Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Pudgy]

…

 

[George88]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

When will the world end?

 Jesus said: “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36, 42) He added that the timing of the end would be unexpected, “at an hour that you do not think to be it.”—Matthew 24:44.

You are definitely on the right track. There is no need to explain Matthew's understanding, as it is already complete. It appears that the key to the solution lies in understanding the complement in Matthew 24:42. This is absolutely undeniable.  Be alert and vigilant! It seems that you have already shared that verse in Matthew 24:36, 42. Hence, it is absolutely crucial for anyone who wishes to repent to heed Jesus' admonition to stay vigilant for signs of prophetic significance at the end of times.

Scripture leaves no room for confusion, as we are also reminded in Luke 21:36. If an organization believes that the end of days began in 1914, it would be subjective and not like any other prophetic prediction made by others.

These fellows thought Jesus would return in 1901.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Apostolic_Church

John Chilembwe thought the Millennium would begin in 1915.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chilembwe

John Wroe predicated Armageddon would occur in 1977.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wroe

On that same year, William M. Branham predicted the rapture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Branham

Jesus sounded the alarm bell in his time, and its resounding echoes continue to resonate. Its sound is one that cannot be ignored or silenced. That predication can't be undone.
 

[Srecko Sostar]

WTJWorg and theologians/scholars of other churches have similar views when interpreting some Bible records.
WTJWorg uses the terminology; initial fulfillment and greater fulfillment when they interprets the spoken words of some biblical characters because they considers them to be prophecies that should refer to our time.

Also WTJWorg has generally abandoned using the type and prototype rule in most interpretations.

More and more they come to the conclusion that "we don't know" becomes a more acceptable explanation than dogmatism. Because the structure of people who are (who remain to be, to stay, as JWs) and who become JW members is also changing. Certainly, this does not mean that they will give up exercising power and influence over members.

If the intention of Jesus is to keep the first followers in suspense/tension of waiting for something that will not actually come/come true in their life, then that would be ugly of him. But their "Armageddon" took place within 50 years of the spoken word.
Because of what happened as announced, none of them then had the need to further explain or clarify the failure of the "prophecy" with the "overlapping generations" nonsensical/absurd thesis.
This argument/fact alone completely demolishes the statements GB has made in the past and is making today.

So we constantly have conflicting statements governing people's lives.

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WTJWorg and theologians/scholars of other churches have similar views when interpreting some Bible records.
WTJWorg uses the terminology; initial fulfillment and greater fulfillment when they interprets the spoken words of some biblical characters because they considers them to be prophecies that should refer to our time.

Also WTJWorg has generally abandoned using the type and prototype rule in most interpretations.

More and more they come to the conclusion that "we don't know" becomes a more acceptable explanation than dogmatism. Because the structure of people who are (who remain to be, to stay, as JWs) and who become JW members is also changing. Certainly, this does not mean that they will give up exercising power and influence over members.

If the intention of Jesus is to keep the first followers in suspense/tension of waiting for something that will not actually come/come true in their life, then that would be ugly of him. But their "Armageddon" took place within 50 years of the spoken word.
Because of what happened as announced, none of them then had the need to further explain or clarify the failure of the "prophecy" with the "overlapping generations" nonsensical/absurd thesis.
This argument/fact alone completely demolishes the statements GB has made in the past and is making today.

So we constantly have conflicting statements governing people's lives.

@Srecko Sostar Before I resume these lengthy and increasingly intricate discussions you keep posting about everyday under different topics, I need to understand your motivation. Is your primary motive simply to understand these subtle aspects of JW theology, so that you can then go on to decide for yourself whether JWs are at least reasonable enough to accept? Or is your primary motive to keep probing for a difficulty that as Witness we are not able to resolve, in the hope that your viewpoint will thus be vindicated? A sincere answer is important to me. If your primary motive is the former, then we are companions on a path of inquiry, and we are conducting dialogue in that spirit. I would see that as potentially quite fruitful. But if your primary motive is the latter, however I do not believe the outcome would be fruitful and would not wish to engage further.

@Pudgy I agree that no Governing body member is immune to the temptation of the corruption of power, but the Congregation is the Body of Christ, not a mere human institution. It would therefore be improper and unfitting to treat the Congregation and her leadership as if she were a merely human institution or equivalent to such, and not also divine in the life and power and wisdom in which she lives and moves and has her being. This is why Christ’s words to Saul were, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?”

@Pudgy I also agree that if we have evidence from a person’s prior words or actions that he is more interested in power than in justice and benevolence, then when he exercises authority in such a way as to expand his power, we could be justified in assuming that he is doing so primarily to gain power. But, if we have no such evidence, or if we have evidence to the contrary, then such an assumption is contrary to love. And there is no evidence that the Governing body is more interested in power and control than in faithfully shepherding the flock entrusted to them by Christ. The evidence from their life and leadership indicates just the opposite, namely, that they are righteous and pious men, deeply devoted to serving Christ and His Congregation.

@Srecko Sostar No historical study has ever shown that all persons in authority, when exercising that authority, are more interested in exercising power than in upholding justice or truth.Your stance, it seems to me, is one of cynicism, which, if applied consistently, would undermine your own position. Your cynical stance used as an argument against Jehovah’s Witnesses is question-begging, because it presupposes that there is no individual or group of persons who are in fact exercising authority for the good of those over whom they have charge. But that is precisely what is in dispute between ExJw’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely, whether or not there is a divinely established Governing Body that faithfully shepherds Christ’s flock for the good of His sheep. So assuming that there is no such group of persons assumes precisely what is in question between us, and in that respect begs the question. In order to compare the frameworks, you need to attempt to approach the question without begging the question.

Such a stance would likewise entail that every judge, when rendering a verdict, is only doing so in order to maintain and exercise his own power, not in order to uphold justice. It would imply that every police officer, when arresting a criminal, is doing so only to exercise power, not to uphold and maintain justice. Such cynicism is common today, but it is unjustified, and is destructive to society as a whole. It is a reflection of the “Question Authority” motiff of the 1960s. If the Devil had a bumpersticker, that would be it. It would also have made you a cynic toward Jesus in the first century, and toward the Apostles. If Christ promised that the Congregation would be the pillar and ground of truth, then we exercise faith in Jehovah and Christ through trusting and obeying those whom He has established to speak and govern in His Name, until His return.

[Pudgy]

The way I look at it is this:

When Armageddon comes there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to avoid it, or hurry it up, or slow it down.

This is God’s War, not mine. Obviously the Creator of the Universe is going to win.

Just like the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace, if it occurs in my lifetime, I intend to just sit back and watch the show!

…. and perhaps eat popcorn, and microwaved big greasy hot dogs!

[Srecko Sostar]

22 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Your cynical stance used as an argument against Jehovah’s Witnesses is question-begging, because it presupposes that there is no individual or group of persons who are in fact exercising authority for the good of those over whom they have charge.

If it can be called cynicism at all, it is a consequence of the biblical statement that "man rules over man for his evil", Ecclesiastes 8:9. 

Finally, WTJWorg teaches in a similar vein, calling all authority that exists outside the JW Church today as "satanic", and thereby effectively asserting that people outside the JW community are incapable of imitating God in matters of righteousness or mercy and so on. 

Such a claim by GB should mean that the authority in WTJWorg is the only correct one and benefits everyone involved. At the same time, they justify some of their claims and actions with the mantra that they are imperfect and that Jesus did not promise that GB would distribute perfect food.

Well, that's pure cynicism and hypocrisy, not my philosophizing.  

 

[Juan Rivera]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If it can be called cynicism at all, it is a consequence of the biblical statement that "man rules over man for his evil", Ecclesiastes 8:9. 

Finally, WTJWorg teaches in a similar vein, calling all authority that exists outside the JW Church today as "satanic", and thereby effectively asserting that people outside the JW community are incapable of imitating God in matters of righteousness or mercy and so on. 

Such a claim by GB should mean that the authority in WTJWorg is the only correct one and benefits everyone involved. At the same time, they justify some of their claims and actions with the mantra that they are imperfect and that Jesus did not promise that GB would distribute perfect food.

Well, that's pure cynicism and hypocrisy, not my philosophizing.  

 

@Srecko Sostar Your cynicism It’s not a consequence of Ecclesiastes 8:9. JW’s teach that “the existing authorities” can be said to “stand placed in their relative positions by God.” Relative to Jehovah’s supreme sovereign authority, theirs is by far a lesser authority. However, they are “God’s minister,” “God’s public servants,” in that they provide necessary services, maintain law and order, and punish evildoers. (Romans 13:1,4, 6) https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/watchtower/the-watchtower-1996/may-1

People outside of the JW community are capable of imitating God righteousness and mercy: “The apostle Paul comments on the conscience, or at least a vestige of such, that still persists in fallen man, even though in many cases he has strayed from God and does not have his law. This explains why all nations have established many laws that are in harmony with righteousness and justice, and many individuals follow certain good principles. Paul says: “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.”—Rom. 2:14, 15. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/ad/3090

Here’s what you are missing about human nature : Unity with non-Christians is not something to be desired (other than to convert them), but we need to distinguish between different types of unity.Obviously we cannot be spiritually united with those who do not share our faith. And this is why we ought not marry unbelievers. But, we can and should strive for civil peace with unbelievers.  Paul teaches us "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Rom 12:8) The author of the letter to the Hebrews similarly writes, "Pursue peace with all men" (Heb. 12:14). And civil peace is a kind of unity. We can and should pursue the common good in society, together with unbelievers. They too have a conscience, and the desire for the common good in civil society. They too want peace in our society, a clean environment, safe neighborhoods, order and beauty in society, just judges, etc. In other words, in the realm of the civil society, we have a great deal of common ground with unbelievers, as we pursue with them a civic unity, the unity of a civil society in its pursuit of the temporal welfare of that society. And again, that's because faith builds on and perfects nature, faith does not destroy nature. So the same civic goods we rightly desired as unbelievers, we still desire as Christians, along with those who are still unbelievers.

You seem to think that what is heavenly or supernatural, must be the opposite of what is human and of nature.

Of course a tyrant does not serve those whom he rules. But tyranny is an abuse of government, not the proper use of government. The true ruler of any society serves that society through his leadership. Hence, when Jesus says that the Apostles should not "lord it over" them, as the Gentiles do, Jesus is not contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state should be (as though civic leaders should not serve those whom they lead). Jesus is instead contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state often is, i.e. tyrannical.

[George88]

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If the intention of Jesus is to keep the first followers in suspense/tension of waiting for something that will not actually come/come true in their life, then that would be ugly of him. But their "Armageddon" took place within 50 years of the spoken word.
Because of what happened as announced, none of them then had the need to further explain or clarify the failure of the "prophecy" with the "overlapping generations" nonsensical/absurd thesis.
This argument/fact alone completely demolishes the statements GB has made in the past and is making today.

Imagine the spectacle it would create on the big screen! Throughout the generations, the words of Jesus urging us to remain vigilant for the signs of the end times, much like Noah warning his contemporaries of an impending catastrophe, have resonated powerfully through the pages of the Bible. While some religions and cultures perceive the story of Noah as mere fiction, Christians overwhelmingly embrace it as a remarkable historical event. 

The inception of Christianity had the purpose of encouraging its followers to approach the ancient scrolls with an open mind, thus avoiding the confusion that the Pharisees had caused by misinterpreting them to establish their own authority instead of God's. The ultimate objective was to adhere to those who taught the truth in the proper manner. However, individuals who consider themselves superior authorities and refuse to conform to the teachings of the Bible are essentially adopting the mindset of the Pharisees.

That perspective is not conducive to a devout follower of Christ. It's plausible to think that the apostles, being imperfect, might have occasionally stumbled in their speech. This is something none of us can avoid or pass judgment on.

Embracing a wholesome mindset is absolutely fine, as long as it aligns with the principles upheld by Christ. However, we must be cautious not to stray too far from His teachings and unintentionally validate the doctrines of the pharisees. It appears that numerous individuals within the organization become deeply entwined within this particular sphere.

It is important to exercise caution when receiving teachings, as we need to discern if they are sincerely rooted in biblical truth or merely a personal interpretation of truth.

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

civic unity

I put this term into the JW Library search engine, but I didn't get any results. That is significant. Apparently there is no official position on this or, on the other hand, WTJWorg does not cultivate the kind of relationship you describe. In fact, you yourself have determined that the sole purpose of "fellowshipping" between JWs and "unbelievers" is to "convert" them. A relationship based on this kind of "unity" grounded on such a motive is truly .... shameful. I have no words to describe my disgust at this way JWs look at their neighbors.

Although the description you gave of the JWs striving to get along well with the "unbelievers" seems positive at first glance, I must add that the general attitude of the WTJWorg and thus the members is reflected collectively in the notion that the "unbelievers" are destined for destruction at Armageddon and that they are "minds darkened by Satan". You cannot expect a correct, healthy human relationship from such a mindset and feeling. This world is labeled as "hostile" to JWs, and this is constantly repeated in your meetings.

And here we see an example of how some say one thing and others another (within WTJWorg).

6 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Jesus is instead contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state often is, i.e. tyrannical.

Whether an individual JW feels good or bad under the "leadership of JW elders" should be left to the personal judgment of everyone in your congregations. I don't need to deal with that. What I feel I can say is how JW leaders (plus JW lawyers) "represent and testify for God" before courts and other public and government/al authorities and institutions. And that is something terrible to know and it would shake and scandalize many JWs to hear and see how they are deceiving the public. Jesus would probably have something to compare and point out if there are any contrasts.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

 

[George88]

I am intrigued by the aforementioned comments.

There are various factors that can undermine Civic Unity. For followers of Christ, unity based on faith is seen as a powerful force that creates strong bonds and unbreakable commitments.

*** w02 9/15 p. 21 “Salvation Belongs to Jehovah” ***
During a national emergency, patriotic fervor often gives people a sense of unity and strength and may promote a spirit of cooperation and civic-mindedness among them. 

*** g77 10/8 p. 31 Watching the World ***
Churches Compromise with Communism

While some religions, such as the Catholic Church, have their own legal department and employ lawyers at the Vatican, the Watchtower relies on external legal counsel and volunteers for legal issues. This highlights a notable contrast between them and how Jesus approached legal matters, as he dealt mainly with the challenges presented to him by the Pharisees and high priests rather than involving himself extensively in legal affairs.

I believe the more effective way for witnesses to fulfill their role is by being "Civic Minded."

*** w77 10/15 p. 638 How Christians Are “No Part of the World” ***
INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY

The objective of Jehovah’s Witnesses is to take Bible education to the people. 
 

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In fact, you yourself have determined that the sole purpose of "fellowshipping" between JWs and "unbelievers" is to "convert" them. A relationship based on this kind of "unity" grounded on such a motive is truly .... shameful. I have no words to describe my disgust at this way JWs look at their neighbors.

@Srecko Sostar We all share a common humanity, and it is important to recognize that we do. And diversity of the sort that does not compromise the truth is truly beautiful. But Christianity is about much more than our shared humanity. You can’t reduce religion to humanism or simply morality, that would be Kantianism. This is dangerous and repugnant to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Helping your neighbor and those in need is an essential aspect of a Christian’s life, but that is not all the life or the mission of the Congregation. Insofar as this type of unity is intrinsically inclined to humanism, it is intrinsically inclined to fall short of the truth of Christianity, which is a divine revelation of Jehovah through Jesus Christ who is the Truth. Love requires truth because love becomes authentic only as informed by the truth. Without truth, loves degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way.