Glaring contradiction between 1995 new light and Society's authority as FDS

by yaddayadda 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hawkaw

  Apocalypse is probably one of the best I have ever witnessed at how the leadership interprets 24:45-47.

  Besides the words "having come" being changed for "on arriving" to throw the reader off the trail in 24:46 (if someone actualy reads the entire 24th Chapter), Apocalypse also showed me the other little footnote for 24:46 that takes the reader to the battle in the Book of Revelation. In other words 24:46 is to be interpreted to mean He is to come at the future battle and not now - visibly or invisibly.

  Great thread !
• 

  Amber Rose

  I vaguely remember a WT article about the difference between Jesus "arrival" and "presence". They went into detail about the huge difference that these two words in greek had and should be only understood the way that they were currently detailing. All that I could think was, they are the same word, they mean the same thing, I think they are just splitting hairs here. Their arguement made no sence to me. At that time I was a full believer. I am amazed at myself that I could beleive them and not believe them at the same time. Nonsence breeds nonsence, I suppose.
• 

  willyloman

  One has to wonder if this won't lead up eventually to a major change in the whole dating system of the Watchtower.

  They could just adopt the Jewish calendar and that would change 1914 to 5674, which has two advantages: It confuses the dubs further, and it eliminates all the "trigger" dates from their theocratic vocabulary, i.e., 1975 = 5735. See? Doesn't produce any reaction!
• 

  greendawn

  These are explanations of convenience, the invisible return concept is already unbiblical (as the JWs like to say where in te Bible do you find that?) one invisible return to be followed by a visible one, and now they seem to split the visible return in two parts. They rely on the fact that no one can check these claims about invisible events and verify them as false.
• 

  yaddayadda

  Gary, you said: "It says Jesus sort of hired the Watch Tower Corporation as his property managers. "He acknowledged" them as an instrument, and "entrusted them" with management. That actually might be different than appointing them as his channel of communication. What say you?"
  
  Technically you are right Gary, but I'm not sure what your point is. Any 'management' responsibilities Jesus conferred on them in 1918 would revolve around continuing to provide the domestics their 'food at the proper time'. The parable at Matt 24:45-47 doesn't allow for anything else. Do you have some other sort of management in mind?
  
  The Society absolutely claims that in 1919 they were appointed as God's sole channel of communication on earth. There are numerous quotes to show this. Here's just one:
  
  *** w67 10/1 590 Finding Freedom with Jehovah's Visible Organization ***
  "19 Evidences are now conclusive that Jesus Christ was enthroned in heaven in 1914 C.E. and that he accompanied Jehovah to his temple in 1918 C.E., when judgment began with the house of God. (1 Pet. 4:17) After cleansing those belonging to this house who were alive on earth, Jehovah poured out his spirit upon them and assigned them the responsibility of serving as his sole visible channel, through whom alone spiritual instruction was to come. Those who recognize Jehovah’s visible theocratic organization, therefore, must recognize and accept this appointment of the “faithful and discreet slave” and be submissive to it."
• 

  garybuss

  This is their quote from the Watchtower magazine: " . . . in 1919 [Jesus] entrusted them with the management . . . "
  
  I'm just guessing by the tone of the current articles and the assembly programs that the "entrusted management" just might have more to do with the control aspect and less to do with the channeling issue:-)
  
  The Society is trying to drive a thumbtack with a sledgehammer. The thumbtack is the authority claim. They are re-hashing the Revelation book again. That's just about the appointment claim. They are hammering the appointment claim at practically every meeting and at every back room inquisition.
  
  They have three messages:
  1. We are the channel;
  2. We are the channel;
  3. Did we mention that we are the channel?
  
  Obviously this is their great weakness. This is the behavior of a leader who senses he is losing the respect of his followers.
  
  
• 

  garybuss

  I think what the Society fails to appreciate is that by their incessant shameless self-promotion they are discrediting themselves and they are causing the questioning that they fear. In the Knorr and Franz days, the Society assumed respect and got it. Now they are begging for respect, and not getting it.
  
  
• 

  yaddayadda

  Gary, I agree that there is a recent upsurge of hammering home their authority. However, the Society has always been about authority from the time of Rutherford to today. There was a brief lull in the demand for submission to their centralised authority after Rutherford died but it didn't take long for the demands for obedience to the channel to reappear in full force again.
  
  The 1950s and 60's had some of the strongest language in glorifying the organisation and expectations of obedience and submission. This diminished in intensity somewhat following the 1975 debacle but now it is gathering steam again, as you note. They appear to be increasingly quoting (needs verifying) Matt 24: 45-47 and reminding us of their appointment.
  
  I was hoping for more discussion on exactly why the GB bothered to bring out this new light since all it does is undermine their 1914 doctrine and damage their claim to authority based on Matt 24: 45-47. But no one seems interested and this thread is running out of steam.
  
  Oh well.
• 

  Quandry

  I was hoping for more discussion on exactly why the GB bothered to bring out this new light since all it does is undermine their 1914 doctrine and damage their claim to authority based on Matt 24: 45-47. But no one seems interested and this thread is running out of steam. Why did they bother to bring out this new light? I think it is because the C.O.s and D.O.s are beginning to hear the deep grumblings of the rank and file and know that they "got some splainin' to do."

  But? Can they explain sufficiently for the masses? Well, it seems everyone is as confused by the new "explanations" as ever.

  I used to think that I did not have a spiritual outlook and just waited for further explanation, realizing that it might take years in coming and that I probably wouldn't understand it, either......

  I think most of what they publish at this time is damage control.....
• 

  ElderBerry

  What I think is most incredible is that one one hand, they're still teaching that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 and that the Last Days started in 1914. In Luke, Jesus said "When you see these things START to occur.....your deliverance is getting near."

  Common sense dictates that if it was the generation of 1914 that saw the beginning of these things, then it MUST be that generation who would see The End. The way they teach it now is an impossibility when you stop and think about it: We're still holding on to 1914 but we want to to ignore the scripture in Luke.