To say that the WTS does not claim to be our Savior is purposely deceptive semantics. They do claim that you cannot be saved from eternal destruction without aligning yourself with their organization. It is splitting hairs to say that's not precisely the same thing.........
BizzyBee : Instead of accusing me of purposely deceptive semantics when I have been quite clear as to the difference between aligning yourself with the organization and the act of saving, why not address my analogy? What do you think? Was it God or the nation of Israel that saved this mixed crowd that fled with the Israelites when they passed through the Red Sea? Was it God or the nation of Israel that provided them with manna and water in the Wilderness? Yet...would the Red Sea have been opened for them if they had not been with the Israelites? Would manna and water have been provided if they were not "aligned" with the Israelites?
The problem is that Watchtower asserts that their UNIQUE INTERPRETATION is the ONLY correct one.
leavingwt : I agree with much of what you say. Jehovah's Witnesses are an eschatological faith and so when the "end-times" are is a matter of importance to them. I also agree that they are exclusive, apocalyptic and millenarian. All these were also true of the early church. Besty provided a reference regarding their assertion of unique interpretation (Watchtower April 1 1986 Pg 31 Question From Readers) which says that "approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting...those Scriptural beliefs that are UNIQUE to Jehovah’s Witnesses". I will not duck this as I know that some have used this QFR to disfellowship people, which I think is blasphemous. But it is quite clear from their doctrine of the light getting brighter that they do not believe all their current beliefs are correct, otherwise there would be no need for further light. In the Moyle v Rutherford et al. trial it was clearly said that it might be that current beliefs could change and we know this to be so. If current beliefs may change then ipso facto they are (potentially) not the only correct ones, in fact they may not be correct at all. I think the truth is that at the time this QFR came out there had been a lot of dissension at Brooklyn Bethel and elsewhere and there was concern that schisms were going to develop and this was published to prevent the JWs from disintegrating into a myriad of splinter groups as had happened after Russell died. This insistence on accepting scriptural interpretation has got nothing Christ-like about it, I cannot justify it, but I understand why it happened.
The line of reasoning that since JW's have the least number of incorrect teachings is a red herring as a means of accepting their claims. It would be like saying that this glass of water contained the least amount of poison as compared to other glasses of water...the fact remains that it is still poison!
tenyearsafter : The early church was very unclear as to their teachings, especially as to who/what Jesus was and when the end would come. That does not mean that what they held wrongly was poison. It was just that they had difficulty reconciling everything scripture said regarding the messiah and the time of the end and what Jesus had said about it. These questions are just as confusing today. But what salvation issues do you have in mind that should be given priority?
Do I really think that Jesus would have condemned someone for having a beard, not wearing a tie, saying "good luck" or the many other offenses that JW's will discipline over. No, I think this is petty, meaningless and unworthy of people who claim to imitate him. It reflects the growth of a movement in 20th century America rather than one in 1st century Palestine.
...OUTLAW