Why do JW's elders act like their failed predictions is no big deal?

by booker-t 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  He told me that he does not care how many dates the Watchtower gave that did not come to pass because he told me that "false prophecies" (deut 18:20-22) is under the old testament law and christians are no longer under that law so JW's are not false prophets at all since they are not in old testament times. The most you can accuse JW's with today is "wrong expectations" which is not a sin at all because the apostles did the same thing.

  Hmmmmmm..... so the NT doesn't talk about "false prophets" at all?
• 

  Elsewhere

  
  

  *** Watchtower 1956 Feb 1 p.88 Cautious as Serpents Among Wolves ***

  45 We dare not lie against God's Word, adding to it or taking away from it, reading into it what it does not say and denying, passing over or explaining away what it does truthfully say. "Every word of God is tried: . . . Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov. 30:5, 6, AS) We may not tell untruths in his name, for that puts God in the light of a liar. "Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar." (Rom. 3:4, NW) In Jeremiah's day the false prophets prophesied lies in Jehovah's name and lied against his purpose, foretelling in his name what he had not foretold. Therefore Jehovah was against them. He executed judgment against them at Jerusalem's destruction in 607 B.C. (Jer. 23:25; 27:15) Religious liars like them today cannot escape a like judgment but will meet a like end at Armageddon.
• 

  Gary1914

  Also Christmas is not the date of Jesus BD but he argues that the churches have not publically announced to their churches to stop celebrating a wrong date.

  I don't know anyone who truly believes that December 25th is actually the day Jesus was born.

  In fact, Charles Russell once wrote:

  The December 1, 1904 Watchtower, page 364, states "Even though Christmas is not the real anniversary of our Lord's birth, but more properly the annunciation day or the date of his human begetting (Luke 1:28), nevertheless, since the celebration of our Lord's birth is not a matter of divine appointment or injunction, but merely a tribute of respect to him, it is not necessary for us to quibble particularly about the date. We may as well join with the civilized world in celebrating the grand event on the day which the majority celebrate - "Christmas day."

  This elder was parroting what all elders are taught to say. We are supposed to dismiss all questions relating to past dates and predictions with phrases like "Oh, that was then... this is now and now is what we have to concern ourselves with." We are taught to deflect all accusations of constant change in policy just as the elder mentioned herein did. We are to praise change, turn it around and make it seem an acceptable and indeed wise thing to do.
• 

  Hellrider

  He told me that he does not care how many dates the Watchtower gave that did not come to pass because he told me that "false prophecies" (deut 18:20-22) is under the old testament law and christians are no longer under that law so JW's are not false prophets at all since they are not in old testament

  That sounds really strange. Is the passage in Deuteronomy really a "law"? Was it an OT-"law" that it wasn`t allowed to make prophecies (which weren`t fulfilled)? It doesn`t sound like "law" to me. JWs see no problem in referring to OT-passages all the time, including those that aren`t referred to in the NT. And by the way, isn`t this principle referred to also in the NT? Isn`t Matthew 7:15-17 talking about exactly these kinds of things? Your elder-friend there doesn`t sound like he invented the wheel, imo...
• 

  VM44

  So the elders are trained to say "That was then, this is now."?

  In other words, "We had no idea what we were talking about in the past, but today we do know what we are talking about."

  This stance is insulting to the intelligence of anyone involved in the conversation.

  The simple fact is that the JW elders cannot face up to the failures of the past, so they will simply ignore them. Problem solved.

  How can they be satisfied taking such an attitude? After all, the present now is the result of the happenings of the past, so how can one simply ignore what has happened, particularly if what has happened is on the record.

  --VM44
• 

  IP_SEC

  "That was then, this is now."?

  This reasoning suspiciously doesnt fly when it comes to the Catholics eh? OOO yet another Dubble standard.
• 

  mustang

  because he told me that "false prophecies" (deut 18:20-22) is under the old testament law and Christians are no longer under that law so JW's are not false prophets at all since they are not in old testament times.

  Yet if he needs to hold some OT/Hebrew Law thing over you, he'll use it in the next sentence out of his mouth.

  Epiphany? Yes, I agree. But I've had this one already. I credit my father and WTS with teaching me basic honesty; yet I found out that he would lie and manipulate to get someone to make a "shepherding call" on me. Then he would calm them down after they discovered his hoax and get them to spy on me!!!

  WTS only teaches honesty on the surface to set you up to be taken.

  Mustang
• 

  greendawn

  They have redefined the meaning of a false prophet if the prophecy fails and the person that made it admits that his prophecy failed then he can not be called a false prophet. As if he had any other choice.
• 

  Frannie Banannie

  Because the organization tells them it's no big deal.
• 

  Hellrider

  because he told me that "false prophecies" (deut 18:20-22) is under the old testament law and Christians are no longer under that law so JW's are not false prophets at all since they are not in old testament times.

  I couldn`t get that one out of my mind, I have to clarify what I was trying to say in my previous post: Your elder-friend is wrong, because Deut 18:20-22 isn`t "law". It`s not like "thou shalt cut thine foreskin off of your penis" or "thou shalt not formicate with thine neighbours donkey". It`s all to easy to just dismiss the parts of the OT that one doesn`t like as "law, and the law of Moses was taken away with the coming of Jesus". No, this passage is a description (a descriptive statement, big difference from the normative "law") of a certain type of "prophets" (those who`s prophecies don`t come true), and how those kinds of "prophets" should be viewed/treated (normative, yes, but the descriptive part of the passage, how we are to recognize and separate between true and false prophets, is the "dominant" part of the passage). I am pretty sure I am right. Tell your elder-friend this, and let us know how he responds.