Aug 15th WT - Pg7 par3 - it's right there in plain sight

by passwordprotected 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • passwordprotected
    passwordprotected

    Paragraph 3 of this typically un-self-effacing article is incredible for 2 reasons, 2 reasons JWs are unlikely to be awake to and will more than likely be blind to.

    First of all the WTS very grandly state that "Jehovah and "the faithful and discreet slave" deeply appreciate all their past and present contributions to the Kingdom work."Firstly, the WTS have put their organisation in the self-assigned role as the "faithful and discreet slave", which we'll come to in a second. But more importantly, there is no mention of Jesus Christ's appreciation. Wasn't it his death that bought for JWs the right to approach Jehovah? Wasn't it his death that bought them redemption from sin? Wasn't it his death that bought the congregation? Yet his is not mentioned anywhere in this statement. Instead the "faithful and discreet slave" have supplanted him, removing any notion that he exists and appreciates and cares for elderly worshippers. His appreciation is of no note to JWs.

    Secondly, to back up the above quoted statement, the WTS quote a scripture. That scripture is Matthew 24:45. Rather than using a scripture which proves, from the Bible, that God appreciates and cares for elderly worshippers, they instead cite Matthew 24:45 to prove and back up their assigned role.

    Why?

    Because they feel that establishing their place in Jehovah's theocratic pecking order is more important that showing elderly worshippers from the Bible that God cares for them.

    But here's the strange thing, and it's right there plain sight. This is what Jesus said in Matthew 24:45;
    “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?"

    Think about that. To back up their God-appointed role they quote Jesus asking a question as to the actual identity of this very group the WTS claim to be. Jesus does not in v45 of Matthew 24 identify the "faithful and discreet slave". The cited verse is just Jesus asking a rhetorical question as to their actual identity.

    Isn't that a bit of red flag? To back up scripturally their statement that;
    - Jehovah and "faithful and discreet slave" deeply appreciate the efforts of older ones

    they cite a scripture that asks who really is the faithful and discreet slave!

    It's right there in plain sight. The WTS have replaced Jesus with the faithful and discreet slave, a role they've claimed for themselves, and they 'prove' their appointment by referring to Jesus asking a question regarding the identity of this very group.

    Why don't JWs see it?

    Asides from them being blinded, it's just too obvious and open for it to register with them.

    And that's scary.

  • Atlantis
    Atlantis

    Passwordprotected:

    Thank you! It is right in front of their eyes and they just don't see it. Yes, you are right!

    Nevada!-

  • sacolton
    sacolton

    It has always been there. You just have to WANT to see it and understand its meaning. Most JWs only glaze over it without acknowledging its implications ... yes, the WTBTS has placed itself in the role of Jesus Christ and removed Him from position so they can sit on His throne.

    Sad, isn't it? I'm ashamed that I had any part of this organization.

  • passwordprotected
    passwordprotected

    They just know that JWs won't even check the scriptural reference, so it's almost cheeky to put it in! That verse in Matt 24 proves nothing about the WTS, they know it and they still put it right under the noses of 7 million JWs.

  • blondie
    blondie

    Actually, the FDS has kicked Christ aside and taken his place.

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    True Christians? My foot!

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    PasswordProtected:

    Have you read Steve Hassan's books? Once I read his first book, I quickly realized how the Mind Control affects the JWs. The content of the literature has little to do with reality. They can print the most outrageous things they want to and 95% of the rank and file will never question it. Moreover, they will insist that it is a "loving provision from Jehovah".

    I was told the following: "Even if the Society is wrong about blood, you will have remained faithful to Jehovah if you follow the Society. If you or one of your family members die, you will get a resurrection."

    Anyone that questions these things can be silenced or removed from the organization.

    The Watchtower Society already promotes the killing of children, by allowing them to die, should they need whole blood or a banned fraction.

    I ask you, is there any teaching more egregious than this?

    As David Reed says, more JWs have died because of the blood doctrine than the number of people killed in the Jonestown Massacre. It's just that these deaths are not in one place, at one time.

    Just a thought.

    -LWT

  • sir82
    sir82

    I was told the following: "Even if the Society is wrong about blood, you will have remained faithful to Jehovah if you follow the Society. If you or one of your family members die, you will get a resurrection."

    If anyone gets a similar line, here is one way to respond:

    "So, if the Society does happen to be wrong, and someone following their advice dies, doesn't that make the Society bloodguilty?"

  • passwordprotected
    passwordprotected

    @leaving - you're absolutely right. Gail and I were talking about that this morning. We know close family members of ours will walk past us and our children in the street and completely ignore us. We know that they'd allow their children to die rather than take a blood transfusion. If the WTS were to print an article "urging" JWs to dig a cellar under their homes, suffocate their children and live in the cellar because the GT was coming, how many would do it without flinching?

    Another example of "right under your nose" WTS mentalism is the section in the "God's Love" book that asks JW "Can you explain to your doctor why you'll take blood fractions?"

    Any sensible JW should look at that and think, "actually, no, I can't. What's that about?". Instead they'll wrestle with this 'new light' (well, circa 2000) and never question the sheer idiocy of a no-blood policy that allows blood.

  • passwordprotected
    passwordprotected

    @sir82 - the very question I asked my parents re. the flip flop on organ transplants. On whose hands is the blood on.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit