Jump to content

Anna

Member
  • Content Count

    2,451
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    18

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    Anna got a reaction from JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    @JW Insider and there's your 15 minutes of fame!
  2. Thanks
    Anna reacted to JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    Probably depends on the book or article and the particular writer assigned. For example, 1914 is mentioned in Chapter 8 but the whole big section on 1914 with charts and diagrams in "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" were moved to the Appendix, whereas they had previously been in the main text.
    The 2018 Watchtower Study edition never mentioned 1914 once. The 2018 Watchtower Public edition only mentioned 1914 once.* The 2019 Watchtower Public editions never mentioned 1914 once. *And only as a fulfillment for Jesus' prophecy about wars and reports of wars, NOT as a fulfillment related to Christ's enthronement.
    Compare this to 76 mentions in the Watchtower for 2014.
    This is not enough to measure a trend yet, but it's something to watch for.
    *** w79 9/15 p. 23 par. 8 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand ***
    Why did Jehovah call King Nebuchadnezzar “my servant”? Because He used him to punish the people of Judah for their refusal to listen to His prophets. Punishment through this king of Babylon also extended to the neighboring countries that maliciously exploited Jehovah’s people out of contempt for Him. This does not mean, however, that Nebuchadnezzar was a type of Jesus Christ, who worshiped Jehovah alone as God. Rather, it is the executional work that Nebuchadnezzar performed for Jehovah upon the guilty nations that is typical. It prefigures the world-conquering work that Jesus Christ as Jehovah’s Chief Executional Officer carries out during the approaching “great tribulation,” in which all the enemy nations will be reduced to dust under the feet of Jehovah’s topmost Servant.
    *** w50 11/15 p. 444 par. 17 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
    So it must be remembered that both Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus were used as types. In destroying Jerusalem in 607 B.C. and taking the Jews captive to Babylon Nebuchadnezzar was being used as Jehovah’s executioner against the unfaithful Jewish nation. For this reason Jehovah spoke of him as “my servant” and gave him the domination over other nations of this world. In this capacity Nebuchadnezzar was a type of Jesus Christ.
    The 100 plus teachings that would be impacted by the October 2014 Annual Meeting talk, and the subsequent Watchtower in March 15, 2015 would include these 42 from the book "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World":

    80 more of these were included in a 1981 Watchtower:
    *** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? ***
    OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS
    The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919:
    (1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10.
  3. Thanks
    Anna reacted to JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    It was Splane's "historic" (they called it) Annual Meeting talk in October 2014, especially when he referred to how Brother Bert Schroeder had counseled exactly this, many years earlier. Schroeder's statement was kind of a "motto" that Brother Splane repeated as the primary takeaway for this new way of looking at these portions of Scripture.
    That point was rewritten in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower, p.18 as follows:
    “Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.”
    The original video is now here: https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODPgmEvtAnnMtg/pub-jwbam_201410_1_VIDEO "Types and Antitypes." It starts at about 2 hours:8 minutes into the video. At 2h:13m:07s he says:
    "Now we know that these [ones spoken of by Jesus and Paul] are genuine types because the word of God says they are. But here is the question: Who is to decide if a person or an event is a type, if the word of God doesn't say anything about it? Who is qualified to do that? Our answer? We can do no better than to quote our beloved Brother Albert Schroeder who said, 'We need to exercise great care when applying accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures as prophetic patterns or types if these accounts are not applied in the Scriptures themselves." Wasn't that a beautiful statement! We agree with it.
    After giving several examples of this "typology" (as he called it) from several different religions, including religions the Bible Students had been part of. And these religions often applied these types to themselves, just as the Watchtower applied many of them to Bible Students and Witnesses in modern times.  Brother Splane repeats that the most important problem with them is that these applications were not found in the Scriptures themselves. He even asks, "If the study of a certain subject makes chills run up and down your spine, could it possibly be mistaken?' And the answer was YES!" Then at 2h:19m:22s he repeats this idea again, and says:
    "Well, in recent years the trend in our publications has been to look for the practical application of Bible events and not for types where the scripture themselves do not identify themselves as such. We simply cannot go beyond what is written!"
    There's a funny thing Splane does in the video where he almost makes it look like the Pyramid idea came from a Brother A. Smith who wrote the Society from time to time to tell them his ideas about how the Pyramid told of God's purpose. He gives the impression that Russell only mentioned it once, but that this brother was so "emotionally" involved with the idea that he wrote to the Society about it several times. You can compare this to the actual things that Russell and Rutherford said about the Pyramid, and draw your own conclusion as to what Brother Splane is doing here. I also think it's curious that Albert Schroeder had died many years before, and this particular idea had been first expressed by others and finally by Brother Schroeder, too, several years before he died. Evidently not enough members of the Governing Body agreed with it at the time. But, even though it was now several years later, Brother Splane in 2014 can say it was a beautiful statement, and that 'we agree with it.'
  4. Upvote
    Anna got a reaction from JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    I have not noticed 1914 diminishing in importance. It gets aired anytime there is a reference to the times of the end, and its closeness (in publications, convention talks and Broadcasting). But you are right, there seems to be a certain hesitancy in directly including 1914 as being part of our "core doctrines". At least in the above mentioned days text. There is also no reference to it in the questions for baptism. Under Christian beliefs, Question 19 asks: How do you know that Kingdom blessings will soon be here? The answers are references to Matthew 24 and 2 Timothy (last days critical times..). IF 1914 was to be mentioned, what scripture references would be used? We can all see it would get very complicated, hence as you rightly called it, it is a difficult doctrine. But the irony is, it is a very fundamental doctrine, so it should be explained (with all the dozens of scriptures) and be a part of the questions for baptism, strictly speaking. So I wonder, why is it not there? 
     
    That's fine with direct and obvious scriptures and Bible books. But how would you explain (interpret) books such as Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel etc?
    And I thought we already established that no one would any longer be inspired after the last of the apostles died.
  5. Upvote
    Anna got a reaction from ComfortMyPeople in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    I have not noticed 1914 diminishing in importance. It gets aired anytime there is a reference to the times of the end, and its closeness (in publications, convention talks and Broadcasting). But you are right, there seems to be a certain hesitancy in directly including 1914 as being part of our "core doctrines". At least in the above mentioned days text. There is also no reference to it in the questions for baptism. Under Christian beliefs, Question 19 asks: How do you know that Kingdom blessings will soon be here? The answers are references to Matthew 24 and 2 Timothy (last days critical times..). IF 1914 was to be mentioned, what scripture references would be used? We can all see it would get very complicated, hence as you rightly called it, it is a difficult doctrine. But the irony is, it is a very fundamental doctrine, so it should be explained (with all the dozens of scriptures) and be a part of the questions for baptism, strictly speaking. So I wonder, why is it not there? 
     
    That's fine with direct and obvious scriptures and Bible books. But how would you explain (interpret) books such as Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel etc?
    And I thought we already established that no one would any longer be inspired after the last of the apostles died.
  6. Upvote
    Anna reacted to JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    No one needs to read a word of what Carl Olof Jonsson wrote. For the most part all he did was corroborate what the majority of the most well-grounded researchers already had said well before he agreed with it. If there was any added value in what Jonsson wrote, it was that he showed how neo-Babylonian archaeology supports the Bible record.
  7. Downvote
    Anna got a reaction from 4Jah2me in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    I would like to expand on the above quote.
    New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule".
    So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood.

    So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"?
    (Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)
    (Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)
     
     
     
     
  8. Upvote
    Anna got a reaction from ComfortMyPeople in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    Yes, that is true. I can't think right now, but are there any other instances where we have used someone, or something wicked to represent something good?
    In any case, now that you bring it up, it does sound odd. But I never looked at it from that angle before, I was always just focusing on the timeline only. (Although I did wonder what Christ had do with Neb, who was forced to acknowledge the true God. Where was there a parallel to that?)
    -----------------------------------------
    "The tree that you beheld, that grew great and became strong . . . , it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong, and your grandeur has grown great and reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the extremity of the earth.” (Dan 4:18-22)
    WT comment: "Like the immense tree of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar had “grown great and become strong” as the head of a world power. But “rulership to the extremity of the earth,” involving the whole kingdom of mankind, is represented by the great tree. It therefore symbolizes Jehovah’s universal sovereignty, particularly in its relationship to the earth".—Daniel 4:17. (Pay attention to Daniels prophesy ch6, pp 82-97)
    A little bit of a stretch to say what the tree symbolizes when Daniel already clearly says it symbolizes Nebuchadnezzar rulership. But I guess if we did try to stretch it as far as it would go then we could say that because ultimately everything belongs to God, then the rulership was God's too. But is it what the bible book of Daniel meant....?
     
    Do you have a reference for that?
  9. Haha
    Anna reacted to JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    If that kind of comparison were intended to create a representative analogy, then the Devil represents "glorious" congregation elders in Jude, where, according to one interpretation, we shouldn't speak abusively of "glorious" elders in the congregation just as Jesus/Michael wouldn't speak abusively of "glorious" Satan when arguing over Moses' body. 😎 (Note: I still don't believe this was the intent of the comparison at all.)
  10. Upvote
    Anna reacted to JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    Because wicked persons can become Jehovah's executioner, persons like Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus could be considered to be Jehovah's "servants." But we have really had to stretch ideas in the tree parable. In the past we said that Nebuchadnezzar represented Christ, but the Watchtower has now explicitly stated that this is not the type of parallel. Still, we have tried to explain that Nebuchadnezzar's low beastly state of insanity somehow parallels the fact that Jesus was "low" in the sense of being humble, born as a human [in a manger], etc. I haven't seen that negated, but it hasn't been used in quite a while.
  11. Thanks
    Anna reacted to TrueTomHarley in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    The steward that robs his master blind and the master ends up commending him.
    The unrighteous judge that will not grant justice until the widow nags him half to death and that judge is used to illustrate the Father.
    Just now I am spinning others (on the TDS thread) regarding current politicians who will provide my own underpinnings as Sect Leader. I know I will have at least one follower—JTR.
  12. Thanks
    Anna got a reaction from JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    Yes, that is true. I can't think right now, but are there any other instances where we have used someone, or something wicked to represent something good?
    In any case, now that you bring it up, it does sound odd. But I never looked at it from that angle before, I was always just focusing on the timeline only. (Although I did wonder what Christ had do with Neb, who was forced to acknowledge the true God. Where was there a parallel to that?)
    -----------------------------------------
    "The tree that you beheld, that grew great and became strong . . . , it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong, and your grandeur has grown great and reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the extremity of the earth.” (Dan 4:18-22)
    WT comment: "Like the immense tree of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar had “grown great and become strong” as the head of a world power. But “rulership to the extremity of the earth,” involving the whole kingdom of mankind, is represented by the great tree. It therefore symbolizes Jehovah’s universal sovereignty, particularly in its relationship to the earth".—Daniel 4:17. (Pay attention to Daniels prophesy ch6, pp 82-97)
    A little bit of a stretch to say what the tree symbolizes when Daniel already clearly says it symbolizes Nebuchadnezzar rulership. But I guess if we did try to stretch it as far as it would go then we could say that because ultimately everything belongs to God, then the rulership was God's too. But is it what the bible book of Daniel meant....?
     
    Do you have a reference for that?
  13. Upvote
    Anna got a reaction from ComfortMyPeople in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    I would like to expand on the above quote.
    New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule".
    So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood.

    So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"?
    (Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)
    (Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)
     
     
     
     
  14. Like
    Anna got a reaction from Srecko Sostar in Information Control: JWs form a barricade at JW Melbourne protest to keep rank and file JW's from seeing "apostate" signs   
    Yes. Just watched it.
    I like that you talk about the broad effects of the impact whistleblowing has had in this particular area. It's not just the Witnesses, but many institutions. Many guilty people would have probably got away with sexual abuse 20 years ago, but not so much today. Even royalty have been put under the microscope. History is rife with stories of rich dirty old men having sex with underage girls and getting away with it.
    When enough people make noise, it can't be ignored.
  15. Upvote
    Anna got a reaction from JW Insider in Information Control: JWs form a barricade at JW Melbourne protest to keep rank and file JW's from seeing "apostate" signs   
    Just for interest, here is an interview with prince Andrew. It's acutely embarrassing the excuses  he makes and the denials....
    Read comments, they are entertaining
     
  16. Upvote
    Anna got a reaction from JW Insider in Information Control: JWs form a barricade at JW Melbourne protest to keep rank and file JW's from seeing "apostate" signs   
    Yes. Just watched it.
    I like that you talk about the broad effects of the impact whistleblowing has had in this particular area. It's not just the Witnesses, but many institutions. Many guilty people would have probably got away with sexual abuse 20 years ago, but not so much today. Even royalty have been put under the microscope. History is rife with stories of rich dirty old men having sex with underage girls and getting away with it.
    When enough people make noise, it can't be ignored.
  17. Upvote
    Anna reacted to James Thomas Rook Jr. in Information Control: JWs form a barricade at JW Melbourne protest to keep rank and file JW's from seeing "apostate" signs   
    One of three questions they asked me at my Reinstatement was (paraphrased) "What is your opinion of the Governing Body?"
    I replied  (paraphrased) " I would have to agree with them in the February 2017 Watchtower, that they are neither inspired of God, or infallible.".
    I believe that if I had phrased that differently, all other things being equal, I would NOT have been Reinstated.
    By actual test, I would agree with you, Anna.
  18. Upvote
  19. Upvote
    Anna reacted to JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said:
    Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
    The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time.
    From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT). 
    A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus:
    (Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins.
    This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine.
    (Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.
    Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.)
    We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time."
    Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses:
    (Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.
    (Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
    Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in:
    Will you find the opportunity to do this? Will you find the time to do this? Not:
    Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this? We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.
     
  20. Thanks
    Anna got a reaction from JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    I would like to expand on the above quote.
    New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule".
    So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood.

    So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"?
    (Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)
    (Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)
     
     
     
     
  21. Upvote
    Anna reacted to JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    True, but a well-established, misinterpretation of a prophecy has no divine providence.
    Over the years here, Allen, I've often seen you attack the Bible when you think the Bible contradicts the Watchtower, but here you are attacking both the Bible and the Watchtower: 
    *** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures ***
    At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. Such a careful study will guarantee that the new truth becomes part of our collection of Bible truths. Why is it good for us to make such efforts?
    Russell did not reject Barbour's chronology. Years later, after their split, when Barbour began rejecting his own chronology and numerology, Russell continued to accept it and doubled down on it. The split was primarily over variations in their understanding of the ransom, but I was talking about his chronology and numerology.
    Conflicted or not, I think you should feel welcome to express your opinions, whether they are for or against me, for or against others, the Watchtower, or even the Bible. I have not seen any indication that you are breaking any rules. Controversial discussions might upset people, but that's the value of discussion: it can upset long-established traditions (strongly entrenched ideas/things) and some people have a large emotional investment in these traditions. Some level of "upset" or "disturbance" should be expected. Neither you nor I should be expected to deal with these issues totally devoid of emotion. At least we are mostly trying to stick with the scriptures, the facts and the evidence.
     
     
    Because of the way that posts are being merged (again) I will take up the subject of the 1260 days and 3 1/2 days in Revelation under another topic heading.
  22. Upvote
    Anna got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in Information Control: JWs form a barricade at JW Melbourne protest to keep rank and file JW's from seeing "apostate" signs   
    I haven't watched it yet. Did he really say that, because that's what I've always said. Some people didn't like that though, unfortunately proving that they were kind of "worshipful" of the GB, and believed the GB were ultra special and more than anyoe else. 
  23. Upvote
    Anna reacted to JW Insider in A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.   
    Looking at today's scripture text, I see that there is a fairly good reference to the concept of "core doctrines" in the commentary. Some have questioned whether this concept of core doctrines is correct, with the alternative being that we should accept ALL doctrines, great and small, with equal vigor. In other words, we should be ready to die for the our current teaching concerning "whether people of Sodom would be resurrected" just as strongly as we should be ready to die for the doctrine of the Ransom.
    The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest.
    *** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
    What are the key teachings of your faith? Surely you would stress that Jehovah is the Creator and Life-Giver. You would likely mention your belief in Jesus Christ, who died as a ransom. And you would happily add that an earthly paradise is ahead, where God’s people will live forever. But would you mention the resurrection as one of your most cherished beliefs? We have good reasons to include the resurrection as a key teaching even if we personally hope to survive the great tribulation and live on earth forever. The resurrection is central to our faith. Had Christ not been resurrected, he would not be our ruling King, and our teaching about Christ’s rule would be in vain. (1 Cor. 15:12-19) However, we know that Jesus was resurrected, and we hold firm to our belief in the resurrection.
    Note that the text reminds us a few things that the great crowd, perhaps, do not get reminded of enough: We might die. The great hope is that "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World." But since the book of that title came out, most of us who studied that book as JWs are now dead. The key teachings mentioned above are therefore:
    Jehovah is the Creator, Jesus' Ransom, Living Forever in an Earthly Paradise The Resurrection The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom I would agree that these are definitely the core teachings.
    Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. This is true whether one focuses on the
    Kingdom preaching beginning in 29 CE through 33 CE, or the Kingdom's beginning in 33 when Christ began to rule as king (1 Cor 15, Colossians 1, Acts 2, Revelation 1, etc.), or the historical outworking of the Kingdom with renewed emphasis on preaching since WWI, or the focus on what that Kingdom will bring to the new heavens and new earth. But the fact that 1 Cor 15 is quoted above as the context to the teaching about Christ's rule, and that Paul goes on in verse 25 to indicate that "sit at my right hand" is the equivalent of "rule as king" tells me that 1914 might have been left off on purpose. (Because Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33 CE., therefore he began ruling as king in 33 CE. --1 Cor 15:25)
    That's an easy solution to all the current difficulties and contradictions in the 1914 teaching. But it's not the "difficult teaching" I had in mind.
    If you look at the text through the Watchtower Library, you will also see that it is somewhat related to the material for the Midweek meeting (December 9-15), which starts out with a discussion of Revelation 11.
    *** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
    TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD
    • “‘Two Witnesses’ Are Killed and Brought Back to Life”: (10 min.)
    Re 11:3—“Two witnesses” prophesy for 1,260 days (w14 11/15 30)
    Re 11:7—They are killed by “the wild beast”
    Re 11:11—The “two witnesses” are brought back to life after “the three and a half days”
    I'll explain later today.
  24. Downvote
    Anna got a reaction from 4Jah2me in You shall not murder vs You shall not shun   
    Some good points there Srecko.
    It was obviously God who decided when it was ok to kill, based on laws that superseded the command not to kill. The question then is, when it comes to shunning, who decides when it's ok to shun and when it is not ok? Or is there something that supersedes the command to shun? First I want to address this comment you made:
    I understand the parallels you are trying to draw. There are many examples in history of family members disowning other family members, cutting them off as if the other person no longer exists. In these instances it is humans that make their own personal law. Sometimes it's based on understandable reasons, (extreme evilness on the part of the one who is being disowned) and sometimes on purely frivolous grounds (used as blackmail). Of course there are many many different reasons, too many to mention.
    I suppose this sounds reasonable. Usually when this situation occurs, the person is not in a disfellowshipped state.
    I have often thought about this problematic and I have still not found satisfactory justification for some of these actions.
    I can understand that a person guilty of breaking the Bible's commands and not repenting, or changing, should not be a part of the congregation. The congregation must be kept clean, otherwise Jesus "could vomit it out of his mouth". (Rev 3:16) He says "All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent" (Rev 3:19). And  "‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first. If you do not, I will come to you, and I will remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent". (Rev 2:5) and “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam......  So repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war against them with the long sword of my mouth" 
    I think just those few scriptures in Revelation show clearly Jesus' feelings about keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. We also have Paul's counsel. However, we know that those who have not repented are not thrown out of the congregation literally, but symbolically. They can still attend the meetings if they want. But they cannot participate and speak to anyone. Why? Because they have been disfellowshipped. So in this sense they have been "removed" BUT by being able to still go to meetings they are able to receive Jehovah's instructions and come to repentance, and then be welcomed back. Now imagine if this person had literally been thrown out, and was not allowed to put foot inside the KH. How would they be able to "repent and come back"? How would that work in practice? So in this sense, disfellowshipping is a merciful and loving provision, because the person is still able to receive spiritual instruction. But if they weren't disfellowshipped, and everyone would speak with them, then there would be no difference at all would there? Now the questions I ask is, it makes sense for the congregation, but how is it outside the congregation? This is where I find the difficulty. There are several things to consider. One is; are we Christians only inside the congregation, or are we Christians 24/7? Obviously we are Christians all of the time. So we could argue that whatever applies inside the congregation should also apply outside of it. Then there is the family. Frequently there is a misunderstanding in what family means. The broad definition is "a group of people who share common ancestors" a more usual definition is "group of people that may be made up of partners, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents" then the classic definition, and the ones JW mean when they say family is; "a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household" It's also called the nuclear family. We know that members of a household or nuclear family are not shunned. Only those living outside the household. 
    I am ok with that, but I think that associating with family living outside the household should be left up to conscience, (your first conclusion). That is just my opinion.
    So is there something that supersedes the command to shun? (this is for anyone to answer, not just Srecko)
     
     
     
     
    The basics are in the Bible, for anyone to see
  25. Thanks

×
×
  • 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.