Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding 169 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Hi DJ,

    "...Jehovah's Witnesses are generally advised to keep their distance from apostates, since they typically will have learned everything that most Jehovah's Witnesses know from having studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, except, lacking humility, they have failed to obtain more than a cursory knowledge of the true God."

    The WTS likes to paint all with the same brush. They can't imagine that some have simply realized that the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is not biblical and requires that one put faith in men which is contrary to God's word. Ps.118:9, 146:3

    "It can take 20, 30, even 40 years to become "solid in the faith," for only those, who have taken up "the large shield of faith" that are able to withstand, even quench, any missile launched by God's enemies. (1 Peter 5:9; Ephesians 6:16)"

    Mormons will tell you the same thing...and their religion is just as unbiblical as yours.

    "I noticed that you quoted something you read in a 1952 issue of the Watchtower, but you would be incompetent to think that Jehovah's Witnesses today are being taught according to what was being taught in 1952 or 1920 or even 1879."

    Does WTS "truth" change so often that you or I cannot quote yesterday's Awake? What you have written, you have written. Take responsibilty for it. I say you, because you promote whatever is being taught or changed....and therefore share the guilt of your leaders. The fact that you keep changing your unique dogmas illustrates that your religion is not biblical and cannot be trusted. Biblical truth does not change. So your religion which frequently changes, even reversing it's teachings 180 degrees and later reverting back to former positions, just illustrates that Jehovah's Witnesses are ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. (2Tim.3:7)

    "While there are some who would have been disfellowshipped for apostasy in those years, those taking the lead in God's organization have now learned to take up God's view on the matter, and so elders today are not only distinguishing between those with legitimate questions and concerns, and those who seek to make trouble for Jehovah's Witnesses with a view to perverting the good news about the Christ. (Galatians 1:7)"

    Actually, it is the Watchtower Society that is perverting the good news by preaching a gospel Paul never heard of... based only on the speculations and imaginations of men. (Gal. 1:7-9; I Cor.15:1-4)

    "I think it rather strange that you would be quoting from any WTS publication, even from the NWT Bible, to someone that is actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses,..."

    Why so? And if I knew you were "active" would I have asked you if you were "in good standing"?

    "...which suggests that you are one of those that Jehovah cleaned up from your filth, stripping away your Philistine pride, removing the bloodstained things from your mouth and the disgusting things from between your teeth so that you were once a sheik in Judah (Zechariah 9:7) But you have since returned to your Philistine ways and think that my God, Jehovah God, recognized you as a worshipper of His, totally deluding yourself in believing you fooled the true God. Sure, you had some fooled, but you would be a fool to think that you managed to fool Jehovah."

    How does pointing out that your religion is not biblical make one a Philistine DJ? I assure you that the only one deluding himself, is you. I was never a JW. You obviously did not see or pay attention to my video on your organization's mythological foundations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LowZJLAiJQ

    <<What things you read in the Bible and what things are quoted from the Bible in WTS publications are sacred things, and if I know that you are one not having appreciation for sacred things, why would you expect any worshipper of the true God to listen to you quote scriptures?>>

    How can "truth" in WTS publications, now recognized as error, be sacred? You worship men DJ and the fact that you identify and treat former "truth" which is really error, as sacred, proves this. You vindicate men, not God and His Word.

    "The NWT and all of the WTS publications that are dedicated to Jehovah, which you now trample upon underfoot with contempt belong to Jehovah. (Matthew 7:6)"

    I quoted your literature and informed you that your religion, as promoted in your literature, is not biblical. The WTS therefore is in contempt of Jehovah. Adding to the word of God has oft proven Jehovah's Witnesses liars.

    "You will only benefit yourself should you decide to return to us, and if you should ever decide in the future to do so, it would behoove you to make a real effort to build up your faith in Jehovah and in His word, the Bible."

    My faith is in God and His word; yours on the contrary, is in men and their words; it's that simple DJ.

    Vander

  • djeggnog
    djeggnog

    @djeggnog wrote:

    I think it rather strange that you would be quoting from any WTS publication, even from the NWT Bible, to someone that is actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which suggests that you are one of those that Jehovah cleaned up from your filth, stripping away your Philistine pride, removing the bloodstained things from your mouth and the disgusting things from between your teeth so that you were once a sheik in Judah (Zechariah 9:7) But you have since returned to your Philistine ways and think that my God, Jehovah God, recognized you as a worshipper of His, totally deluding yourself in believing you fooled the true God. Sure, you had some fooled, but you would be a fool to think that you managed to fool Jehovah.

    @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

    How does pointing out that your religion is not biblical make one a Philistine DJ? I assure you that the only one deluding himself, is you. I was never a JW. You obviously did not see or pay attention to my video on your organization's mythological foundations....

    Until I read this last message of yours, I had assumed that you were formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses. In view of the fact that you were never one of Jehovah's Witnesses, none of my remarks here -- especially what I said about your having been cleaned up and having had stripped away his Philistine pride -- cannot resonate with you since you haven't studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, you haven't made a dedication to Jehovah to do His will and been baptized. I have no interest in watching a video since I am here talking to you and it is not possible for me to have a discussion with a video.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    What things you read in the Bible and what things are quoted from the Bible in WTS publications are sacred things, and if I know that you are one not having appreciation for sacred things, why would you expect any worshipper of the true God to listen to you quote scriptures?

    @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

    How can "truth" in WTS publications, now recognized as error, be sacred? You worship men DJ and the fact that you identify and treat former "truth" which is really error, as sacred, proves this. You vindicate men, not God and His Word.

    What is there about Bible truth that is now recognized as error? When I stated that "what things are quoted from the Bible in WTS publications are sacred things," I was referring to Bible truth. I wasn't talking about the commentary you find in WTS publications that are essentially miniature sermons that are designed to help the reader to comprehend Bible truth and suggesting that what Jehovah's Witnesses say in these publications are sacred. Jesus stated at John 17:17: "Your word is truth," and apart from what we read in the Bible, there is no other "truth."

    @djeggnog wrote:

    The NWT and all of the WTS publications that are dedicated to Jehovah, which you now trample upon underfoot with contempt[,] belong to Jehovah. (Matthew 7:6)

    @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

    I quoted your literature and informed you that your religion, as promoted in your literature, is not biblical. The WTS therefore is in contempt of Jehovah. Adding to the word of God has oft proven Jehovah's Witnesses liars.

    It is your choice to decide whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses are promoting true worship that is based on the Bible. It is up to you to decide if Jehovah's Witnesses have added to the word of God. If you should conclude or have already concluded that Jehovah's Witnesses are not promoting true worship and that we have sought to add anything at all to the Bible, then I have no problem accepting this as being your choice. Jehovah's Witnesses do not measure success by their numbers; Jesus foretold at Matthew 9:37 that the harvest would be great, but that there would be very few workers involved in the harvest work to be done.

    While the harvest work began on Pentecost when the holy spirit was first poured out upon Jesus' disciples, which spirit sealed them in their foreheads as slaves of the living God, the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, but according to Jesus' own words at Matthew 13:39, the harvest to which Jesus was referring at Matthew 9:37 "is a conclusion of a system of things," which indicated that this harvest work that began back in 33 AD would continue until our own day.

    At Revelation 7:1-3, "four angels" are seen "holding tight the four winds of the earth," and these four angels are there given a command by the angel that already had "the seal of the living God" upon his forehead, evidently the archangel Michael, who has authority over these "four angels," to not unleash the four winds that they were holding back until after these anointed ones, these "slaves of our God," had finally been "sealed ... in their foreheads" as spiritual Israelites. It is after these "firstfruits" have all been harvested that the ingathering of the great crowd will come to an end and this harvesting work will have come to a close.

    @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

    But aren't you advised to hate apostates and have nothing to do with them aside from what is necessary?

    @djeggnog wrote:

    No, but Jehovah's Witnesses are generally advised to keep their distance from apostates, since they typically will have learned everything that most Jehovah's Witnesses know from having studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, except, lacking humility, they have failed to obtain more than a cursory knowledge of the true God. It can take 20, 30, even 40 years to become "solid in the faith," for only those, who have taken up "the large shield of faith," that [will be] are able to withstand, even quench, any missile launched by God's enemies. (1 Peter 5:9; Ephesians 6:16)

    @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

    The WTS likes to paint all with the same brush. They can't imagine that some have simply realized that the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is not biblical and requires that one put faith in men which is contrary to God's word. Ps.118:9, 146:3

    What I wrote in my previous post wouldn't really apply to you, since only those that have studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, dedicated themselves to God and submitted to water baptism in symbol of such dedication are classified as apostates, when those who have "once for all been enlightened ... fallen away." (Hebrews 6:4-6) The words I quoted above from your last post are very pertinent to my response in this post:

    I was never a JW.

    I didn't know about your video, I have never viewed it, and I do not plan to watch it (although it may be a great video), since your being against Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't make you an apostate.

    You wrote:

    My faith is in God and His word; yours on the contrary, is in men and their words; it's that simple DJ.

    You may be putting your faith in God, but your knowledge of the true God is incomplete, so you cannot know God, and neither does God know you. (Galatians 4:9) You are in the same position as was that Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke at John 4:22, when he told her that "You worship what you do not know." Jesus goes on to say at John 4:23, that "the true worshippers" of God would be those that be worshipping "the Father with spirit and truth," for God is "looking for suchlike ones to worship him." Contrary to what you may believe to be the case, your faith is not in God and His word.

    It is "the weak and beggarly elementary things" of this world that Christians have left behind in order to serve God, such as involvement in political campaigns hoping that through the efforts of selfish imperfect men and women a better government will emerge, or the pursuit of material prosperity or the pursuit of prominence at one's job or in some other endeavor, or the pursuit of pleasure and entertainment. At Matthew 19:27, the apostle Peter told Jesus: "We have left all things and followed you." To serve God, a Christian must leave these all such "weak and beggarly elementary things" behind.

    This is why Jesus stated at Mark 7:7, in quoting Isaiah 29:13 ("their fear toward me becomes men’s commandment that is being taught"), that it is in vain that such people are worshipping God for in reality, what they are doing is putting their faith in the commands of men "as doctrines." (Mark 7:7) Jehovah's Witnesses are not putting their faith in men or in men's words, but they are putting their faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and in the infallible word of God.

    Again, you cannot be putting your faith in God if you do not know God, and if you have not dedicated yourself to God, then He doesn't know you, for "Jehovah knows those who belong to him." (2 Timothy 2:19) Truly if anyone wants to serve God and to do His will, then one only need examine what things Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching to determine whether or not what we teach comes from God's word. (John 7:17) Case in point, the explanation I provided you here regarding Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus. You will only find this explanation being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses. There are many things that you do not know, but it could truly be of benefit to you were to you consider (and have!) a Bible study with one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Does WTS "truth" change so often that you or I cannot quote yesterday's Awake? What you have written, you have written. Take [responsibility] for it. I say you, because you promote whatever is being taught or changed....and therefore share the guilt of your leaders.

    I take responsibility for everything that Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching others. If the information in yesterday's Watchtower or Awake! magazine should be accurate today, I will quote from it, but if it isn't accurate, I will still quote from it, while pointing out the inaccuracies since we cannot know in advance that something written yesterday will need to be revised tomorrow.

    Many computer users today have forgotten that, during the pre-broadband age, computer users were using 300 baud, 2400 baud, 9600 baud and 14,400 baud modems to communicate with other computers users on bulletin boards and on the internet, that is, until the 28,800 and 33,600 and 56,000 kbps modems came along. Many former issues of PC Magazine and PC World once recommended the installation of these "speedy" 14,400 internal modems over external modems, but obviously some of the information that these back issues contained is no longer up-to-date, so why should these computer magazines continue to defend the things they formerly printed regarding 14,400 modems, whether internal or external, when the world has moved on to broadband, cable and T1 connections?

    Before February 18, 1930, the world taught that there were eight planets, and for almost 80 years, after recognizing Clyde Tombaugh's discovery of Pluto as a planet, school students were being taught that there were nine planets, but after the IAU vote on August 24, 2006, the prevailing belief today is that there are eight planets. There may have been things contained in science books published before August 24, 2006, that were still up-to-date, but until those books were replaced in classroom, science teachers would likely have explained to their students that the information regarding Pluto being one of nine planets was no longer accurate.

    This change, mind you, didn't affect the credibility of science teachers. However, any science teacher in 2010 to be teaching his or her students that there are nine planets in our solar system and that Pluto is one of them after the IAU vote declared Pluto to be, not a planet, but a drawf planet would likely be career-ending for that science teacher. Those companies that produced science textbooks for school classrooms regarding a ninth planet cannot be held responsible for what things they wrote before the IAU vote, but only for the things they write after the vote.

    Bible truth doesn't change and because Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to teach Bible truth, we quickly abandon any previous understanding we may have had when we come to realize our previous understanding to have been in error. It is not the Bible that is in error, mind you, for God's word is infallible, but us, because Jehovah's Witnesses are not infallible, and we refuse to take a wrong position and be resistant to changing that wrong position when it becomes clear that our former understanding of a particular matter was incorrect. Jehovah's Witnesses are being led by holy spirit, and essentially what this means is that when we read something in the Bible, which things were inspired by God's holy spirit, we follow the conclusion all of the scriptures that we're considering leads us. When we do this, we are thereby being led by holy spirit. Understand?

    Now what happens should we later on, upon reading another scripture, we come to realize that the conclusion we had reached in the past was not the correct conclusion to which we were being led by God's word? Jehovah's Witnesses will then immediately abandon that wrong conclusion and follow the conclusion to which all of the scriptures that we're now considering leads us. This is what it means to be led by holy spirit.

    The inclusion of such changes in our publications makes sense, since we can only be held responsible for the things we write after we became aware of our error, and not for what things we wrote before we became aware of our error. This is again what it means to be led by holy spirit. We will not resist the holy spirit by becoming stoic in our bearing and teaching, and refuse to change our position on a matter if we are allowing ourselves to be led by holy spirit.

    Now not one of Jehovah's Witnesses is miraculously zapped with a special knowledge of the Bible, for those gifts of the spirit ceased with the death of Jesus' apostles during the first century AD, and often it is only in hindsight that we are able to discern the meaning of certain scriptures, but what things Jehovah's Witnesses teach others are based solidly on what the Bible says, and not on what we might want it to say.

    The fact that you keep changing your unique dogmas illustrates that your religion is not biblical and cannot be trusted. Biblical truth does not change. So your religion which frequently changes, even reversing it's teachings 180 degrees and later reverting back to former positions, just illustrates that Jehovah's Witnesses are ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. (2Tim.3:7)

    Actually, no, but I understand that this is your view of my religion, and I accept this, but what I cannot accept is your appropriation and perversion of the apostle Paul's words at 2 Timothy 3:7, for, in context, the ones about whom Paul was speaking were men that only had "a form of godly devotion," who were "disapproved as regards the faith," and who were resisting the truth, in that they had exploited their positions in God's household by working their way into households and making those yet weak in faith their captives, so that they were "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Timothy 3:2-8) You twisted Paul's words at 2 Timothy 3:7, which obscures the fact that those "never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth" were the ones that such "wicked men and imposters" were misleading. (2 Timothy 3:13)

    @djeggnog wrote:

    I noticed that you quoted something you read in a 1952 issue of the Watchtower, but you would be incompetent to think that Jehovah's Witnesses today are being taught according to what was being taught in 1952 or 1920 or even 1879. While there are some who would have been disfellowshipped for apostasy in those years, those taking the lead in God's organization have now learned to take up God's view on the matter, and so elders today are not only distinguishing between those with legitimate questions and concerns, and those who seek to make trouble for Jehovah's Witnesses with a view to perverting the good news about the Christ. (Galatians 1:7)

    @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

    Actually, it is the Watchtower Society that is perverting the good news by preaching a gospel Paul never heard of... based only on the speculations and imaginations of men. (Gal. 1:7-9; I Cor.15:1-4)

    Ok.

    @djeggnog

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Hi DJ,

    <<...what I cannot accept is your appropriation and perversion of the apostle Paul's words at 2 Timothy 3:7, for, in context, the ones about whom Paul was speaking were men that only had "a form of godly devotion," who were "disapproved as regards the faith," and who were resisting the truth, in that they had exploited their positions in God's household by working their way into households and making those yet weak in faith their captives, so that they were "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Timothy 3:2-8) You twisted Paul's words at 2 Timothy 3:7, which obscures the fact that those "never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth" were the ones that such "wicked men and imposters" were misleading. (2 Timothy 3:13)>>

    This is perhaps more descriptive of Jehovah's Witnesses than you are cabable of seeing at this point in time DJ. I don't think Jannes and Jambres led silly women captive, but as opposers, they certainly shared some of the charateristics of the false false teachers Paul warns about.

    <<You may be putting your faith in God, but your knowledge of the true God is incomplete, so you cannot know God, and neither does God know you. (Galatians 4:9)>>

    I cannot accept your misappropriation of Galations 4:9. I take it that you consider your knowledge of God complete and that you therefore know (ginosko) Him. I must ask you to define your terms and support your assertions. Firstly, what constitutes complete knowledge of God? Secondly, what proof do you have that you have this complete knowledge? Thirdly, what scripture/s demonstrate that complete knowledge is the bases of knowing and being known of Him?

    And further please substantiate your assertion that I do not know God and that God does not know me.

    Vander

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    "I noticed that you quoted something you read in a 1952 issue of the Watchtower, but you would be incompetent to think that Jehovah's Witnesses today are being taught according to what was being taught in 1952 or 1920 or even 1879."

    If things can change to a degree of "polar opposites", what is to prevent them from changing AGIAN with ANOTHER New Light?

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Hi PS,

    Absolutely nothing....as illustrated by the many 180 degree reversals in the channel of truth. It's called tacking in the wind....Watchtower style.

    Will the Sodomites be resurrected?

    1. Yes….Watchtower July/1879 p.8

    2. No…..Watchtower June/1/1952 p.338

    3. Yes….Watchtower August/1/1965 p.479

    4. No…..Watchtower June/1/1988 p.31

    5. Yes.....Watchtower October/15/1974 p. 20

    6. No......Watchtower June/1/1988 p. 30

    7. Yes….Live Forever (first edition) p. 179

    8. No…..Live Forever (later edition) p. 179

    This illustrates the fact that the primary faith of JWs is in men, not the Bible. Doctrinal modifications made by the GB always act as a corrective to change what JWs believe the Bible teaches. However, the Bible can never legitimately act as a corrective to change a JW's beliefs contrary to the organization's teachings. After all...it's the organizations' book; it wasn't written for the other sheep. Only the priesthood understands it. Ultimately then, their faith is in men who claim to speak for God. Effectively the Holy Spirit, is replaced by a group of self-acclaimed Bible scholars who can give any spin on doctrine they decide is the truth for the moment. Their interpretations must be considered right...because they were invisibly selected in April of 1919 to act as His sole channel of communication to mankind. Can't argue facts. No matter how many time "Yes" changes to "No", it must be believed....or Armageddon will get you. It's not truth that matters; it's how you treat the elect remnant represented by the leaders in Brooklyn.

    But you know all this...so I'm just rambling. :^)

  • djeggnog
    djeggnog

    @djeggnog wrote:

    You may be putting your faith in God, but your knowledge of the true God is incomplete, so you cannot know God, and neither does God know you. (Galatians 4:9) You are in the same position as was that Samaritan woman to whom Jesus spoke at John 4:22, when he told her that "You worship what you do not know." Jesus goes on to say at John 4:23, that "the true worshippers" of God would be those that be worshipping "the Father with spirit and truth," for God is "looking for suchlike ones to worship him." Contrary to what you may believe to be the case, your faith is not in God and His word.

    @Vanderhoven7 wrote:

    I cannot accept your misappropriation of [Galatians] 4:9. I take it that you consider your knowledge of God complete and that you therefore know (ginosko) Him. I must ask you to define your terms and support your assertions. Firstly, what constitutes complete knowledge of God? Secondly, what proof do you have that you have this complete knowledge? Thirdly, what scripture/s demonstrate that complete knowledge is the bases of knowing and being known of Him? And further please substantiate your assertion that I do not know God and that God does not know me.

    I didn't "misappropriate" anything, but I'll answer you this: To "know" [Greek _ginosko_] means to "come to know," "to recognize" or "to understand completely. To know God means to come into His acquaintance and to continually take in knowledge of Him so as to come to know or understand God's ways; it means to essentially love those things that God loves and hate those things that He hates. (John 17:3; Romans 12:9) To know God, too, one has "through use have [come to have] their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong." (Hebrews 5:14) As a part of his prayer to God, Jesus told his heavenly Father at John 17:25 that "the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth."

    You seem to want to turn this thread from one as to the meaning of Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus into one in which we explore the meanings of certain Greek words, but I have no such interest. The Bible indicates that those of you that refuse to accept God's word and yet desire to discuss the meanings of certain words are "mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." (1 Timothy 6:4) Consequently, I'm going to withdraw from this thread.

    Will the Sodomites be resurrected?

    Since I haven't withdrawn from this thread yet, I decided to make a few remarks regarding this off-topic bash-JW-every-chance-you-get digression of yours:

    1.Yes….Watchtower July/1879 p.8

    2.No…..Watchtower June/1/1952 p.338

    3.Yes….Watchtower August/1/1965 p.479

    5.Yes.....Watchtower October/15/1974 p. 20

    4.No…..Watchtower June/1/1988 p.31

    6.No......Watchtower June/1/1988 p. 30

    7.Yes….Live Forever (first edition) p. 179

    8.No…..Live Forever (later edition) p. 179

    I see you tried to get a cute "Yes-No" thing going, but, assuming your dates are correct, your recitation of these dates was a bit out of order, so, as you can see, I reordered them. In this case, it seems you could have omitted #4 and #5, and doing this would have shortened your "Yes-No" thing.

    This illustrates the fact that the primary faith of JWs is in men, not the Bible. Doctrinal modifications made by the GB always act as a corrective to change what JWs believe the Bible teaches.

    How so? This question as to whether the people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected is not a primary doctrine of the Christ, and so it is not a primary doctrine of the faith held by Jehovah's Witnesses. It represents one of many questions that Christians discuss in connection with their study of the Bible. It may not be a topic in which you have an interest, and the only reason you might pursue this question is because one of your Bible students has asked you the question.

    The answer to any Bible question depends upon when it is asked, for what things Jehovah's Witnesses came to understand by the early 60s, Jehovah's Witnesses back in the 30s simply may not have understood in the same way. Our answer to any Bible question is based on our then-current understanding of the Bible. These modifications to which you refer here are decided upon by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, but, to the contrary, they are made by Jehovah's Witnesses, many of whom have submitted these Bible questions for consideration, along with the scriptures that led them to a conclusion different than what had previously been understood, so that their might be a correct response given to them based on the information that is known at that time.

    Just because a particular issue of the Watchtower may include an article in it that provides our latest understanding of a matter does not mean that that matter is not still being discussed after that Watchtower has been published, for we cannot know whether what is determined to be the correct explanation at one time will prove to an incorrect one, rendering the discussion of it in a particular Watchtower article to be premature and an interim response to that question when a subsequent issue of the Watchtower should include in it a different response to that question than had previously been given in a previous issue of our periodical.

    For some Bible-related questions, it has taken many years of studying the Bible to discover the answers to them, for as you point out in your post, until 1988, this question regarding the Sodomites had been in flux since 1879, and that's ok since we are confident that whether or not we and others will gain everlasting life isn't going to be determined by a pop quiz on whether the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a literal account, or how do we reckon that the "seven times" of Daniel's prophecy ended in 1914, or whether or not the Sodomites will receive a resurrection after Armageddon. Everlasting life is based our taking in knowledge of Jehovah and his Christ (and, of course, our acting in harmony with that knowledge), nothing more.

    However, the Bible can never legitimately act as a corrective to change a JW's beliefs contrary to the organization's teachings.

    The teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible. Doctrinal changes or refinements in our doctrinal understanding of matters are often made to our beliefs when appropriate to do so, such as when, prior to 1979, we believed that Jesus had only given the apostle Peter two keys, so that a couple of study articles appeared in the October 1, 1979 Watchtower in which we all came to learn that there were three keys given to Peter by Jesus. Some Jehovah's Witnesses left our ranks, believing that this information should have been brought forward much earlier than it was since behind the scenes it was being discussed among Jehovah's Witnesses, so when these Watchtower article finally did appear, it didn't benefit those that had moved on in a disgruntled state.

    Thankfully, some of these disgruntled ones have since returned, but they learned, as should we, that there is no need for anyone to be running ahead of God's organization. Sure, the ones that left our ranks were right; the Sodomites will not be resurrected. There were three keys given to Peter by Jesus, not two. They were right. But arguments over doctrines aren't usually resolved overnight and can sometimes take a bit of time, since all of the information that bears on a particular topic must be given due consideration before the governing body can make a decision. In this way, we are able to all speak in agreement, teaching the same things, and "be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought." (1 Corinthians 1:10)

    Various creeds developed as doctrinal changes were made in the Universal or Roman Catholic Church during the fourth century AD. For example, in 325 AD, at the Council of Nicea, at which the Trinity doctrine was formally adopted, the statement that the Son was "of one substance" with the Father was added to an earlier creed, and at the Council of Constantinople, the statement that the holy spirit is "adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son" was added, so doctrinal changes are not anything new. Didn't Pope Paul VI, back in 1966, modify the abstinence requirement imposing a dietary restriction for Catholics against eating meat on Fridays, so that eating meat on Fridays was no longer to be viewed as being a mortal sin (that is, except on Good Friday)?

    Now this doctrinal change isn't a scriptural one, but my point here is that Jehovah's Witnesses isn't the only Christian denomination in existence today to make them. Maybe you also accuse the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church as putting its faith in men and not the Bible, and that's ok. In this case, you're being consistent. In the same way as you expressed it here, @Vanderhoven7, doctrinal modifications made by the Roman Catholic Church always act as a corrective to change what Catholics believe as well, and this despite, in their case, what the Bible actually does teach. But so what? If you do not wish to accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, go join another religion. If you do not wish to accept the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, go join another religion. What you should decide to do would be your choice to make.

    After all...it's the organizations' book; it wasn't written for the other sheep. Only the priesthood understands it. Ultimately then, their faith is in men who claim to speak for God.

    You're wrong; the Bible is was written for the benefit of all mankind. I don't follow your conclusion here.

    Effectively the Holy Spirit, is replaced by a group of self-acclaimed Bible scholars who can give any spin on doctrine they decide is the truth for the moment. Their interpretations must be considered right...because they were invisibly selected in April of 1919 to act as His sole channel of communication to mankind. Can't argue facts.

    Again, your view here is wrong. The Bible was written by means of God's holy spirit and the Bible cannot be replaced by anyone or anything; it is God's word.

    No matter how many [times] "Yes" changes to "No", it must be believed....or Armageddon will get you. It's not truth that matters; it's how you treat the elect remnant represented by the leaders in Brooklyn. But you know all this...so I'm just rambling. :^)

    Yes, you are. Stop it. <g>

    @djeggnog

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Again, your view here is wrong. The Bible was written by means of God's holy spirit and the Bible cannot be replaced by anyone or anything; it is God's word.

    Actually, Jesus is God's word, the bible is collection of books and letters in which we can find some writings of men inspired by the HS to write about God.

    It falls on each individual Believer to read and understand the bible to the best of their ability and to do so with the Power of the HS and the grace of God given to us through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

    Each one of us will have to "give count" for what we believe and why and no excuse of "I was told this and that" will be accepteble.

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    DJEggonyourface:

    No matter how many [times] "Yes" changes to "No", it must be believed....or Armageddon will get you. It's not truth that matters; it's how you treat the elect remnant represented by the leaders in Brooklyn.

    You know its true!

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Hi DJ

    <<You seem to want to turn this thread from one as to the meaning of Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus into one in which we explore the meanings of certain Greek words, but I have no such interest.>>

    Not at all. I asked you to define the words you used and the assertions you made using them.

    <<To know God means to come into His acquaintance and to continually take in knowledge of Him so as to come to know or understand God's ways; it means to essentially love those things that God loves and hate those things that He hates. (John 17:3; Romans 12:9) To know God, too, one has "through use have [come to have] their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong." (Hebrews 5:14) As a part of his prayer to God, Jesus told his heavenly Father at John 17:25 that "the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth.">>

    Anyone can say they know God DJ. Anyone can even say they "know God completely" and that they love what He loves and hate what He hates and sincerely believe they distinguish right from wrong and live a life fully approved by God. But then again, self appraisal is not the essential criteria. To many who call him Lord" Jesus will say "I never knew you, depart from me you workers of iniquity" (Mt.7:23). You quoted the scripture, "God knows them that are His"(II Tim.2:19). I do not know you and your dedication to Jehovah and His Son from a hole in the wall; so I will not judge that you know or do not know Father and Son (Jn.17:3) lest I assume a prerogative of God and call unclean what He declares clean.

    Now on what basis have you judged and asserted that I do not know God and that God does not know me.

    <<I see you tried to get a cute "Yes-No" thing going, but, assuming your dates are correct, your recitation of these dates was a bit out of order, so, as you can see, I reordered them. In this case, it seems you could have omitted #4 and #5, and doing this would have shortened your "Yes-No" thing.>>

    Not cute; just factual. But thanks for pointing out my recording errors DJ? I'll try again:

    Will the Sodomites be resurrected?

    1. Yes….Watchtower July/1879 p.8

    2. No…..Watchtower June1, 1952 p.338

    3. Yes….Watchtower August 1, 1965 p.479

    4. No…..Watchtower June 1, 1988 p. 31

    5. Yes.....Live Forever (first edition) p. 179

    6. No......Live Forever (later edition) p. 179

    7. Yes….Insight Vol. 2, p. 985

    8. No…..Revelation, p. 273

    Vander

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Well, what do we have?

    Three possible literary forms:

    If, "historical narration", then at least one rich person dressed in purple is tormented in flames for an indeterminate period, and probably also his five brothers followed on because they would not repent of dressing in purple, being rich and eating extremely well. The fact that Abraham was rich isn't really a problem if we assume he hated purple and Sarah was a terrible cook. The fact that Jesus was teaching the Pharisees something they and their followers already believed and taught themselves about the afterlife isn't a problem either...because the Pharisees had no idea that rich people with purple clothing who eat well end up in torment as well. So they certainly learned one important truth: If bad now becomes good later, good now becomes very bad later.

    If "parable", then we are free to guess authoritatively that everyone else but members of our group will end up in a bad situation...if they don't see things the way we do. Jesus liked to make things complicated so we could all make up our own truths about what this clear parable teaches. Hades doesn't mean "Hades", neither the rich man, nor Abraham are "real persons"; death, doesn't mean "death", burial, doesn't mean "burial"; in fact nobody in the story really"dies" etc. etc. Very complicated - no? But also very clear. You see, Jesus liked to use pagan teachings that people erroneously believed at the time and base truths on demonic doctrine. Very clever - yes?

    If "satire", then the Pharisees and their claims to holiness are undermined. But the problem is, Jesus would not enter Pharisiac tradition and mock their reality would He? Not in the eyes of the people...no way? Jesus is a nice guy and all that. He liked to see the Pharisees look good and righteous, even if they wouldn't lift a finger to help the poor. - right? After all, unjust stewards who make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness will be commended by God and eternally rewarded - no?

    Glad we finally cleared that up.

    ;^)

    Vander

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit