Jump to content
The World News Media

Anna

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,681

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Anna

  1. Anna
    Interesting. I was just now going to type up several reasons why salvation is not dependent on us believing in 1914. I have read this 1986 article before. But thank you for mentioning it, as a reminder on here. Put in context of the time period this article was written, (post Bethel apostasy) it is understandable to a certain extent why it was written. It would be interesting to see if such a view was still strictly adhered to today, and put into the same words as is was back then. A lot of doctrinal water has gone under the bridge since then, and some beliefs had to be revised. (None that are mentioned above though). Because of that, it seems the GB is a lot more careful recently when it comes to insisting on certain past teachings. Knowledge and truth are progressive, that is why the article also mentions "Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose “some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man.” Ephesians 4:11-13 Evidently we have not attained all the accurate knowledge yet. Perhaps not even the oneness in the faith as is also evident by the discussions on this forum.... Not really, since the Good news is and has remained the same regardless of a date. The Good news is about the blessings for mankind brought through the Messianic kingdom, regardless of when established.
  2. Anna
     How does what I said above make you conclude that I rely on man instead of Jah? And I did make it clear that there was nothing wrong with sitting on the fence with regard to SOME issues, obviously not all. In this case, I don't think believing or not believing in 1914 really makes a blind bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. Prove me wrong.
  3. Anna
    @bruceq how does this have anything to do with what JW Insider said above? All he did was indirectly quote you, and said he finds it hard to understand. You might need to read it again, several times. It's a claim you made, after all!
  4. Anna
    I don't think Bruce was intending to be dishonest, I think the problem is he just didn't get what you meant with your analogy at all...
  5. Anna
    I agree with all your prior thoughts except this one. Jehovah promised he will have a people (a group, not individuals scattered throughout the world) who will be united in worship of him. These peoples will beat their swords into plowshares and will not learn war anymore. They will have love among themselves, and they will follow in his son's footsteps. Whatever Jesus did, and told his followers to do, they will do to their utmost ability. This includes preaching the Kingdom as the only solution to mankind's problems. I do not see that this will ever stop until Jehovah says it is done. These peoples as a group, a great crowd, are the ones to inherit the earth. "In the final part of the days,*The mountain of the house of Jehovah+Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains,And it will be raised up above the hills,And to it peoples will stream.+ 2 And many nations will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah And to the house of the God of Jacob.+ He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.” For law* will go out of Zion,And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem....... 5 For all the peoples will walk, each in the name of its god,But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God+ forever and ever". - Micah ch. 4
  6. Anna
    I will leave that to @JW Insider He is much more competent than me. Note, I never said 1914 was wrong. But I won't say it's right either. And I actually think it's OK being undecided (in this particular instance).
  7. Anna
    I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I am looking at it in a spiritual way. This is exclusively a spiritual subject since the chariot is not a physical thing. I never said Jesus was not in control of the Chariot. In fact I said he WAS, and that sometimes he has to take a detour to ride around a bump that WE his Witnesses have created. ( I say WE in a broad sense, since of course it is the FDS who are in charge of what is taught). Or are you saying that a wrong understanding that the FDS put forward is really Jesus saying it? I don't think you are, since you, like me, believe that all that Jesus says is the truth. It is OUR interpretation that can sometimes be wrong (drinking his blood etc.) So, in view of that, if we have a wrong interpretation, and put it forward as a true teaching, then that must be the bump that Jesus in his chariot has to go around isn't it? Both Jesus and Jehovah work with us, despite our imperfections, and hence also our imperfect interpretations. No, of course we do not have any control over the movement of the chariot, since it is Jesus who is the driver. However the bumps in the road are NOT created by Jesus are they? And I never aid Jesus was not head of the congregation either. I believe he is. This is mainly talking about a decision made by the Elders regarding a congregational matter. This is not talking about doctrine. Nevertheless, by extension, if there is a doctrinal understanding we do not agree with, we can still support theocratic order by waiting on Jehovah, since the passage of time will eventually show whether our thoughts were correct or not. If we were wrong, then the chariot will bring us back on track. If the FDS were wrong then the chariot will bring them back on track. It's a win win if you support theocratic order. Of course we would never support anything if it was blatantly scripturally wrong. P.S. Bruce, let me ask you a hypothetical question so that I am clear on your thinking. IF the GB said tomorrow that all Witnesses must commit suicide to prove their loyalty to God and to get into the new system, would you go ahead or not? Please give reasons why you would chose your decision.
  8. Anna
    I don't quite understand what you mean by this I agree with you I don't really see that when Jesus told people to drink his blood and eat his flesh is an example of something that wasn't true but later was. This is just a case of interpretation. The people interpreted that to be taken literally (false premise), but Jesus meant it symbolically (correct understanding). Using your example of drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh, it's like if we had taught that this was literal, but later, we correctly discerned it was symbolic. According to your argument Jesus would be guiding this thinking when we thought it literal? The thing is, these bumps in the road are our own making. We create the bumps.They are nothing to do with Jesus. The changes made by the Chariot are because WE had got thing wrong. If we had got them right the Chariot wouldn't need to change at all. It shows Jesus' and Jehovah's purpose does not change but sometimes has to take a detour to go around a wrong teaching (the bump) and get back on the correct path (when we finally get it right). Who knows, the chariot might be taking a big detour right now around 1914. It had to take that detour several times because of a wrong date. It took one around the 1925 teaching until 1925 passed, and the Chariot could get back on track....
  9. Anna
    If I remember right, is it those Bible discussions that eventually led to the "dissidency"? I don't think it was just reading and discussing the Bible, but it was coming up with another interpretation, which they liked better than the official JW teaching.....
  10. Anna
    Ummmm...I hate to sound critical, but I will ask the obvious question, what about those teachings that weren't actually true and we taught them as truth, until we found out otherwise. Are you hereby saying Jesus was lying?
  11. Anna
    LOL. And there was me thinking at one point, I think it was beginning of July, we had all reached an amicable conclusion, something to the effect of we will agree to disagree and still be friends, but then the thread got re-visited with added fury a month later, and more than doubled from a previous 6 pages to 13. It looks like it just can't be given a rest, but those little humorous interludes do brighten things up a bit, and give everyone a breather, to gather strength for the next "scholastic" onslaught
  12. Anna
    What was COJ's agenda?
  13. Anna
    Very true Yes, no doubt about that It is revealing, I agree. And then there are other things that have been put forward as undeniable truth, which later turned out as being a mistake. It's like you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, except the opposite. We always seem to be right whether it's a mistake or not. That is the general impression I get, but I'm not sure if this attitude has scriptural support...
  14. Anna
    Hahaha, I was thinking that too!
  15. Anna
    Yes, I am aware of that, but it was "news" to him Yes, in the truth of the matter in his opinion. I know, you are going to say there are thousands others with the same opinion, but still, no matter how right you think you are or how much support you have, when you see you are not getting anywhere the wisest thing is to move on. Which he eventually did, but he could have spared himself the alienation. Now, from what I can see, he has adopted so many of Christendom's reasonings, and criticizes other beliefs of JWs. He didn't just stay with disputing chronology. I am familiar with the correspondence between him and the society "The truth coming out"...I mean on a much bigger scale than just a few people inside the org. I mean that the truth will eventually be known by ALL. Possibly...
  16. Anna
    Sorry to the others because this is totally off the subject. Just skip over it if you have to.  Thank you for your reply Arauna. I am assuming that you would go in field service with me then? Although you did not give me a direct answer, I will not insist on one. I think you understand that the point I was trying to make was that as long as one does not become obnoxious and pushes others to accept their ideas, then it is ok to have a different opinion on some of our teachings, especially if those teachings are not clear cut (or we don't perceive them that way personally). But you definitely sound like someone I would like to have as a friend (we have a lot in common) Me too! Unfortunately I barely have the time, which means I am not as well informed about a subject as I would like to be, especially subjects as deep and time consuming such as this one. This is why my best bet is to keep an open mind and not condemn one opinion over another until perhaps I have all the facts possible, and even then, we are still human and make mistakes, even the experts. I like to try and understand where the other person is coming from. I do this on here, I do it in FS. So what I do not like (IÂ’m not saying you do this) is when people are dogmatic and do not give another opinion a fair trial. And when they start judging the person for their motives. I think no one has the right to judge another oneÂ’s motives, since we really have no way of knowing. We cannot read hearts. And especially we cannot judge people from merely what they say, we need to see actions as well in order to form a halfway correct impression of someone, and that is impossible on a forum of course... I agree, that is a good way to do it, just stay away. We all have different levels of what we can take, and we should not allow others to dictate what is ok and what isnÂ’t, or how far we should or shouldnÂ’t go, and neither should we dictate to anyone else what they should or shouldnÂ’t  read or do either. We all have the same information from the Bible and our meetings. Of course I am not saying we shouldnÂ’t show concern for a friend if we see they may be going down a spiritually dangerous road, or that we shouldnÂ’t accept advice, but we can hardly do that on a forum because we donÂ’t know the person. Hahah, this is so true! I always say those ones just like the sound of their own voice! A brother once told me that humility is essential if one wants to stay in the truth. The older I get the more I see how true that is. Yes. Yes, that is a good way of putting it. Brings to mind James 1:14, 15  Hmmm.......it certainly seems to be going that way. And we will stick out like a sore thumb! Is it really that bad? My sister in-law was married to an Arab and lived in Saudi Arabia for several years. She was disfellowshipped at the time so she didn't do anything with the Truth anyway, but now she is back and she was telling me some horrendous things. I also had a return visit from Eritrea who was a Muslim, and she was a lovely lady (they went back now), she told me that Islam is good, it's some of the people who twist it.....Unfortunately I have not read the Quran so I cannot form an opinion (that's another one of those things on the back burner, and I doubt I will ever get around to it, I have trouble with keeping up with the Bible reading). I also worked with a Syrian girl, and she was also very nice, we had quite a few discussions about the Bible etc. and she valued our strong faith as JWs, she said most people do not have strong faith. It was difficult to persuade her to accept the Bible though because she believed the Quran replaced it, and in her words, why should she accept something if it has been replaced with something more up to date and better. You would probably have known what to say to her. If I had read the Quran perhaps I would have been better equipped. In any case I have read quite a few things about Muhammad but it's difficult to sort out what is true.... And now I have a return visit on a Muslim Doctor...I need help Â
  17. Anna
    Yes, what Arauna said is true, humans LOVE to share their bits of knowledge, and if it’s something they’ve discovered themselves, so much more so. But it’s natural for us to do it and it’s not always bad, and nor are the motives behind it always bad. I believe when Carl Olof Jonsson first “discovered” what he did when he researched the Gentile times, he had no bad motives. He obviously believed he had found the truth regarding that subject, and believed the WT didn’t realize they were in error. Put yourself in his shoes. Imagine how you would have felt if your “exciting” discovery was met with reservations almost bordering on indifference. His downfall was not the research, nor his discovery, nor his writing to the society about it, but his hurt ego, and pride that HIS discovery was not recognized. We all want to be recognized for the effort we put into something, and he had put a lot of effort into it. It doesn’t feel good if someone tells you “you leave the thinking to us and you go and play in the sand”. However if someone tells you that they do not accept your opinion, that they see things differently, then humility should move us to let it go. No point in arguing or forcing our opinion on others. In the end the truth will eventually always come out. But unfortunately he (COJ) was “trapped by his own cleverness”. I like what one GB member said, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that we should respect that. We do it in FS all the time. Don’t we just love it when someone gives us the opportunity to explain some aspect of the Bible to them, but don’t we also just have to accept that it may not change their previously held opinion? It happens all the time, and we just have to move on. Just think the many times you reasoned with someone on the trinity, and showed them the many scriptures to refute it. But we don’t stand there browbeating them until they see things our way do we? Similarly in our brotherhood, we are not all cookie cutter the same. We don’t all have the same opinion on everything. We may even have differing views on some aspects of the Truth. A very good friend of mine, a very spiritual and zealous sister, who doesn’t just talk the truth but she walks it too, does not believe in the new interpretation of the generation. She doesn’t go around trying tell others why not, I only know about it because we are very close. She doesn’t make a big deal out of it, it’s just her opinion after all, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am sure there are many who do not believe in the overlapping generation and I am sure there are quite a few who are not convinced about 1914 either. Does that make them a “bad” Witness? @Arauna if we were in the same congregation, and you knew me from here, would you avoid me? I am sure FS would be lovely with you, would you let me go with you, or would you say no, because I have my own opinion on the generation and 1914? I would really be interested to know your answer because your answer will show whether it really matters what I (and by extension others) believe regarding these subjects or not.
  18. Anna
    My previous comment was neither opposed to putting faith in Jehovah and the FDS, nor respecting and being loyal to Jehovah and the ones taking the lead. It was also not opposed to being obedient to those taking the lead and being submissive. And also not opposed to the idea that Jehovah has his organization in complete control. So what was your point? Exactly. So why worry about 1914?
  19. Anna
    By the way is the kind of comment that lands people who make it, out of the truth. May you never be stumbled. I hope one day the faithful slave is not going to change their understanding of 1914, to one similar to what is presented here by JWI. If they do, it won't make me think any less of them. What is it going to do to you though? And don't say it will never happen, because it HAS happened on many occasions where they taught one thing, and then "refined" their understanding. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against refining our understanding, or even changing our understanding. We should never dogmatically insist on something, and as far as I can see, change is proof that the FDS have not dogmatically insisted on something when further evidence came to light. So why should WE be dogmatic? Is it wrong to say that there are some interesting scriptural arguments being brought forward? Why insist on something "just" because for the present this is what the FDS teach? At least THAT should NOT be the argument. The argument should be a well presented scriptural counter argument. So far I have not really seen this on this thread, or on the other one. The majority has just been diversions, and attacks on the person and their motive. What if I was to call into question your person and motive? Are you perhaps scared if 1914 is wrong, where will that leave a lot of our beliefs? Where would that leave you? Are you afraid this could delay the end? Is that why you are sidestepping the issue and diverting attention from the "message" to the person? What are you afraid of? So, how did that feel.
  20. Anna
    Yes, I believe the true faith is a minority too. The scriptures tell us so. We don't believe in the trinity, immortality of the soul and no Jehovah in NT do we? Why include that in the mix with visible parousia and king in 33 C.E. though? Does that make it wrong just because the majority believe that? The majority also believe other things that we as JWs believe also. Just as a side issue, I noticed that in the new 2013 NWT there are several instances where we changed the wording to be more in line with other (Christendom's) translations. You know the saying, truth is truth no matter who says it
  21. Anna
    Why are you bringing this into the discussion?
  22. Anna
    I had wanted to answer some points further up the thread, but I'm so backlogged due to lack of time, that I'd rather address your latest post before I get really behind. Just today, during the WT study, this very thing came to mind when we were going through Par. 16: "From time to time, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or some Scriptural passage may be adjusted. When such new understandings are provided, we ought to take time to study the information carefully and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Tim. 4:15) We seek to understand clearly not only the major adjustments but also the subtle differences between the old understanding and the new one. In this way, we are certain to place the new truth securely in our own treasure store". July WT 2017 p.25 So here the advice is that we SHOULD study the information carefully and meditate on it. This is assuming that the only thing preventing us from accepting the new understanding as our own is if we don't take time to study the information carefully, but what may happen is after we've studied the "new understanding" carefully is that we may actually not see it that way.... If you are meaning the GB could/should say that, then I very much doubt they ever would.
  23. Anna
    How did I know you were going to say something like this!
  24. Anna
    Is that like 15 minutes of fame?
  25. Anna
    This is getting scary. Now Allen Smith is the VIRGINIAN!!!!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.