A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.

[JW Insider]

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.

[Srecko Sostar]

You made good points. I would like to reformulate idea in question you put in focus: 

Are you ready to die for beliefs ?

Nothing about to die for core doctrines or less important doctrines. Because they can be changed. They can be truth, of course, but they can be useless fantasy, too.

[Srecko Sostar]

33 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You made good points. I would like to reformulate idea in question you put in focus: 

Are you ready to die for beliefs ?

Nothing about to die for core doctrines or less important doctrines. Because they can be changed. They can be truth, of course, but they can be useless fantasy, too.

Are you ready to die for faith?

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@JW Insider Quote " 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. "

That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say. 

However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs. 

However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself. 

doctrine

a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

 

It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.  

 

Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom - 

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. "

 

Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine. 

 

Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.

 

(This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?) 

 

Matthew 22 v 44 

 

‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?

So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ? 

 

As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures. 

 

What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ? 

 

And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?

 

 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It looks as though it should be a surprise if, faithful witnesses experience death. Nothing has changed since the time of Christ. Salvation has always been as though we are already dead. We are now working within a spiritual life.

There should never be an assumption that anyone will live to see the Day of Judgment. That’s not the point. The point is, to have personal salvation even unto death. Revelation 2:10

I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, if someone is thinking, those in Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected, think of it this way. They were judged by God directly.

Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

So, no one should harbor any ideals about what the “core doctrine” is perceived to be. God’s value through his son ransom sacrifice.

Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In that understanding, there is no contradiction with the AD1914 unless an independent understanding not supported by scripture is given to make it a controversy. That should never be an exploit of a witness.

There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Perhaps a better and easier explanation without controversy can be posted.

On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is:

Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE.

That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture.

From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death. 

The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?

I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Matthew 22 v 44 

 

. . .  “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?

True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here:

(1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.

Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ? 

By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet.

(1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Are you ready to die for beliefs ?

Nothing about to die for core doctrines or less important doctrines.

Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine.

I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Would this mean supernatural babies would not have received judgment because they are babies?

I was referring to natural babies. The Bible says that in the days before the Flood, men were marrying, and women were being given in marriage. A natural outcome of such natural marriages includes natural children.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It would be unusual for a witness to be distinct to such honor and speak of prophecy as though it was relayed directly from God to that individual.

Every Christian should let their reasonableness be known:

(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .

If a doctrine produces a contradiction then it is reasonable to question that doctrine. It is unreasonable not to question it.

There is no need to claim uniqueness, or to make an unreasonable claim that prophecy was relayed directly from God to any individual who notices the contradictions. And there is no need to pretend that noticing the 1914 problems is something unusual. I'm sure that THOUSANDS of Witnesses have seen these contradictions. I'm hoping that more of those thousands will be able to freely question because it is our Christian duty as Witnesses, to show our reasonableness, be noble-minded, keep testing, keep proving, and to make sure of the more important things, and hold fast to what is fine.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

With that said, faithful witnesses should understand the meticulous groundwork that Pastor Russell laid-out for everyone to see.

Exactly! And when we understand it, we can see where he made such far-reaching mistakes when it comes to his published chronology, almost ALL of which we have now abandoned. This is why the Watchtower has abandoned the very groundwork for the faulty system that Barbour laid out for Russell to accept. The basic groundwork was the "double" (Hebrew, "mishneh") found in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc. It was understood that this referred to a duplication of time:

Thus understood, the Prophet's declaration is, that from the time of their being cast off from all favor until the time of their return to favor would be a repetition, or duplication in time, of their previous history, during which time they had enjoyed divine favor. (Studies in the Scriptures, V.2, p.218)

In this now-abandoned scheme, natural Israel had received favor for 1,845 years, from 1813 BC to AD 33. Events in this period would exactly parallel events from the new dispensation for another 1,845 years from AD 33 to AD 1878. Adding the 37 years from Jesus death to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, meant that Russell could add 37 years from 1878 and reach 1914/1915, as the farthest extent of man-made rule by the nations.

As shown in the accompanying diagram, the period of their favor, from the commencement of their national existence at the death of Jacob, down to the end of that favor at the death of Christ, A.D. 33, was eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years; and there their "double" (mishneh) —the repetition or duplication of the same length of time, eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years, without favor —began. Eighteen hundred and forty-five years since A.D. 33 shows A.D. 1878 to be the end of their period of disfavor. A.D. 33 plus 1845 = A.D. 1878. (p.218)

.  . until the Times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," and hence, though favor was due and began in A.D. 1878, the Jew will not be received back into full favor until after 1915. Thus their rise again to favor will be gradual, as was their fall from it. It is remarkable, too, that these two periods of their falling and rising are of exactly the same length—the falling was gradual, with increasing momentum, for thirty-seven years, from A.D. 33, where their national favor ceased, to A.D. 70, where their national existence ended, the land was desolated and Jerusalem totally destroyed. History thus marks the beginning and ending of their fall, while prophecy marks both ends of their rising—1878 and 1915 —showing an exact parallel of thirty-seven years. (p.221)

So, yes, it was "meticulous" but it was meticulously false, which is why we now consider it to be just a lot of numerology for the trash heap.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

There are 2 instances within scripture of 1260. Revelation and Daniel. What witnesses shouldn’t do is project their independent understanding of prophecy, when they are not given that power of prophecy by God.

I agree. No Watchtower writers nor Governing Body members, nor any other Witnesses, should have ever projected their independent understanding of prophecy when they are not given that power of prophecy by God. Well-phrased. That would have saved much embarrassment over all the failed dates, failed explanations and failed predictions for 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, etc. 

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, there is no contradiction to Paul's words since the understanding of being enthroned in 1914 versus having taken control are two separate issues.

If Jesus being enthroned was so different than when he took (or takes) control, then when does Jesus take control? If you are saying it wasn't in 1914, then when do you say it was? Or will be?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I have carefully considered all of the above points, and concerning the willingness to die for one's beliefs, I have this to say about that:

Actor, comedian, and film producer, etc., Woody Allen said it best when asked about one of his latest movies, and the body of movies he had made in the past, either as star, producer, director, or all three ...

"Would you, through your movies, like to live forever in the hearts of your many fans?"

He replied "I would like to live forever, in my apartment in Manhattan."

[Srecko Sostar]

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine.

Yes, that is core thing in a individual faith vs collective faith. Collective faith power is visible from some WT magazine paragraph as in one who speaking about teachings that are unique to JW organization. WT Society said how Salvation is only possible inside Organization and inside respecting whole spectar of Teachings presented by GB.

Here i see contradiction that exists when JW facing with difficult situations. You made good point how issue of Salvation is on other side of spectar, and not in respecting teachings that is questionable or periodicaly changed.

But as it was already said, core faith (not core doctrine/doctrines) is Jesus. Faith in Jesus.

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

as though . . .  it would perceive those children had not succumbed to the evils that existed at that time. Genesis 6:6

(Genesis 6:5-7) 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.. . .

If we have faith like that of Abraham, then we will ask questions about this. Just as we have asked questions about what Jesus meant when he spoke of a resurrection on Judgment Day for those who were destroyed in Sodom. Abraham asked:

(Genesis 18:22-33) . . .Then the men left from there and went toward Sodʹom, but Jehovah remained with Abraham. ²³ Then Abraham approached and said: “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? ²⁴ Suppose there are 50 righteous men within the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the 50 righteous who are inside it? ²⁵ It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?” ²⁶ Then Jehovah said: “If I find in Sodʹom 50 righteous men in the city, I will pardon the whole place for their sake.” ²⁷ But Abraham again responded: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. ²⁸ Suppose the 50 righteous should lack five. Because of the five will you destroy the whole city?” To this he said: “I will not destroy it if I find there 45.” ²⁹ But yet again he spoke to him and said: “Suppose 40 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it for the sake of the 40.” ³⁰ But he continued: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose only 30 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it if I find 30 there.” ³¹ But he continued: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah: Suppose only 20 are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the 20.” ³² Finally he said: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me speak just once more: Suppose only ten are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” ³³ When Jehovah finished speaking to Abraham, he went his way and Abraham returned to his place.

In Christian parlance, even Abraham and Noah were NOT intrinsically righteous, but they were counted as if righteous due to their faith. Jehovah as the Giver of LIfe has a right to destroy everyone. He may also save persons, or bring them back from the dead. And we were made to ask questions in order to understand Jehovah better.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It was clear to God, children didn’t just inherit sin, but became embroiled in that sin out of their own will.

It is clear to me that you have never had a five-month old son or daughter, or grand-son or grand-daughter. We can accept that Jehovah knew what would become of those babies in their circumstances of the time. But Jehovah also knows that only those with haughtiness and no natural affection will stop questioning and stop investigating.

(Psalm 10:4) . . .In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;. . .

Just an aside, but that reminds me of how the psalmist almost turns the judgment imagery of the Flood "on its head" in these poetic lines:

(Psalm 36:5-8) . . .O Jehovah, your loyal love reaches to the heavens, Your faithfulness up to the clouds.  6 Your righteousness is like majestic mountains; Your judgments are like vast, deep waters. Man and beast you preserve, O Jehovah.  7 How precious your loyal love is, O God! In the shadow of your wings, the sons of men take refuge.  8 They drink their fill of the rich bounty of your house, And you cause them to drink of the torrent of your delights.

Like Noah, we are in effect "deluged" with the watery depths of Jehovah's bounteous delights and judgments.

But by blaming the young babies, don't you end up losing the natural meaning of Jesus' words about the innocence and humility of children, or what Paul meant when he said:

(1 Corinthians 14:20) . . .but be young children as to badness; . . .

[Srecko Sostar]

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It was clear to God, children didn’t just inherit sin, but became embroiled in that sin out of their own will.

I think how another fact is also clear to God. Noah and their family didn't produced better humankind after Flood. According to JW preaching, today's humankind is on top of list in badness. 

According to idea you explained, best solution would be, what god once expressed in his thinking - 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground,- to destroy all people and to release himself from this agony :)))

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

A well-established prophecy has divine providence.

True, but a well-established, misinterpretation of a prophecy has no divine providence.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, a witness should not reflect on prophecy if prophecy is not made known to that individual.

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?

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I believe Russell also rejected some understandings of Barbour especially after the public disagreements they had and the "separation" of their works.

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.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Since I’m neither an ex-witness that is given that privilege, nor am I a conflicted witness, I don’t wish to upset anyone here.

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.