HollyW

2 hours ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

I think that is a misapplication of the two verses. God's qualities are clearly seen from "Creation" onward. Jesus was present as the word or logos when the universe was being made. Roman 1: 20; John 1: 1- 3. There is nothing contrary about using science to explain things. Do we not read in Job how Jehovah formed everything and put laws in place to govern those things? Did Job know everything at that time? What was Job's conclusion about creation? 

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.

1 hour ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

I'm a bit late to the table, but would like to share my thoughts using science as an example. One hundred years ago, science knew all they could know at that time. Today, with the exception of some, many of those facts have changed. Were they wrong? No, not for their time. Today, one hundred years later, yes they are. Why? Because there are various limitations in our abilities at any given time. One hundred years ago, we simply did not have the technology to allow us to see more of what's out there. Right now, we understand that we are limited in our abilities to understand some things, but we can predict what we think should be out there with mathematics and physics calculations. Often we have to wait for the technology to become available to test out those "theories". Some things get proven right, others get disproved and so we must move with the evidence.

So to with spiritual truths, in one hundred years time, spiritual truths will be quite different to how we know them today. A friend of mine died in 2009. Since then there have been so many changes that if he came back today he'd be mind blown! Now, think back a couple thousand years, the apostle Paul was given a vision of the third heaven. But he could speak about the things he saw. It is quite possible that part of what he saw was the spiritual paradise we enjoy today (according to current thinking) But what we know today, might be "words that cannot be spoken and that are not lawful for a man to say." Like scientists who wait for the technology to be invented to allow them to understand deeper truths about the universe, we too must wait on Jehovah, through Christ, to shine light on things we cannot see - isn't that what having faith is?

 

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.

16 minutes ago, LloydSt said:

Ok, let's start with this:

1. Shiwiii purported that Lloyd wrote: "if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that"       This tells me that you are following MEN and not God."

What I actually wrote was pretty much the opposite.  Here it is:

"It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you [Holly] want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels."

See those words "which is foolishness"? 

 

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.

3 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

But he did say he would believe it:

"In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels "

This demonstrates the power the WT has over his beliefs. He is willing to accept whatever he is told "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not." - wt Nov 2013

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:

Quote

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.

I believe he was saying that what I have in bold there is foolish.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

This tells me that you are following MEN and not God. 

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

47 minutes ago, LloydSt said:

Holly said:"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."

Another swing and a miss. 

Your conclusion that the reason Bible teachings are agreed upon as they are revealed is NOT because the governing body wants to be accepted as "infallible".

But I'm gonna give you a little hint.  What does 1 Cor. 1:10 say?

 

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?

1 hour ago, John Houston said:

My family found the truth in 1957, I the oldest child was baptized in 67, the date of 75, was never taught to us as nothing more than the end of 6000 yrs. of human existence on earth. We were never looking forward to Armageddon. My father bought a home for my mother and siblings, I went off to college. Just as I had planned. He became an elder in the congregation, which he stayed u til his death. Yes, this organization changes. It is imperfect. Each one that has been used by Jehovah in scripture has done no better. Why is this one set on such a high pedestal of standard? To be part of the Jewish organization there were regulations that would identify one was following after this nations standard of worship. The same is with us as Witnesses. Using the Bible, we do not tolerate what is normal in the mainstream as life choices. And ones who act and think are so removed.

 We we do good to follow after this way, even if we do not understand. Did not Peter do so? The way of everlasting life is here, not anywhere else. Life was onboard the arc, even if the person did not like Noah, he could have been save just by being onboard the ark. That is what we tell people today. Read your Bible for yourself, learn and come be among people of like faith and understanding. All the stumbling that happened in the past, is painful. But it harms that person and any who listens. Jehovah saw all what happened. Any wrongs will be made right. Any who died, will be raised. That is the beauty of this. We forget to see it fro Jehovah's viewpoint, which is what he is telling us to do. We are fighting, arguing among ourselves with all these posts, but in the end Jehovah as all the answers. If Sodom will come back, be there to see. Those you thought done wrong by this organization, be there to see Jehovah happily give them life again. That is what scripture tells us. Be there to see all the promises Jehovah holds out. Love we should have, not this arguing, the hate. That will not be there and any who foster such feelings will neither. Agape, my friends.

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. 

1 hour ago, LloydSt said:

>" 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. "

Again with the black and white thinking Holly?

It seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you want to boil it all down to where any truth, being "fluid", could change at any time.  In other words, if the Watchtower suddenly published an article that said that the Trinity doctrine was correct, then I'd believe that, which is foolishness.....on several levels

Again, please try and grasp the similar scientific concept wherein there are many things that are established, such as Newton's Laws and Archimedes Principle that will never change, at least for the normal environment in which we now live.  But the fact that there are many things that are established and that will never change, does not mean that in other more nuanced investigations, new things might be learned in time.  

You did hit the target however when you said this, "you've agreed by your dedication and baptism [that I wish to be identified] as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the organization you believe Jehovah is using."

Quite true.

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. 

44 minutes ago, John Houston said:

Why not? The nation do Israel was so chosen, were they a PERFECT EXAMPLE, of an organization being used by Jehovah God? Were there not lying, adultery, murder, stealing, sexual immorality going within those who had spiritual responsibility over those other tribesmen? Yet time after time Jehovah forgave and saved them when asked in repentance, correct? But today, it is beyond Jehovah to have such and orderly way of doing things, right? It everyone for themselves? Do ones own thing? Yet when the eunuch could not understand, he stated he would need help, fight? Many of us need help. Jehovah and his Son knows this. He has not changed in how he does things. Even with our technology, Jehovah uses imperfect men, to do his perfect will. His purpose, not ours, will be come to a close. Jesus said many would think they were doing what was correct, but he would deny knowing them. Remember? If this organization is such a one it also would be so denied! But that is for Jehovah, not humans. Jesus said we are drawn to the truth by Jehovah, not winning a draw, or lotto. So Jehovah did not give us a chance to learn about this good news, in a failing organization just as much he did not place faulty plans to build a means of survival with Noah in building the ark. Noah did just so, right? Following what was laid out by Jehovah, the ark gave Noah, his family and the animals safety during the deluge. The same holds true in these last days. Instead of fighting, we should be gathering ourselves aboard the only means of surviving these last days. We will not be doing them alone. One path, Jesus said, not many. Going through one door. That destination leading off to eternal life. That is why we still give priority to our ministry. Until Jehovah says, STOP! The doubts, questions are all answered in our daily reading of the Bible, our personal study, our meeting together with ones of like faith, our ministry, to show others. Our personal talk with Jehovah in prayer must not be overlooked. All what I just said is what I do for me and my family. For I have questions and doubt, but I do what I said in my answer. Then my faith, my armor is strong! Agape!

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?

14 hours ago, LloydSt said:

>" So tell me this, if you or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. You were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that you were right, what would that say to you?"

It would tell me that I lacked patience and was unwilling to wait on the organization Jehovah is using, and furthermore, thought more of myself and my own abilities than the organization that made so many things clear and published those things worldwide in over 700 languages as per Jesus' command.  And that I was quite happy relying on my own understanding rather than taking the advice at Proverbs 3:5 to NOT rely on my own understanding.  It would tell me than I had some serious Eve-like tendencies to do what I imagined was best.  

That goes straight to the "main plot", the main theme of the Bible, namely that Jehovah's ways are best, and I would hope that the elders would make that plain to me and I would pray that I would have the humility to accept that counsel.  I would hope that just because I hit on a point or points that were ultimately correct that I wouldn't feel superior to others or try and push ahead.  If I lived in Jesus' day and happened on the info that he said that the disciples couldn't bear, I would hope that I wouldn't start telling my fellow disciples about what I discovered, knowing that Jesus would reveal what he had to reveal at the time he thought most appropriate, even as he said.

And so I would make a promise to myself that I would never again press my own ideas onto others, flagrantly trusting in myself.  I would realize that I might get something right this time, but that might not be true the next time.  I would hope that I would be humble and not let my pride force me to try and justify myself.

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.

7 hours ago, Batwell Soko said:

I feel either you are misled or you criticise unnecessarily.

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?

2 hours ago, Queen Esther said:

 

Do  you  know  ASL -  HollyW ??

SL  is  signing   *WORDS*  &  pictures !  but  never  dumb  blowing  kisses....

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

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

So tell me this, if you or someone understood a scripture to mean something and it was in disagreement with the WT. You were reproved for this because it went against the org, and later it became that you were right, what would that say to you? You were forced to believe the WT instead of what you knew to be correct. Wouldn't this be the same as those folks who died without a organ transplant? Since it has changed, is the blood on the hands of the WT over these people? You are required to adhere to every teaching they tell you, without question and without harboring your own personal thoughts on the matter, right? How does that make any sense? I mean that's what those people did who died without an organ transplant. 

 

a side note, the issue may be a small one but still addresses my point:

Are the people of Sodom and Gomorrah going to be resurrected? 

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

these are the answers given to the witnesses over the years. Is this progression? Is this light getting brighter? or is this a who knows we'll just fly by the seat of our pants because all of the witnesses HAVE to believe what we tell them? 

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.

2 hours ago, LloydSt said:

Suggest "Witness" that you read my last post. 

Further, I lived through 1975.  Guess what?  No heartbreak.  I think the heartbreak you speak of is vastly smaller than one might imagine.  I know of no one back then who experienced heartbreak.  We, as you said, adapted and it wasn't a problem.  Everyone I knew thought that 1975 could be an interesting date, but our loyalty to Jehovah was much greater than that date.  We don't serve Jehovah based on a date anyway.   

And by the logic you suggest, there would be no progress since everything would have to be exactly correct from the get-go.  That's the mistake they cling to in Christendom and so they are locked into things like the "Nicene Creed" of 325 and 381 C.E. 

But progress doesn't work like that.  And teachers don't teach like that.  I took astronomy in college, pre-Hubble, and some of the things they believed and taught back then turned out to need to be adjusted, changed, and reversed.  But progress has been made and we know more about the physical heavens now than we ever did.  In fact, you'll commonly hear professors of every discipline regularly say, "It turns out that........", indicating that at one time they believed one thing, but after more discovery and consideration they've reconsidered and come to a better understanding of a subject. 

Why are you so adverse to the logical progression of Biblical knowledge, the steadily growing light of progress and understanding?  Fear of not getting it exactly right could easily be the killer of progress, and certainly much worse than remaining stagnant because one might feel obligated to stick to what was originally presented.  We search for truth. We grope for truth. We pray for truth.  But that doesn't mean we always get it perfectly correct the first time.  Sometimes it's not the right time as in when Jesus withheld info from the disciples because at a certain point of time they were unable to bear it.  But progress comes in time, if one doesn't allow themselves to be stumbled, and if they remain loyal to Jehovah, whose organization feeds Jesus' sheep as they were instructed to do....now in over 700 languages and throughout the earth, as per Jesus commands.  That fact alone should be enough to cause a person to examine themselves to see where they may have erred, as opposed to trying to blame someone else.

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:

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:

6 hours ago, Witness said:

The WT holds fast to the term “food at the proper time”, which also would be considered “new light”.  As you have brought out Holly, James 1:17 says there is no variation or shifting shadows if we keep in God’s light.  Can we not all agree that adaptation is expected when changes are enforced by the organization?  If one looks over the entire span of its history and its changes, we also must consider how these changes affected thousands of lives who held fast to the teaching of the moment.  There is a WT entitled, “Rejoice in the knowledge of Jehovah”.  (2001)  Would those who embraced either an early generation teaching or the 1914/1925 date of Armageddon, the suggested 1975 date also of Armageddon, rejoice in the knowledge of “Jehovah” if their lives were turned upside down by such anticipation?  Would Jesus rejoice in such changes if he sees the heartbreak of those who put trust in a present teaching?

 

It is easy to narrow our focus down to ourselves and our ability to adjust to present teachings, shutting our eyes to those who stumbled through years of big change.  When thinking of Rutherford sending brothers and sisters away as outcasts because they questioned his leadership role; and then, in the 70’s a theocratic “governing body” was formed, does this not make one wonder what our Father thinks of such oppressive man rule in any form, yesterday or today?  And those that were cast out, what happened to them?  Does God view them as the unrighteous ones, or Rutherford, since his desire as sole ruler was later changed by the introduction of a governing body?  Jer 23:1

 

 Are such changes enforced at the loss of sheep really a “safeguard” provided by God? 

 

“Jehovah provides something else to safeguard us: spiritual food at the proper time”.  W 02/12/15 p 13-18

 

Requirement to believe past teachings appears to be only a requirement if it stays the same.  Once “new light” is introduced, this is considered truth!  Which leads one to believe that truth in the organization wears many faces.

 

“For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I and that “those days were cut short” by Jehovah in 1918 when the war ended so that the remnant would have the opportunity to preach the good news to all nations…Thus, the great tribulation was thought to have three phases: There would be a beginning (1914-1918), the tribulation would be interrupted (from 1918 onward), and it would conclude at Armageddon.” 

 

“Previously, we thought that the judging of people as sheep or goats would take place during the entire period of the last days from 1914 onward. We concluded that those who rejected the Kingdom message and who died before the start of the great tribulation would die as goats—without the hope of a resurrection.”

 

“In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) We understood that the “arriving” mentioned in verse 46 was linked to the time when Jesus came to inspect the spiritual condition of the anointed in 1918 and that the appointment of the slave over all the Master’s belongings occurred in 1919. (Mal. 3:1) However, a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy indicates that an adjustment in our understanding of the timing of certain aspects of Jesus’ prophecy is needed. “

 

“After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, and it would finish at Armageddon.”  “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be"

 

“So we needed to change the way we understood some parts of the prophecy.”

 

All the above quotes are from WT 13/7/15 pp 3-8

 

David Splane, when introducing the new teaching of the generation alluded to liking the “idea”. Doesn't this sound like it is destined to change, simply because it is an idea?  Jer 23:26-32  

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”  2 Tim 4:3,4

 

If one is expected to assimilate and idea set forward by a group of men who admit that they “thought” their teachings were right in the past, by listening and embracing such new ideas, isn’t this slaving for men and not Christ? 1 Cor 7:23  Jesus promised that each one us that approaches him directly with our earnest desire will know the truth.  John 8:32,36; John 5:39-44; Prov 2:1-9

 

If we consider how often the WT uses terms such as “likely”, “evidently”, “seems so”, “must be”,  we must realize that assumptions and personal speculations made by such anointed ones are not in the likeness of Christ’s teachings, who spoke with authority.  John 16:13,14    Why are these speculations still being made, if not because of a snowball effect?  

 

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”  John 14:26

 

In order for any of us to rejoice in the knowledge of God, shouldn’t we question any teaching from an anointed one, not gulping it down and expecting God to forgive the misleading of thousands with thoughts and ideas?  Is this truly how the Helper brings to remembrance all things from Christ?  Matt 12:33  Would not past failed teachings in need of an overhaul, be considered “thorns” and stumbling blocks, to those who wholeheartedly had accepted them as truth?  Luke 6:43-45

 

“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?  Num 23:19

 

 

But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.  Matt 5:37 (Eph 4:25)

 

“As we receive teachings from Jehovah, it should be our desire to gain “accurate knowledge.” Without it, how could we apply God’s Word properly in our own lives or explain it correctly to others? (Colossians 3:10; 2 Timothy 2:15) Gaining accurate knowledge requires that we read carefully, and if a portion is deep, we may need to read it more than once in order to grasp the sense of it.” Keep a firm grip on the word of God  Wt chapt 3 pp 23-31 

 

 http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2014/06/operation-of-error.html

 

 

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.

5 hours ago, LloydSt said:

Holly, as I have explained several times now, investigation of Bible truths is similar to investigation of the physical heavens or the human cell or a jillion other matters. Progression in understanding is the natural normal way for things to go.  There may be the occasional misunderstanding, but the path is generally positive, and upward.  Quibbling about whether new information conflicts with the older, to what extent, and whether or not that would violate Russell's maxim, "new light never extinguishes older light," has little value.   It does seem obvious however that Russell was likely speaking about basic, well-established truths and not looks at things that may need need further clarification.  In physics, math, and astronomy for instance, there are well established truths such as Newton's Laws and Archimedes' Principle.  But that doesn't mean that nothing new can be learned and that adjustments can't be made where needed.   

Then too, as was written in the Revelation Climax book:

"It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times."

I'm certain Russell would agree that what he wrote was not infallible, don't you?  

Look, in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940;s, 1950's and so on, Astronomy was taught to students.  There were tests to be taken and answers had to be given according to the progress in knowledge up to that point in time.  In the 1920's the answers given on tests might have resulted in a high score.  But those same answers might have resulted in a much lower grade in 2016.  That's how things work.  Progress.  An increase in light or knowledge.  I don't think we can define exactly just to what extent Jehovah points the way or to what extent we grope in the direction he gives, but no matter.  He remains the Father of Light and we do well to progress in understanding.   

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.

5 hours ago, John Houston said:

Then you did not understand my answer. Jehovah did not chose the first come first serve on Christians, when it comes with those who are ones sealed as corulers with Christ. It seems to be everyone's thinking that all Christians who DIED from the death of Jesus were in line for this "gift" , whereas scripture clearly tells us that Jehovah makes the choice of the 144000, who would be with his Son in the heavenly kingdom. His choice, not their deaths, or martyrdom. So no matter how many from after Jesus' death until now Jehovah will only choose 144000. And he has not finished with that yet. That number will not be completed until Jesus gathers those who are alive to heaven. Any who are chosen could not be sealed, so things could change. Dealing with imperfect humans. Any of the 3000 who were baptized were not all faithful until death, correct?  That is why your reasoning is flawed.

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.

11 hours ago, LloydSt said:

How can you miss the point of the illustration HollyW?  It is simple, practical, reasonable, and follows other disciplines wherein one attempts to understand a thing in a logical progressive way.  Nor is there any conflict with God being a person of Light, without darkness, as I have already explained. Jehovah doesn't just spoon feed those who want to serve him.  He has given them incredible brains and reasoning abilities and allows them to pursue the truth rather than just forcing it down their throats.  Along the way, those who are humble can grow in understanding by admitting that they may have been off a bit initially and are willing to adjust to what has become clearer.  Again, this is the clear advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have other many other religions.

Your view of Russell/Rutherford change in views was covered in the illustration wherein one tries to discern what the seedling 30 yards away was.  One might not understand initially just what sort of plant that is.  One might get the wrong idea and have to change one's view in light of new information.  That could even happen several times.  But eventually the evidence starts to mount and conclusions become more solid.  This is common sense.

If your point is that the light must be increasing in a strictly linear fashion, then I would suggest you take a step back and view the forest before you view the trees.  Views on things like who the superior authorities are went back and forth for a time.  So what? Eventually that became clear, and if one can step back, one can see the general slope favoring a positive, clearer direction of understanding overall.  Again, this is simple reasoning.  As one grows in knowledge, insight, and understanding older ideas that may have missed the mark are discarded, just as they are in the scientific community, and the truth becomes ever clearer. 

(Note: You said: "You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all."

That is correct.  The darkness referred to the major misunderstandings that Christendom still promotes today, and out of which Jehovah's people came via a generally progressive and positive beam of light)

 

Holley, here is where one can get into trouble.  That is by holding people to standards that are unreasonable and that reflect a strictly "black and white only" point of view. 

Someone says "progressive light" and you focus on the definition of "progressive" instead of the incredible advances of knowledge.  See the point?

Become humble in your understanding.  Open your mind and you will be much more likely to find you way.

 

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. 

12 hours ago, biddy2331@gmail.com said:

you just want to cause trouble and yet give no reasons yourself

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?

Hi again, Lloyd,

Let's take your illustration and in the light you and your father had at first, the stump looked like a bear.  Did your father require that you believe it was a bear in order for you to be approved association?  And did he require you to also teach others the stump was a bear on pain of shunning?  Of course not, so there's the difference in reality that your illustration does not speak to.  Obviously it was still too dark for either of you say the truth was that the stump was a bear.  This is where 1 John 1:5 comes in because the light you were using was not from God: This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. " This verse could not have been written by someone peering into the darkness and seeing a bear where there was a stump.

Look for a moment at the practical application of what Russell wrote.  In the first light that he had, he looked at the faithful slave and saw 144,000 persons.  Later he came to believe he had been looking at one person, himself, and so did all of his followers.  This could be a case of adding more light and showing that it was just shadows that made the faithful slave appear to be 144,000 people when really there was just the one.  For thirty years this was what everyone in the WTS was seeing, but then the next president of the WTS, Judge Rutherford, said the faithful slave was 144,000 person, not just one, in fact he said it did violence to the scriptures to exclude any of the 144,000.  Do you see how the light went back to what it had been in the beginning?  That means that if Russell's light had increased, Rutherford's light had to have dimmed or gone out.

The current governing body of the WTS has in effect put out both the light Russell used to see just himself as the faithful slave and also put out the light Rutherford was using to see the faithful slave as all of the 144,000, and have turned on another light that shows just themselves as the faithful slave, and only when they are meeting as the faithful slave.

If not turning light on and off the way Russell spoke against doing, it surely is showing a dimmer switch being used.

You had felt I was misinterpreting your illustration but you offered it as a way to answer my question about being required to believe something that was not being taught when you were baptized.  You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all.  If the teaching that was changed was akin to what you pointed to as being seen in the darkness, can that teaching be said to be a Bible teaching that one must believe in order to be approved association?

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Interesting question.

Baptism is a symbol of dedication to Jehovah, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. It isn't dedication to a teaching but to a person. (some might want to argue that the forgoing statement is a teaching of course, but I am not going to get into a "who created God?" loop). 

So if I am dedicated to Jehovah, then I believe that no lasting harm can come to me if I fulfil the terms of that dedication. I am quite happy to comply with "teachings" that change from what I learned prior to dedication simply because I did not dedicate myself to a body of instructions. It's a bit like what Paul described at 1Cor.9:17.

Thanks for the reply, Eoin.  I appreciate having your thoughts on this, though I'm not sure about the application of 1 Corinthians 9:17 to this subject.

Since the WTS does require acceptance of all of its teachings in order for you to be approved for other JWs to associate with, is that what you mean by fulfilling the terms of your dedication, to be willing to change your beliefs if and when your religious leaders tell you to?

1 hour ago, John Houston said:

In all my reading of scripture about these ones sealed for life with Chirst, they have been chosen and sealed; all in heaven. We seem to be trying to figure the number of those dead with those still alive. Not going to happen. Not part of this number until you have died, thus being sealed as anointed part of what John wrote about. None of the guessing? Right? There will be only 144000, we know that as fact, our math as we try to count will be flawed. If we change our outlook, and remember that number is only correct, from a heavenly standpoint, not an earthly one. If Demas had not found the world so appealing, wouldn't he be apart of that number, or those who turned into the wolves among us?, as Paul warned? But these ones are not, as those thousand baptized at Pentecost who faded away, correct? The number is final when Jesus collects whoever is faithful when he calls them, however many it is. For now the number may be growing for Jehovah may in fact still be chasing ones of that class. What makes people think Jehovah picked the first come first served? He is going to give the gift of immortality, this to be shared with his Son, would not others who would be alive centuries later be worthy of this gift? Would not Jehovah know this? From the time of his Son death and this promise, until the time Jesus comes for those who will fulfill the final number, during that time frame, Jehovah will have chosen 144000 worthy ones to serve as kings and priests, not the first numbers of martrys to fill the count. Just reading scripture, reasons as did Paul. Common sense! Agape!

Hi John,

I'm not trying to figure the number of those dead with those still alive, I'm trying to figure how there could possibly have been less than 144,000 Christians in nearly 1900 years, especially in view of the nearly 1 million Christian martyrs the WT article cites in just the first few centuries of Christianity's history.  

5 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Doesn't The Baptism Questions Require You To Dedicate Yourself To The Organization?  

You're probably thinking of one of the questions asked just before being baptized:  "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?" 

I wonder if maybe this is the reason they believe they are required to change their beliefs, this association their baptism identifies them as having with the WTS?  That would make sense, wouldn't it, that having been baptized into that relationship, they would expect to continue adapting their beliefs about what the Bible teaches based on what the WTS tells them it teaches, even if it cancels out what they believed when they were baptized.