which he comes to destroy the wicked. (Matt. 24:21) Many different things, including “the last days” of this wicked system of things, the gathering of the chosen ones, and their resurrection to heavenly life, occur during this presence of Jesus. (2 Tim. 3:1; 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:15-17; 2 Thess. 2:1) It could be said that the period constituting “the conclusion of the system of things” (syn·teʹlei·a) corresponds to or runs parallel with the period called Christ’s presence (pa·rou·siʹa).

An Extended Period of Time

⁴ The fact that the word pa·rou·siʹa refers to an extended period of time harmonizes with what Jesus said with regard to his presence. (Read Matthew 24:37-39.) Notice that Jesus did not liken his presence to the relatively short period of time during which the Flood occurred in Noah’s day. Rather, he compared his presence to the much longer period of time that led up to the Flood. Included therein were Noah’s building of the ark and his preaching work, right up until the time that the Flood finally arrived. Those events occurred over many decades. In a similar way, Christ’s presence includes the events leading up to and including the great tribulation.—2 Thess. 1:6-9.

⁵ Other Bible prophecies make it evident that Christ’s presence refers to an extended period of time and not merely to his coming to destroy the wicked. The book of Revelation portrays Jesus as riding on a white horse and being given a crown. (Read Revelation 6:1-8.) After being crowned as King in 1914, Jesus is pictured as going “forth conquering and to complete his conquest.” The account then shows that he is followed by riders seated on different-colored horses. These prophetically represent war, food shortages, and pestilence, all of which have occurred over the extended period of time that is referred to as “the last days.” We are seeing the fulfillment of this prophecy in our lifetime.

...

⁹ Jesus went on to say that his disciples would see the sign just as clearly as they would see “lightning, by its flashing, [which] shines from one part under heaven to another part.” (Read Luke 17:24-29.) It is of interest to note that Matthew 24:23-27 directly links the same point with the sign of Christ’s presence.

The Generation Seeing the Sign

¹⁰ Previously, this journal has explained that in the first century, “this generation” mentioned at Matthew 24:34 meant . . . . the wicked “generation” of unbelievers who would see both the features that would characterize “the conclusion of the system of things” (syn·teʹlei·a) and the system’s end (teʹlos).

¹¹ . . . Since Jesus did not use negative qualifiers when speaking to them about “this generation,” the apostles would no doubt have understood that they and their fellow disciples were to be part of the “generation” that would not pass away “until all these things [would] occur.”

^{. . .}

¹³ . . . . So Jesus must have been referring to his disciples when he made the statement: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.”

¹⁴ Unlike unbelievers, Jesus’ disciples would not only see the sign but also understand its significance. They would “learn” from the features of that sign and “know” their true meaning. . . .

¹⁵ . . . As a class, these anointed ones make up the modern-day “generation” of contemporaries that will not pass away “until all these things occur.” . . .

“Keep on the Watch”

¹⁶ More is needed, though, than merely recognizing the sign. Jesus went on to say: “What I say to you I say to all, Keep on the watch.” (Mark 13:37) This is of utmost importance to all of us today whether of the anointed or of the great crowd. Nine decades have passed since Jesus was installed as King in heaven in 1914. As challenging as it may be, we must prove ourselves ready and keep on the watch. Understanding that Christ is present invisibly in Kingdom power helps us to do that. It also alerts us to the fact that soon he will come to destroy his enemies “at an hour that [we] do not think likely.”—Luke 12:40.

¹⁷ Our understanding of the meaning of Christ’s presence helps to intensify our feelings of urgency. We know that Jesus is already present and has been reigning invisibly as King in heaven since 1914. Soon he will come to destroy the wicked and bring about vast changes to this entire globe. . . .

[Footnotes]

The meaning of pa·rou·siʹa is seen from the contrast that is made between the “presence” and “absence” of the apostle Paul both at 2 Corinthians 10:10, 11 and at Philippians 2:12. For a detailed discussion, see Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, pages 676-9.

See The Watchtower, November 1, 1995, pages 11-15, 19, 30, 31.

The time period during which “this generation” lives seems to correspond to the period covered by the first vision in the book of Revelation. (Rev. 1:10–3:22) This feature of the Lord’s day extends from 1914 until the last of the faithful anointed ones dies and is resurrected.—See Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand! page 24, paragraph 4.

. . .
*** end of quote ***

In the above we can see the beginning of the reasoning that would finally require the changing of the definition of the generation that corresponded to the time of the parousia. The logic was that the time was urgent because 9 decades had passed. This was already pushing the limits of what Jesus might have meant by a reasonable generation length, or lifespan.

This "generation" change was one of the biggest shifts in doctrine about the parousia since the first time that it was first determined that the parousia must have started in 1914. Fortunately, we are able to find and compare the logic and reasoning that provided the basis for that particular shift in definition, too:

The latest 2015 Watchtower Library CD, gives the reference in the Scripture Index for Matthew 24:27

*** dx30-85 Matthew ***
24:27   w75 275; w74 750; ka 320; ad 1068, 1336; g63 6/22 27; g62 5/8 8; nh 258; w50 239; el 222; w49 217-218; w40 253; g34 3/14 381-382

Looking up that reference we find the following:

*** quoting Watch Tower's reference in g34, p.381-382 ***

"Prior to 1914 and years thereafter we thought that our Lord's return dated from 1874; and we took it for granted that the parousia or presence dated from that time. . . . For some time now many have believed that the things mentioned in the great prophecy of Matthew twenty-four have application since 1914 and not before. It necessarily follows, then, that the presence or parousia of Christ, the "nobleman", could not be before 1914." *** end of quote ***