ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

[Noble Berean]

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

While we read of some prophets in the first century (how many were there?) they have no role in the circumcision ruling of Acts 15 - which was conveyed to all congregations as a decree. Past prophets were considered (Amos and Isaiah), witnesses were heard (most notably Peter, Paul and Barnabas) but there is no mention of contemporary prophets.

It's interesting that apostles (leaders) and prophets (spiritual guides) were separate roles in the first century. It seemed odd to me that God didn't give the apostles both leadership and prophecy roles, but the more I reflect the more it makes sense. In the United States government, the three branches check one another so that no one gets too powerful. Perhaps, the prophets and apostles checked each other so that no one became too dominating. There's a similar relationship between Kings and prophets in ancient Israel. While the prophets had to respect the authority of those taking the lead, God selected prophets to guide the spiritual path of his people. So, there's an apparent logic to separating leadership from spiritual direction.

Today, the Bible fulfills the role of the prophets in the first century, and I believe it should act as the check for anyone taking the lead today. While humans prophets of the past could be conversed with to clarify spiritual direction, the Bible is a one-way conversation. We do our best to interpret what we have, but the Bible is not a black-and-white rule book and can be discerned differently from person-to-person (as made evident by the multitude of Christian denominations). In the WT organization, the Bible is not a distinct entity from the GB, because they claim to be the only ones that can properly interpret the Bible. You can't get the "truth" from the Bible without the GB. So, there is little room for personal conscience on scriptural interpretation. In a nutshell, the GB claims both leadership and doctrinal interpretation roles, so there's a lot of unchecked authority there. Bible history indicates that Jehovah God separated roles, because he understood human nature and had a concern of authority abuse. I believe one GB member remarked that JWs won't blindly follow direction that violates the Bible, but did he seriously reflect on that? Of course the Bible does act as a limit in some ways--I'm not suggesting JWs would blow a building up if a GB member said to do that. However, JWs have followed incorrect direction in the past that later was later "refined".

And while the Council of Jerusalem comparison overall seems appropriate for the GB today, I question whether they exerted the same control we see in the WT organization. We only have one recorded event in the Bible where the first century Christian governing body intervened and made a decree. It was an emergency situation when there was discord in the Christian community. And the goal of the decree was to put less burdens on Christians rather than more.

 

 

[Witness]

15 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

And when scripture tells us to keep on the watch Matthew 24:42, and stay awake Matthew 26:41-43, and be alert. We should ignore these scriptures because some, have failed to understand scripture?

 

This teaching alone is a manifestation, and indicative of a False Prophet.

 

 

 

 

Be Ready for His Coming

 

 

 

 

Matthew 24:42 “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. 43 But [af]be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be [ag]broken into. 44 For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.

 

 

In harmony with Matt 24:422 -    Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape.  1 Thess 5:1-3

Jehovah’s people enjoy a special environment of peace in the earthly part of his organization.  Wt 15/7/15

Our spiritual heritage can also infuse in us a deep sense of spiritual security that can be enjoyed only within Jehovah’s organization.  w05 2/15 pp. 17-22

Who are the awake ones, those whose leaders convince the sheep they have found peace and security in “what their fingers have made”, based on a time and seasons?  Isa 2:8; 2 Thess 2:1,2

One sign of a false prophet is double-speak.  James 4:8; Jer 23:16

[Witness]

26 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

You do realize, changes were made in 1931 to what witnesses of today understand as their history, or are you suggesting witnesses are following the same doctrine proposed prior to 1931?

 

You are saying they have covered up much of their history?  If that is the case, I agree. 

Watchtower doctrine is ever changing.  ‘False’ prophesy is still an integral part of the organization. 

1975

1914 is an ongoing false doctrine that has necessitated the revision of another false doctrine – “this generation”.

So many doctrines; for instance, the “faithful and discreet slave” has been revised how many times?

Is any of this "fruitful" teaching, fruit that will last?  John 15:16

The consistent “doctrine” is that an organization/corporation is earthly Zion.  This is truly blasphemy. 

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

7 minutes ago, Witness said:

You are saying they have covered up much of their history?  If that is the case, I agree. 

Watchtower doctrine is ever changing.  ‘False’ prophesy is still an integral part of the organization. 

1975

1914 is an ongoing false doctrine that has necessitated the revision of another false doctrine – “this generation”.

So many doctrines; for instance, the “faithful and discreet slave” has been revised how many times?

How does your personal view reflect in any honest assessment of the Watchtower? When you actively criticize a Lutheran, Evangelical, and any other reformation church that came out of Catholicism? do you make it a point to criticise the Vatican even though these churches came out of the reformation movement?

Do you actively go into any Seventh Day Adventist website to criticize William Miller?

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

46 minutes ago, Witness said:

In harmony with Matt 24:422 -    Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape.  1 Thess 5:1-3

Jehovah’s people enjoy a special environment of peace in the earthly part of his organization.  Wt 15/7/15

Our spiritual heritage can also infuse in us a deep sense of spiritual security that can be enjoyed only within Jehovah’s organization.  w05 2/15 pp. 17-22

Who are the awake ones, those whose leaders convince the sheep they have found peace and security in “what their fingers have made”, based on a time and seasons?  Isa 2:8; 2 Thess 2:1,2

Then, how does this sentiment not be in direct contradiction to your other proposed view? When you ask a modern day Bible Student about doctoral matters, what do you think their response would be if NOT this.

Was the Jehovah’s Witnesses doctrine “founded by Charles Taze Russell”?

 

Absolutely not! The doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is mostly based on the teaching of Joseph Rutherford, not Charles Taze Russell. There are some things that Russell and JWs have in common, such as the rejection of the non-Biblical inherent immortal soul and trinitarian dogma of men, but outside of this, the JW doctrine is almost the opposite of what Russell taught and believed.

 

Are the “Studies in the Scriptures” the “the basis of the Jehovah Witness theology”?

 

Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses reject most of what is in the Studies in the Scriptures, it is certainly not true that the basis of the JW theology is from those studies. JW theology rejects the very central doctrine related to atonement that is presented in the Studies, that is the “ransom for all,” and have replaced that doctrine with one that basically says, “join us, or else be eternally destroyed.” The latter was never taught by Russell, but the former — the ransom for all — was the central basis of Russell’s ministry.

So, once again, how does this not reflect on your personal understanding of the Watchtower?

[Witness]

1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then, how does this sentiment not be in direct contradiction to your other proposed view? When you ask a modern day Bible Student about doctoral matters, what do you think their response would be if NOT this.

Was the Jehovah’s Witnesses doctrine “founded by Charles Taze Russell”?

 

 

 

 

Absolutely not! The doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is mostly based on the teaching of Joseph Rutherford, not Charles Taze Russell. There are some things that Russell and JWs have in common, such as the rejection of the non-Biblical inherent immortal soul and trinitarian dogma of men, but outside of this, the JW doctrine is almost the opposite of what Russell taught and believed.

 

 

 

 

 

Are the “Studies in the Scriptures” the “the basis of the Jehovah Witness theology”?

 

 

 

 

Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses reject most of what is in the Studies in the Scriptures, it is certainly not true that the basis of the JW theology is from those studies. JW theology rejects the very central doctrine related to atonement that is presented in the Studies, that is the “ransom for all,” and have replaced that doctrine with one that basically says, “join us, or else be eternally destroyed.” The latter was never taught by Russell, but the former — the ransom for all — was the central basis of Russell’s ministry.

 

 

So, once again, how does this not reflect on your personal understanding of the Watchtower?

 

1914 began with Russel, traveled through the teachings of Rutherford and is still taught today, despite changing doctrine. 

Russel and Rutherford are touted as blessed by God with truth.  (God’s Kingdom Rules)  Their teachings set the foundation of the organization. Matt 7:22-26   How can you change or excuse – “The Finished Mystery”, “Studies in the Scriptures” which are actually listed (but not able to link) on the web site?

Does it  change my feeling of the Watchtower that doctrine has changed since then?  No.  It is an operation of error (2 Thess 2:1-12) And an abomination of desolation – a false priesthood rules over the genuine chosen priesthood – a “disgusting thing standing in the holy place”  Matt 24:15 ; Dan 8:11  ( 1 Cor 3:16; 6:17,19,20; Eph 2:22; 1 Pet 2:5,9,10)

The organization is the “image” of the Beast of Revelation that demands loyalty and obedience – an idol.  Rev 13:15-18

 

 

[Witness]

1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

How does your personal view reflect in any honest assessment of the Watchtower? When you actively criticize a Lutheran, Evangelical, and any other reformation church that came out of Catholicism? do you make it a point to criticise the Vatican even though these churches came out of the reformation movement?

Do you actively go into any Seventh Day Adventist website to criticize William Miller?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, J.R.  You may not have read any previous posts by me, but none of them addressed any of the religions you mentioned, except the Catholic Church for their proactive stance on learning from the Australian Royal Commission inquiries.  

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

And while the Council of Jerusalem comparison overall seems appropriate for the GB today, I question whether they exerted the same control we see in the WT organization. We only have one recorded event in the Bible where the first century Christian governing body intervened and made a decree. It was an emergency situation when there was discord in the Christian community. And the goal of the decree was to put less burdens on Christians rather than more.

Perhaps it is as you say about separation of powers, but I suspect you are overthinking this. It is better if you do not.

Search the scriptures for how many indicate submission to a human authority is a good thing. Contrast that with how many indicate congregational authority is a thing that we can accept or reject as we see fit.. 

I think you will find the first vastly outnumber the second.

Of course, the exact methods will always be arguable. So if there is something you absolutely cannot abide, find the faith that is doing a preaching work comparable to Witnesses and go there. Otherwise, remain here - support what you can, sit out what you cannot. Look for what is good, cut slack for what seems lacking, and allow yourself to be taught by Jehovah.

[Witness]

1 hour ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

Then how would you justify a false claim, when it was made known to the public, what CT Russell claimed about Armageddon?

Would you like the link to the pages in Studies of the Scriptures, both original and revised version?

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

27 minutes ago, Witness said:

Does it  change my feeling of the Watchtower that doctrine has changed since then?  No.  It is an operation of error (2 Thess 2:1-12) And an abomination of desolation – a false priesthood rules over the genuine chosen priesthood – a “disgusting thing standing in the holy place”  Matt 24:15 ; Dan 8:11  ( 1 Cor 3:16; 6:17,19,20; Eph 2:22; 1 Pet 2:5,9,10)

The organization is the “image” of the Beast of Revelation that demands loyalty and obedience – an idol.  Rev 13:15-18

Then by Extensa, you galvanize your personal opinion that renders it meaningless. With that said, you can continue with your “false” claim. The “false” claim linking Russell and Armageddon in 1914, by you. No further evidence needed.

2 Timothy 4:3-4New International Version (NIV)

³ For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ⁴ They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

32 minutes ago, Witness said:

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, J.R.  You may not have read any previous posts by me, but none of them addressed any of the religions you mentioned, except the Catholic Church for their proactive stance on learning from the Australian Royal Commission inquiries.

I believe that was the point!!

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

36 minutes ago, Witness said:

1914 began with Russel, traveled through the teachings of Rutherford and is still taught today, despite changing doctrine. 

Russel and Rutherford are touted as blessed by God with truth.  (God’s Kingdom Rules)  Their teachings set the foundation of the organization. Matt 7:22-26   How can you change or excuse – “The Finished Mystery”, “Studies in the Scriptures” which are actually listed (but not able to link) on the web site?

Does it  change my feeling of the Watchtower that doctrine has changed since then?  No.  It is an operation of error (2 Thess 2:1-12) And an abomination of desolation – a false priesthood rules over the genuine chosen priesthood – a “disgusting thing standing in the holy place”  Matt 24:15 ; Dan 8:11  ( 1 Cor 3:16; 6:17,19,20; Eph 2:22; 1 Pet 2:5,9,10)

Then by Extensa, you galvanize your personal opinion that renders it meaningless. With that said, you can continue with your “false” claim. The “false” claim linking Russell and Armageddon, by you. No further evidence needed.

2 Timothy 4:3-4New International Version (NIV)

³ For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ⁴ They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.