Anna

And yet one of my good friends left on account of this article. (Of course there were other factors, but this was a nail in the coffin). Evidently you can't please everyone....

I understand what you are saying. However most people who do not believe in bad spirits do not believe in God either. They are atheists.

After reading both @Eoin Joyce and @JW Insider very good arguments, from both perspectives, I may be stating the obvious: In my opinion, the only way one could make sense of the overlapping generation, is if one assumed that the anointed (both groups) living WITHIN the set period of time, is not dependent on group two actually seeing the START of the sign. Does Matthew 24 support this idea? Could this be put in a nutshell.

What difference will it make, or how will it help them if they don't believe bad spirits exist?

Even better than that: "accept Jesus Christ as your Lord, Redeemer, and Teacher, in any kind of Christian fellowship that proves to be of help in your endevour to lead a Christian life"

The ambiguity of Biblical texts is a matter of opinion in itself. I do not see any ambiguity in the texts describing the relationship between Jesus and his father. Your statement though does make me think of this scripture: Luke 8:9,10 “But his disciples asked him what this illustration meant. He said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of God, but for the rest it is in illustrations so that, though looking, they may look in vain, and though hearing, they may not get the sense”. Also regarding the apparent ambiguity of Jesus’ statement regarding his blood: John 6:60, 66 “When they heard this, many of his disciples said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?”.......... “Because of this, many of his disciples went off to the things behind”. In fact, why even have the Bible the size it is? If according to your reasoning certain passages in the Bible are unnecessary. Why not shrink the whole Bible into: "Believe in Jesus, do good (according to what you believe is good), and you will be saved"

In addition, the authors in your link talk about diversity of views as if there were MANY diverse views when in fact there were only a very few, the main ones being (as they mention) the Gentiles, and circumcision. Both these issues were understandable, and were solved. Other minor issues regarding who should do what (taking care of widows, proselytizing etc.) was also taken care of and resolved, the latter being normal issues of everyday life and organization and not related to doctrine. Therefore I do not think the authors are being entirely honest, because they make it appear as if right from the beginning there were significant schisms, whereas in fact these significant schisms did not really appear until the most significant schism of them all presented itself namely: the identity of Christ. Up until then, before the Greek Christians started mixing philosophy into the pure simple teachings of Christ and Paul etc. the identity of Christ was quite plain and simple: That Christ was the son of God, the firstborn of all creation, whom God sent down from heaven to be born of a virgin as a perfect sinless human". This is how all the very early disciples of Christ understood it, as is apparent in their writings. Then forward wind some decades later after the last of the apostle’s death, and you begin to see the results of the influence of human philosophies in the thinking of bishops such as Athanasius, the father of the Trinity. This is where Christianity loses its grip on the truth entirely and gets smothered by “weeds”. So it’s rather misleading to say that “early Christians struggled to define for themselves the identity of Jesus and the meaning of his message” as the article suggests, and apply it to the 1st century congregations. Paul’s “struggles” with some of the congregations were of an entirely different nature. The teachings about Christ were clear. Also, it is interesting to note, that although some of Christ's early disciples evidently got very emotional over some issues, (Paul & Barnabas) these did not linger, and definitely did not result in bloodshed. On the contrary, arguments over the identity of the Christ in the 2nd Century led to some nasty stuff, including murder. How Christian was that? Not only that, but bishops were now in the position of being able to meddle in politics. So much so that as one author writes: "...great Bishops were required to be as comfortable in the exercise of power as in the pulpit" ......."he played a vital mediating role between imperial authority and its subjects" ....."Did the Emperor require more soldiers and supplies for the army? He depended upon the Bishop to help convince unwilling subjects to cooperate with the authorities." (Richard Rubinstein - "When Jesus became God" p.51) How Christian was that, when Christ gave clear example of how his followers should behave regarding the authorities. And indeed, it's nothing like how Paul handled matters with the authorities. Another interesting aspect shows how the confusion of the identity of the Christ may have got it's beginning. It's to do with worship. The above referenced author goes on to say: "These were explosive ideas. Faced with the problem that had confronted all Christians since St. Paul -- how to be a monotheist believing in only one God, yet still worship Jesus Christ" (p.55). Of course the author assumes this WAS a problem among the earliest Christians, whereas it really was not. Christians in Paul's day did not worship Christ....

“So who and where, then, are the true Christians today? Obviously the same as in every century from the time of Christ, namely, people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord, Redeemer, and Teacher, and who may be found in any kind of Christian fellowship that proves to be of help in their endevour to lead a Christian life”. Jonsson So, on those premises we must conclude that only some individuals scattered throughout Christendom have the truth. Without actually knowing they have the truth of course. Or, we must assume that God and Christ are not concerned with truth, and that there is no real scriptural measuring rod for a Christian. All very convenient......and unscriptural. Just a few comments regarding the link you posted The first author states: “The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers. Each of those groups probably had a very different take on what the significance of Jesus was. I like the way he uses probably. Then he goes on to cite examples to support his opinion, eg. regarding those who “insisted more strongly on observance of Jewish laws in the Torah competed with those who were more open to admission of gentiles without imposing the burden of the Torah on them” This is quite understandable. Some Jewish Christians did have trouble transitioning. However, there was nothing wrong in itself to be adhering to the Torah, as after all the Torah had been provided by God himself, and is part of the Holy Bible, and ALL scripture is inspired and beneficial...... Then the author goes on to say: “There were others who we meet again in the Book of Acts, who apparently stood in continuity with the activity of John the Baptist and did not know the baptism that the Pauline Christians, at least, knew”. This is true, and Paul corrected them. Then he goes on to say “So there was much more diversity in the early stages of the Christian movement than the Book of Acts suggest....” Yet he himself had just used the book of Acts to cite two examples (of what he regarded as diversity)!....?? Then the other author goes on to admit that: “So we have a beginning with great diversity, and the slow process, particularly in the second century, to establish a greater unity among the very diverse churches. Already a process in Paul's churches themselves, because that's why Paul writes letters, because he wants to make sure that these newly converted Christians in Ephesus and Philippi and Thessaloniki and in Corinth have some unanimity in their beliefs” Why did Paul do that? Because he knew unanimity was important because it was the will of God and Christ. Also, saying that the churches were very diverse is possible in the 2nd century, (apostasy)but not applicable to the extent he has in mind in the 1st Century. The next author goes on to say “And that in fact early Christianity, by moving into different realms of the different universes of thought and of religion in the Greco-Roman world, adopted a lot of concepts from other religions, lots of them pagan religions which enriched the early Christian movement tremendously”. Here we are already moving outside of the perimeters of the Christian congregations established by Paul and his contemporaries and are moving into the beginnings of Apostasy which Jesus and Paul foretold, and Peter and other wrote about. Matthew 24: 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction..” 2 Peter 2:1 “However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them” Etc. etc. There are many many scriptures where undesirable deviations are mentioned. Including the one of Jesus when he inspected the congregations (Revelation) and found some adhering to the sect of Nicolaus, and he commended the congregation for not putting up with that sect. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 identifies why the lawless one is judged adversely : “That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness...” Then in the next verse (13) he contrasts it thus: “ However, we are obligated always to thank God for you, brothers loved by Jehovah, because from the beginning God selected you for salvation by sanctifying you with his spirit and by your faith in the truth..” And further in verse 15: “So, then, brothers, stand firm and maintain your hold on the traditions that you were taught, whether it was by a spoken message or by a letter from us”. Bear in mind, I am referencing these scriptures because of established fundamental truths in the 1st Century, those I discussed in my previous post such as the identity of God and Christ, the soul etc. I am not here suggesting interpretation of chronology etc. is included. Further to your arguments, I know doctrines of the Trinity, soul etc. are a "massive involved topic" once you delve outside of the realms of logic and scripture. You are assuming I have no knowledge of the "issues" you mentioned. I do. But each of those topics argued require their own space.....they cannot be discussed orderly on this one thread.

True. Forgot about that scripture. Also true, because people are dying and being born all the time. It's not as if this process stops for a time being just to allow a group of people of similar age to be encompassed. In any case, secondary Biblical applications always differ, (especially when it comes to time) to the first application. I haven't finished going through all yours and JWInsider's posts yet though. Got stuff to do. But I am sure I will have some comments later, for what they are worth

In our human, earthly experience, everything has a beginning and an end. It would seem logical therefore that Jesus would not toy with the idea of bringing some abstract meaning of time into the equation. And indeed he didn’t as we have already confirmed; the end of Jerusalem DID indeed come within the lifetime of those people to whom he promised it would come, and he called that span of time (from when he told them, to when it happened) a generation. I don’t want to seem ignorant, but has there ever been an explanation as to why the generation (in the second fulfillment) cannot be of a similar length to the generation of the first fulfillment? (Besides of course the fact that it’s almost all gone, could be said passed). Also when Jesus said people would be able to lift their heads up, because they would recognize the closeness to a specific end, and know their deliverance is close, and that they would come to see the end (obviously), could he have meant something different when applying it to the second fulfillment? Could the above be applied to ones who have already died? i.e. the first group? edit: That's a rhetorical question, because obviously it couldn't.....But the first group DID lift their heads up knowing their deliverance was near, even though they died. But obviously when they were resurrected, that deliverance met it's fulfillment in their case. So it was true. But in this case we would have to disregard the statement that the generation would NOT pass away because it did...So hence I see the need to have to extend the generation with the overlapping explanation. Unless there was another explanation.....?

Whoever inserted the link into my post above please take it away. I do not appreciate having my post tampered with, without my permission. If you deem it necessary or helpful to include that link, then please insert it under your own post. If anything like this happens again I will stop commenting, and I will withdraw all my other comments, because I will not be able to trust that what I post, actually stays that way. Thank you. P.S.I don't have any objections to my post being moved under a more appropriate topic, but it would have been nice to let me chose my own heading.....

Thankfully yes. It's under "talks" in the broadcast website. I had to look up the word acerbic as its not one I had ever used. Now I can add it to my vocabulary. As per usual for words it has several meanings, so out of the choice presented I picked the one most suitable in my opinion. Since 1914 is not really an emotive subject like the trinity, blood etc. but is more of a topic for ridicule, scoffing and cynicism.......apparently acerbic comes from acid, so to me that kind of fit in quite well as I have seen that from opposers as you have. Made me think of "aunty acid"...

This is just another classic case of misplaced blame. i.e.. hold the the whole organization responsible, not just the individual (the perpetrator)

Yes. Actually I was going to bring up the matter of faith, but then I changed my mind as I thought it was going off on another tangent. But yes, that is definitely a part of our belief where that scripture finds perfect application. Curious isn't it?

Aaaah I see! It makes sense now and it's a good idea. Thanks!

I do not understand. What is the point of this?

Whatever they might be trying to covey, one thing is clear, whether someone has been gone for 1 year or 40 years, and they want to come back, they will be welcomed. Varying circumstances call for varying measures, but in the end the welcome will be the same.

Ok, so I have finished watching Br. Splane and here is my verdict: Although expressions indicating opinion are not used during the whole of the talk, there would be nothing wrong with anyone saying that it IS an expression of opinion because words indicating fact are not used either. And as you said above, matters are never a fact unless they have already happened! HOWEVER, there is one expression of fact, and that is regarding 1914. Br. Splane says referring to the signs (paraphrased ) ”now when did all these things begin to appear? (answer:) In 1914". Unfortunately , although it has already happened, the invisible part of it (Christ’s enthronement) cannot be proved, because of the fact that it was invisible. The visible part of the sign can be proved depending who you ask. Br. Splane said (paraphrased) “The boy would understand these things were bad, (regarding 1914) but only those with spiritual discernment would see what this meant, that Jesus was close at the door". Then he asks the crucial question “who were the only ones at that time who drew the right conclusion?” Well of course we know the answer to that. (although they drew that conclusion a little earlier) And then I think we can start getting in to some kind of circular mode of reasoning here....Correct me if I am wrong. Also this brings up the chronology problem again. As regards the explanation of the Generation, one is at liberty to either accept it or reject it without it raising an issue.

I think we are. What stood out to me the most was this, I quote him: “So who and where, then, are the true Christians today? Obviously the same as in every century from the time of Christ, namely, people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord, Redeemer, and Teacher, and who may be found in any kind of Christian fellowship that proves to be of help in their endevour to lead a Christian life”. This is not a scriptural teaching. It is merely his opinion. The scriptures indicate quite clearly that there will be a united group in the last days, they do not teach that true Christians will be scattered amongst various Christian denominations. That in itself is an oxymoron because it goes against the grain of what the truth means to Jehovah and Jesus. The fundamental truths regarding themselves are important to Jehovah and Jesus. They do not agree with the lies about their persons (the trinity etc.). They do not agree with the lies regarding their creation (immortality of the soul etc.). They do not agree with the lies regarding their mode of judgement (hell fire etc.). They do not agree with the lies regarding their moral standards (homosexuality ok etc.) They do not agree with lies regarding worship (Jesus, Mary, idols etc) They do not agree with the lies regarding defence (war etc.) They do not agree with the lies regarding their spiritual standards (e.g. Jonsson’s quote above). His quote above is a cheap cop out. The same reasoning has become very popular because it rids spiritual leaders of the responsibility of keeping Christ’s Church morally and spiritually clean. It puts the responsibility on the individual. However, Christ did establish the first century church and on this church the true church should be modeled. There is no modern church except for Jehovah’s Witnesses’ which adhere to the same principles as the first century Christian congregations. Other Churches may have some aspects that are the same, but never ALL of them like Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Prove me wrong. Acts 10:34,35 “At this Peter began to speak, and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him”. I do not see anything indicating that in any Christian denomination the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. ----------------------------------------------------- Anna's post moved from this thread:

I am listening to Br. Splane right now so I will give you my opinion later, (tomorrow) for what it's worth

I understand what you are saying. And yes, you are right. Hmmm....because I haven't got around to listening to Br. Splane again, (yet) So I cannot say if it was meant as merely an opinion or if it was meant as more than that, as interpretation. Because that really is the crux of the matter. (in my opinion). So I will have to come back to that later. ...... Correct. Fair enough. This quote, in answer to JWInsider, is perhaps most telling. I wonder, is this the answer the Slave would give us in response to the question of why try to explain the "delay" by means of an "overlapping Generation", or why try to explain the apparent "delay" at all for that matter. As you see, I am trying to understand the reason for coming up with the "overlapping Generation" in the first place. I like to be given reasons. What other options could there be? (that is actually not a hypothetical question, I am really wondering). Do we even need to be assured that we are living in the last days, as if that concept was what was needed to keeping us going? As if our entire faith was built around "the last days" like a carrot dangled in front of us? You know the answer to that I think; we shouldn't need that. BUT evidently some do(!) One of my very good friends left the truth in 1995 when the first of the explanations for the Generation was printed in the WT. It caused her to completely lose faith in the GB. So it seems like the quest to have to "explain" the apparent "delay" is a bit of a two edged sword. On the one hand it can placate some, and on the other hand it can turn some off. And then of course there are the rest who kind of ignore the whole thing with the attitude "we'll just stick around as there is nothing else out there"o r "we will stick around and see what happens (that's me ). Sorry about me going on, I'm just kind of thinking out aloud as I am typing. (that's a strange sentence). The only thing is that irks me about this need to explain things (the "delay") is that it gives me the feeling that the Slave thinks we are all some kind of numpties. Little children who need to be pacified..... If it's wrong, then that will mean time has run out again. Maybe this whole thing is just a test. Jehovah's way of sifting out "free riders", those who are only in it because they don't want to die. By the way, I swear you are a lawyer.

Yes, I can see how that can be the case. I agree that the term generation can be rather ambiguous. I agree totally, it is a point of view. I may need to go back and listen to Br. Splane's talk again carefully because last time I listened to it it did not leave me with that impression, that it was a point of view. I understand why you are objecting, and I am sorry if that is how it has come across, that I am attacking because it does not fit in with my interpretation, and I did not mean to be insidious, if that is how it has come across. I certainly do not want to be casting unwarranted aspersions on anyone not just the anointed. Really I would be fine with all of it if it was delivered in a manner of a proposition, not fact. That is why I need to listen to it again, maybe I am jumping to conclusions too fast. But what I do know is that the passage of time has show us that what we have claimed as an assured fact at one time, has turned out to not be so. So, you know the saying, once bitten twice shy. I have heard the Slave say that they do not want to lose the trust and confidence of the friends. And that is imperative and quite understandable. We should be able to trust Jehovah's representatives on earth. But we also have to remember that they do make mistakes, which they have admitted themselves. And they will keep making mistakes if not for the simple reason that they, just like the rest of us, are not inspired and do not have some kind of direct line of communication with Jehovah. They derive at their understanding through diligent study, and prayer just like the rest of us and I would be so bold as to suggest there is NO difference at all, except for the fact that these anointed men happen to be in that position (of the Slave). It could just as well be anyone of us (within reason of course). So, back to my point, and this is just my impression, if the Slave needs our trust and confidence, then in my logical mind I cannot understand why the word generation, being so ambiguous (as we have agreed upon) is not being treated that way, but on the contrary, it seems the overlapping generation is being treated as fact. There is an noteworthy statement that Br. Jackson made at a hearing in Australia, and I have mentioned this on another post on here, I will copy and paste it again: "Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction. So we have responsibilities as guardians to make sure that everything is scripturally acceptable". On analysis, there are a lot of things one could take away from this. Here are just a few thoughts I had. One is that in order to be able to recognize if something is not in harmony with Gods word we better be well versed in the scriptures ourselves. Two, is that a suggestion that if we see something not in harmony we should not accept it? Or is it merely talking about a hypothetical situation. Three, would for example the "overlapping Generation" be viewed as a "direction" or would that be in the category of doctrine? Is direction to be taken as meaning the same as doctrine? I am not sure what you mean by this statement. What I meant was that the "overlapping Generation" shouldn't have a baring on our faith. It is not important. I agree. To be sure, the explanation of the Generation is not a stumbling block for me. It's just that I am a very logical person, and I cannot understand why we are trying to explain it... I respect that, and agree . And I want to say I am happy we are able to discuss this - what some might regard as controversial and disturbing subjects - in a civilized, calm and respectful way, and more importantly as brothers and sisters . Oh, and also I want you or anyone reading this to be sure that they know that I do not have any intentions to undermine anyone's faith. This is merely a discussion of facts AND personal opinions.

It seems like you are still not understanding the idea really. Do you not think that after a while, one becomes desensitized and no longer believes the JWs even have the truth, or at least push that idea to the furthermost crevices of their brain? It says she was wracked with guilt. I very much doubt she lived all of the 40 years like that though.The short paragraph doesn't go into any real detail, so we do not know whether what she did after a while was still deliberate in her mind. From the way you are speaking, "gross wrong doing to JWs", indicates that you do not consider the things she did wrong. So put yourself in her shoes, I doubt she considered them wrong after a while either. So, from that perspective, when she decided to come back, it was as if she had never knew the "truth". What would be the point of punishing someone like that? Tell me. Men who decide these things go by common sense and evidence presented to them. That's all they can go by really.

I understand the point you are making perfectly. But what about this scenario, I believe we are living in the "last days" and don't think the overlapping generation is required in order to prove it. Also, it's not about understanding the concept, but it's about does it ring true in light of the scriptures? One can understand the explanation for the trinity (the flesh of the apple being God, the core being Jesus and the skin being the holy spirit, or which ever way around it is, or maybe the pips are the holy spirit, I forget.....). But does it ring true in the light of the scriptures? Another thing I do not understand, you yourself say that the overlapping generation is not important to your faith, in which case why are you trying to explain/defend it? Edit: Sorry, I realized I already mentioned the last point once....

Maybe because that issue has been flogged to death . I don't know if you can "run out of room" . The same thing happened to me on another thread, I think it might just be a glitch... This makes it sound like it was an independent idea of Brother Splane, to decide to try and exsplane it, (excuse the pun, I think this has been done before) and I know you do not mean that. But it begs the question, since everything is discussed very carefully and meticulously in great detail by all of the GB members, and probably months ahead of the broadcast, the decision whether to try to explain it, or not to try to explain it, had to have been discussed at great length also. As I mentioned on the other thread, Brother Splane never introduced this particular segment with the idea that there was any public demand for an explanation. This is usually done if that is the case. It just appeared at random. I think the KEY is if we get an honest answer to the motive behind this, we might begin to understand what is truthfully going on. Just my thought. P.S. Like you, I have never heard any of the friends discuss this topic. It's like it doesn't even exist.....