HollyW

The edit option expired so I'll attempt it this way: Actually it was the darkness of 1 John 1:5 that you said "referred to the major misunderstandings that Christendom still promotes today,"

1. If it's just a mere attempt at understanding the Bible, should it really be presented as being the truth that all members of the WTS must accept or be cast out? These attempts, as you call them, by the WTS were said to be the true teachings of the Bible and had to be accepted in order for a person to qualify as approved association for the other members of the WTS. 2. Could you be more specific? Earlier I think you said the winds of Ephesians 4:14 were referring to the doctrines Christians have believed for nearly two centuries. Did you have something else in mind now?

Thanks Charlie, but up until a few years ago you were saying the chain of command was Jehovah > Jesus > Faithful Slave (144,000). And that had been changed from being just the one man, Russell, which belief his successor felt was doing violence to scripture by excluding the rest of the 144,000. Was this also an error, as they say 1975 was, that Jehovah permitted the faithful slave to make in order for them to understand they need to always look to him and the Bible?

I was just referring to the cute drawing of the sheep in your profile. How do those scriptures support the idea of being required to accept certain teachings you believed were the true teachings of the Bible, only to have them changed later?

Where you and I differ is in using new discoveries in science as a basis for changing what you believed the Bible was really teaching when you were baptized. Paul certainly did not expect what he was teaching to keep changing. Discovering another planet, or that a planet really isn't a planet, can not be used as an excuse for being wrong about, say, the identity of the faithful slave, or about certain medical procedures that once were banned as being displeasing to God. Or was that what your thoughts were when you were told the identity of the faithful slave wasn't what you had been taught it was---reasoning that since science had been wrong about a planet, it's okay for Christians to be wrong about who the faithful slave is? btw....love the sheep.

Thank you for joining in Mr V. Others have also posted using the comparison of science to what we believe the Bible teaches. I don't agree with this comparison because of what the Bible tells us. For instance, Paul did not expect his teaching to change: Galatians 1: 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! He also cautioned against being "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine," Ephesians 4:14.

Hi Lloyd, I think the point Shiwii is making is that you would accept the Trinity doctrine, or any other doctrine you were told to accept, in order to, as you've said, not break unity with the other members of the WTS. This would be looking to men and not to God.

You're right that in that if it actually did happen, he would believe it, but he was saying the opposite because in context he was paraphrasing what I had said: I believe he was saying that what I have in bold there is foolish.

I don't think Lloyd meant he would change his belief about the Trinity, but quite the opposite, if I read his post correctly.

If the men on the governing body did claim to be infallible, what would that change for you? As you posted earlier, 1 Cor. 1:10 was Paul admonishing the Christians in Corinth to be in agreement and not be looking to a person nor promoting one person over another, even if that person were himself or one of the apostles. It's a call for Christian unity, not a call for uniform acceptance of teachings that keep changing. Don't you count on those in other churches to ignore this very scripture and change their beliefs to yours?

John, when you say you found the truth......what is that? Did you find the one who is the Truth, Christ Jesus? Or are you saying you found a religious organization whose teachings you agreed with at the time, even though many of the things being taught as truth are no longer considered to be the truth? If your family was taught only that 1975 marked the end of 6000 years of human existence on the earth and nothing more than that, you could not have been very zealous for what the WTS was printing and saying. Children were told they would not finish school before Armageddon came, JWs were praised for selling their properties in order to pioneer until the end came in 1975. Even the governing body admitted their own culpability in raising JW hopes for the end to come in 1975, saying the date had been based on false premises.

If your belief changed to what you think is the truth, what you changed it from wasn't the truth. I mean, you don't believe you're changing what is true, do you? For instance, for many years you believed the truth was that the identity of the faithful slave was the 144,000. You don't believe that's the truth any more, you believe the truth is that the governing body is the faithful slave. That means what you used to believe is no longer the truth, even though you called it the truth when you believed it. If the men on the WTS governing body received new light about the Trinity teaching, I'm sure they would approach this new teaching in bits that you would be able to accept and believe are based on the Bible, just as all the other changes that you have already accepted. After all, they already say if you read the Bible alone without reading anything else, you'll end up believing in the Trinity. That might be a way for them to receive new light about the Trinity, by reading the Bible alone or in groups. Being identified as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the WTS, you've accepted at your baptism that you will change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them.

Why do you believe the WTS is, as you've said, "the only means of surviving these last days"? Surely your answer wouldn't be because it has just as much lying, adultery, murder, stealing, sexual immorality as Israel did. The answer of "Why not?" sounds to me like you're saying the WTS is as good a choice as any other Christian organization. Yes, I do remember Jesus' words at Matthew 7:21-22 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' " Do remember what he said must happen for us to see and enter the kingdom of heaven?

It was said in answer to my question about baptism that a person should be willing to wait on the organization Jehovah is using. Why do you believe the WTS is the organization Jehovah is using?

Lloyd, I believe you've presented exactly what baptism as a JW means, "to wait on the organization Jehovah is using", and that means you've agreed, by your dedication and baptism identifying you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the organization you believe Jehovah is using, to change your beliefs about what the Bible teaches whenever that organization tells you to change them. This tends to give "the truth" a rather fluid quality.

Thank you for sharing your feelings, Batwell. Since you didn't quote anyone, I'm not sure whose post made you feel that way. Could you elaborate a bit on the opinion you've given as to who is misled or being unnecessarily critical? And, did you have any feelings about how you would answer the question in the OP?

Yes, QE, I do, enough to know "thank you" looks a lot like blowing kisses.

It's the same with "this generation: of Matthew 24:34: Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur. [NWT] In a recent publication, the question is asked about "This generation." Did Jesus have in mind unbelievers? No. (see pg 11 of God's Kingdom Rules, 2014). Up to 1914, the answer was "Yes." Then in 1927, the answer was "No." But in 1952 it was "Yes" again. And it continued to be "Yes" until 2008 when it became "No" again.

Lloyd, even the governing body back in the 1980's admitted they had promoted more than just an "interest" in the 1975 date, saying that considerable expectation had been aroused by them in WT publications which made 1975 more of a probability than a mere possibility. Also, they had commended those who had sold their homes and property and planned to finish out the rest of their days before 1975 in the pioneer service: [km 5/74 p.3] Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.—1 John 2:17. But when 1975 turned out to be incorrect, these same ones were accused of having an unbalanced view and were chided for taking 1975 so seriously: [w76 7/15 p.440]It may be that some who have been serving God have planned their lives according to a mistaken view of just what was to happen on a certain date or in a certain year. They may have, for this reason, put off or neglected things that they otherwise would have cared for. But they have missed the point of the Bible’s warnings concerning the end of this system of things, thinking that Bible chronology reveals the specific date.

Thank you, Witness, for your very powerful and insightful post. I think you can see that even though the men on the governing body say they don't claim to be infallible, what they determine to be a Bible teaching must be accepted just as though they do claim to be infallible.

I don't think Russell believed he was quibbling in his comments about new light never extinguishing old light. Accepting that your understanding of what the Bible teaches will keep changing as the natural and normal way of things (and because that understanding is coming from fallible men), is it reasonable for the WTS to require the entire range of these teachings be believed and taught as the truth on pain of excommunication?

In sign language "thank you" looks a lot like blowing kisses.

I understand your answer perfectly, John, and it confirms what I posted, that according to the WTS there were less than 144,000 Christians in nearly 1900 years. As the reader J.A. from the Dominican Republic pointed out when he wrote to the Society about it, being one of the 144,000 was the only position open to Christians during all that time. [wt 1/15/1952 QFR] Questions From Readers● According to the article “Hated for His Name” in the September 1, 1951, Watchtower, hundreds of thousands of Christians died in the “ten persecutions” starting in Nero’s time, 144,000 dying in Egypt alone during one of the persecutions. How can this be harmonized with the Scriptural limitation of 144,000 placed on the number being in Christ’s body, and which position was the only one open to Christians during those centuries?—J.A., Dominican Republic. And the Society's reply shows that the vast majority of those they mentioned in their article who were martyred for their faith as Christians were not real Christians at all, but only "professed Christians". It's kind of ironic that they would be thought to be examples for JWs today who face similar persecutions.

I don't think I missed the point of your illustration at all. I understood it just as you've stated it: "It simply shows that what may appear to be one thing in the darkness, may prove to be something else entirely in the light and upon a closer examination." That was why I posted what I did when I replied to it. If at your baptism you understood something to that effect, such as 'this is what the Bible appears to be teaching at present, but it may prove to be something else with more light and upon a closer examination, so let's wait for that light and that closer examination', then your illustration might fit, but I don't think that was your understanding, was it? Nor was the teaching about, say, the faithful slave, presented to you as being something that was still in darkness, was it. If we were to apply your illustration to the teaching about the identity of the faithful slave, it would cast Russell and Rutherford and those who came after them as being in the dark about this for nearly the entire existence of the WTS. Perhaps our views of what progressive light means are different. From Russell's own description it would not be the sort of light that extinguishes what he called "older light". His application of this to his teachings was, "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth." That would be new light extinguishing older light. Clearly the differing views about the identity of the faithful slave and also the identity of the superior powers were exactly what Russell said should not happen, that is, "the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another." He refers to the same scripture I did, James 1:17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. It might be a good idea to read again what he said in the February 1881 ZWT p.3: If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony and thus give increase of light: So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another.

Hi Biddy, Perhaps you'd be willing to explain how my question has troubled you. Evidently you thought of an answer to the OP that has made you uncomfortable. Let's talk about it, okay?