Who is The 'Lord' as mentioned in Romans 10:12-16
- 1903 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
- 1940 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.
- 1978 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
- 1980 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.
Can anyone give me references to the following flip-flop doctrine?
by ukescott 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
ukescott
-
cabasilas
The '78 reference is the May 1st WT, p. 12.
I remember that one distinctly. It blew my mind when I realized they were admitting that verse ("and everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved") applied to Jesus!
I left the JWs two years later. -
MeneMene
I had noticed some time ago that there was nothing but the years listed of the changes and wanted to know the specific publications myself. When I read your topic I went back to that webpage that lists the flip-flops and sent an email to the administrator of the website asking if they could add the publications (revision & page #s). Hopefully they will be able to get us that information. In the mean time maybe more people will be able to supply the ones you need now.
-
moggy lover
Unfortunately, I can only provide you with the last two references, the later ones. I have no way to access the earlier publications.
1 May 1st 1978, pg 12: Lord of Ro 10:13 = Jesus. Wt Comment: "This is only fair since the Son is Jehovah's chief representative"
2 Feb 1st 1980, pg 61: Lord of Ro 10:13 = Jehovah
I must say that the WT CD Rom is clearly deceptive since that earlier quote is absent from the '' search index '' thus making it impossible to research any information that is contrary to current WT teaching. When you scroll through Ro 10:13 in the index, it only provides the researcher with selective references, thus giving the false impression of consistency.
Cheers
-
Atlantis
1903 reference. (Jesus) Zion's Watchtower December 1, 1903 page 3282 http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?126fs344893.jpg **************************************************** 1940 reference. (Jehovah) Watchtower July 1, 1940, p.200 http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?126fs3449914.jpg ****************************************************** 1978 reference. (Jesus) Watchtower 1978 May 1, p.12 http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?126fs3450370.jpg ***************************************************** 1980 reference. (Jehovah) Watchtower 1980 February 1, p.16 http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?126fs3451736.jpg ****************************************************** Cheers! Atlantis-
-
Kaput
Atlantis --
as usual!
Kaput
-
Atlantis
Gee! Thanks Kaput!
Cheers! Atlantis-
-
Terry
1903 reference. (Jesus)
Zion's Watchtower December 1, 1903 page 3282
http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?126fs344893.jpg
****************************************************
1940 reference. (Jehovah)
Watchtower July 1, 1940, p.200
http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?126fs3449914.jpg
******************************************************
1978 reference. (Jesus)
Watchtower 1978 May 1, p.12
http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?126fs3450370.jpg
*****************************************************
1980 reference. (Jehovah)
Watchtower 1980 February 1, p.16
http://m1.freeshare.us/view/?126fs3451736.jpg
Who is The 'Lord' as mentioned in Romans 10:12-16
1903 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1940 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.
1978 - 'Lord' refers to Jesus.
1980 - 'Lord' refers to Jehovah.
Okay, now; stop and think about the implications of the above.
Jesus said that his sheep knew his voice. Jehovah's Witnesses obviously are confused at the very top of the FDS about whom they serve.
If you are confused about your shepherd's identity how can you be relied upon to get doctrine straight?
Answer: you cannot.
If Jesus returned in the 1800's or 1914 (they were confused about that too, ya know) wouldn't he inspect the religious believers as a shepherd inspects a large flock of sheep? Wouldn't Jesus select those who KNEW him? Would he really gather to him and lead person's who don't know him?
A house divided against itself cannot stand, and yet; Jehovah's Witnesses are divided (over time) about the very identy of their King and shepherd.
Why? Because they just make this stuff up as they go along. They drag burdensome doctrines around which they heap upon those serving like a weighty yoke. The doctrines are at odds and the one whom they serve is unknown to them. The blind are surely leading the blind.
How can these people have the gall to call their astoundingly confused opinion THE TRUTH???????
The source of this confusion is Judge Rutherford who was such a contrarian that he wanted to paint HIS followers a completely different color than everybody else's. He INVENTED Jehovah god and the awkward name JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. His screwy invention caused such a tremor of uncertainty about the identity of mankind's Savior they are still sorting it all out. Being Christian wasn't good enough apparently.
-
Atlantis
Yeah! You heard what Terry said!
Crap-Tower you make me so mad!
Cheers! Atlantis-
-
BluesBrother
I wonder if we are quoting the 1978 wt in the way that the writer meant it to be understood.? If I understand the above posts correctly we are saying that in 1978 the wt stated that the context of the verse referred to Jesus. (That would be a reasonable reading of Rom 10 IMHO, the thought bugged me when this was a yeartext some years back and was at the front of the K Hall)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................
*
w785/1p.12TheologiansStumbleOverGod’sName***Theologians
StumbleOverGod’sName"HOW could clergymen and theological authorities have stumbled over God’s name?
First, a major doctrinal mistake seems to have resulted from taking God’s name out of the Bible. As was pointed out in the last article, evidently "somewhere around the beginning of the second century" the divine name began to be replaced in the "New Testament" with "Lord" or "God." This caused a problem of identification: Which Lord was meant?
There are verses in the Hebrew Scriptures about Jehovah that are quoted in the "New Testament" in a context speaking about the Son. (Isa. 40:3—Matt. 3:3—John 1:23; Joel 2:32—Rom. 10:13; Ps. 45:6, 7—Heb. 1:8, 9) This is understandable, for Jesus was the Father’s foremost representative. In fact, in a similar way even an angel was spoken of as if he were Jehovah, because he was serving for Jehovah in representative capacity. (Gen. 18:1-33) What, however, may have been the effect of removing God’s name?"
......................................................................................................................................................................................................
As I read those paragraphs, the writer is saying that although the context is about Jesus, this verse is one where Jesus is referred to as a agent or representative of Jehovah. A comparison is made with an angel, referred to as Jehovah by Abraham.
Now, I do not follow that argument, I think it could be shot down in flames, but just think about it before we wave this at a diehard dub, because it may not be the flip flop that we think it to be - although the earlier stuff, prior to the NWT was quite clear.
