@whereami:
Can you just imagine when Jesus was uttering those words in [Matthew] about the generation that he was saying to himself "my faithful slave will not understand what the hell I'm talking about until they read a vague passage in Exodus". Gimme a freakin break!!!! Stop trying to insult our intelligence.
No, I cannot. This notion about Jesus' musing over the unlikelihood that his words would be understood by his faithful slave until they should read a "vague passage in Exodus" is probably just one of many such fanciful thoughts that you have from time to time short shrift because of your intelligence. Jesus never wrote a single word of what we read in the gospel accounts about his life. Of course, you knew this, but you thought it to be "intelligent" to say what you did here, which is, in my mind, an argument posited against what the apostle Paul states at 1 Timothy 3:16, where he indicates that "[a]ll scriptures is inspired of God." It's clear to me by your rant here (1) that you believe Jesus had something to do with what was written about him and (2) that you do not believe the Bible is God's word. That said, how could I possibly insult your intelligence? I don't believe it possible for me to insult your intelligence.
I believe I've been quite lucid in this thread in making the case as to the meaning of Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34, @whereami. As I note below in response to @elderelite's post, it strains credulity for anyone to believe that Jesus had one thing in mind when using the word "generation" in the minor fulfillment of his prophecy regarding the sign of his first presence during the conclusion of the Jewish system of things and another thing in mind when using the very same word in the major fulfillment of his prophecy regarding the sign of his second presence during the conclusion of this system of things.
@djeggnog wrote:
As to this last question I just asked you, there are many immature ones among Jehovah's Witnesses that do not read the very literature we place with those not Jehovah's Witnesses, and neither you nor they can find anywhere in any of our literature that indicates that a disfellowshipped or someone that disassociates themselves from God's organization is cut off from familial association with their own relatives. I cannot force you or any of these immature ones to read our literature, and I cannot force any of you to comprehend what our literature says on this particular topic.
@jwfacts wrote:
Watchtower 1988 Apr 15 p.27
"The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man."" Watchtower 1988 Apr 15 p.27
What kind of association do you think it appropriate to have with a disfellowshipped relative according to the Bible? Maybe we can start there, for all I'm hearing from you at this moment is dissent from what is a very clear instruction from God's word when it comes to how Christians ought to treat disfellowshipped persons, whether they be related to us or not. Would it be wrong for one of Jehovah's Witnesses to shun a convicted pedophile for example? Yes or no? If that pedophile should have been reinstated into God's organization, should all Jehovah's Witnesses confirm their Christian love to such a person? Yes or no?
What if you -- meaning you, @jwfacts -- should be the twin brother of such a person? I mean, you and he would arguably be family, would you not? I don't know if you have children of your own, but let's say you do, and what if these children of yours are young in age, like maybe nine years old or seven years old? Or five years old? three years old? A one year old? I want my question to be fair so you pick an age that you would find reprehensible. Personally I think an adult that seeks to satisfy his or her desire to improperly fondle, grope, touch, caress, stroke, pat, tickle a minor -- and in the US, a minor would be someone under the age of 18 years old -- an adult driven by sexual passion and sexual deviancy, an adult that concludes that this minor desires to be fondled, groped, touched, caressed, stroked, patted, tickled -- wants to be, desires to be touched by this pedophile that everyone affectionately calls "The Twin," because he looks just like you, or did I fail to mention that you guys are identical twins -- is a reprehensible creature in the opinion of some. That's my opinion, too.
This activity ought not to be pursued by any adult with a minor of any age, but you came to learn a few years ago that your twin brother has an unnatural lust for children, and three children in your local congregation were approached and fondled, groped and touched by The Twin, everyone in the local congregation knows about his arrest and conviction. As for his wife, your sister-in-law, the word "devastated" doesn't cover how she feels about this man she still loves, despite all of the fallout from the trial following his conviction. Your brother, her husband, has received treatment for this, whatever "this" is, and your niece who now lives with you can no longer live with her father, your brother, because of the conviction, but he's better, he's taking medication, he's now been reinstated, no privileges in the congregation for they are passe forever for The Twin until God's new world of righteousness comes in, he's commenting in meetings.
That is the scenario, think about it for just a minute, ponder it and then answer me this: What kind of contact would you permit your niece to have with her father? I m mean, you're family, right? What kind of contact are you having with The Twin? He's a brother in good standing now and a blood relative; he's family. Why is the congregation still shunning him? Why are you shunning the Twin? Bro. Wide-Eyed and Sis. Inlove are getting married in two days; for Sis. Inlove, this is her second marriage after being a widow for three years raising her now eight-year-old child alone. Hey why wasn't The Twin invited to the wedding? You didn't do anything to anyone, but why weren't you invited, @jwfacts? Like the kids today are wont to say, "What's up with that?"
You've learned from studying the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses over the years that Jehovah wants us to be a clean people, zealous for fine works, a hospitable people that is willing to share and help others, holy, dedicated to serving Him. None of this is a surprise to any one of you here, whether you are in fade or have disassociated yourself from God's organization or been disfellowshipped. But we all have standards, don't we? We all have mores of some kind, do we not? We don't like our relatives not in the truth smoking around us in the same car in which we are travelling on our way home as he makes a stop at the store to buy another carton of cigarettes, but we let him smoke in the car and put up with it (why?) because he's family and he's not in the truth. That's our standard: He or she is family and he or she is not in the truth.
Ten years ago, Bro. Unfaithful used to be an elder in your congregation, but he was disfellowshipped for lying to a Judicial Committee about the sex he had been having for over a year with his coworker at the office, which sin would not have been discovered were it not for the integrity of the man, not in the truth, with whom he had been having sex, who felt he needed to inform Bro. Unfaithful through Bro. Unfaithful's teenage daughter about the possibility that her father might be HIV+ since they had been having unprotected sex, who came in and for the first time in months was able to confront his former lover -- Bro. Unfaithful-- who had broken off their relationship, and had even changed his cell phone number and email address because of a "mistake" his lover had made in having sex with someone else. No, he had not been having sex with anyone but his wife during those three months, so he wasn't lying when confronted with the report that had been made by his wife, but things took a bad turn when his daughter committed suicide after learning that her father was bisexual and her mother was HIV+, too.
Sis. Unfaithful's circumstance is not a unique one, not an unusual one, and for whatever reason she decided to forgive Bro. Unfaithful as they grieved over the death of their daughter, while looking forward to her resurrection during God's new world of righteousness, and this experience has made the two of them closer than they had ever been, and after ten years the friends tend to think of Bro. Unfaithful as an elder, someone that is very helpful and understanding in ways that folks are more apt to trouble him with questions than they are the elders because, you might say, today, ten years later, he's a different soul. No one is shunning him now. But we all have standards, don't we? We all have mores of some kind or other, don't we? True, what Bro. Unfaithful did years ago was ten years ago, but, in his case, Bro. Wide-Eyed and Sis. Inlove are getting married in two days and the Unfaithfuls got their invitation weeks ago while The Twin didn't get one at all. Was Bro. Unfaithful's sin less reprehensible than The Twin's sin? Yes or no? Now I'm going to rephrase my question and ask instead: Was Bro. Unfaithful's sin viewed as being less reprehensible than The Twin's sin? Yes or no?
There is a myth flying around in God's organization among the local congregations, and there's no way that this myth can be nipped in the bud since it's been budding for years and years, because, face it, it is human nature for us to judge others by some standard, usually it's by our own standard, but it can also be that we judge others by God's standards. In the first instance, that judgment would be largely judgmental; in the second instance, that judgment would be righteous, because it is God's judgment, God's standard in which our judgment is rooted. Have you heard this said here and elsewhere that there is a clergy class among Jehovah's Witnesses, where the elders and district overseers and circuit overseers and the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses are the clergy while those not said to be of "the clergy" are labelled as the "rank-and-file"? Of course, you've heard this being said by many on this very forum about Jehovah's Witnesses, but, whether you and others believe this or not, we are all brothers. There is no such clergy/rank-and-file division practiced among Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, some here would expect me to say that since I am actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
But I am making this point, that there is no such clergy/rank-and-file division practiced among Jehovah's Witnesses, for a reason that might strike some of you as a new thought: No one among Jehovah's Witnesses can dictate to any one else among God's people what they should think or do, and no one that has ever read the Bible and/or studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses would ever conclude that anyone at all could dictate to them how they should feel about this brother or that sister. Why? Because in the last days, the apostle Paul says, men would be lovers of themselves, rather than lovers of God. Paul was talking about how Christians would conduct themselves when it comes to the things of God, so putting God's standards aside in favor of their own would be quite common among Christians.
It was difficult for many of those that are now Jehovah's Witnesses to make the kind of changes that would qualify us for baptism, but we made those changes. However, we are exhort to "[put] up with one another in love" and to continue doing so, "forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another," for Jehovah freely forgave us our shortcomings, our sins, even the most reprehensible ones and gave each of us a white robe and invited us to enter into His Great Spiritual Temple. (Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:13)
If you're disfellowshipped, your robe might be stained and it might not really be stained since the elders, being imperfect may see your robe as stained, but Jehovah sees it as being in good shape, as clean, which only means that the elders erred in their judgment. But you never lose the robe you're given; no one is re-baptized upon reinstatement, but your robe is deemed white, clean, upon your reinstatement. But what about the friends, your spiritual brothers and sisters: How do they view you upon reinstatement? Moreover, how do you view you while you are in a disfellowshipped state? Often the friends do not know the reason you were disfellowshipped, but far be it for me to tell you that gossip doesn't travel, that gossip doesn't exist in God's organization, that the "dirt" or perceived "dirt" or the spin on that perceived "dirt" about someone's sin doesn't grow wings and fly about in the congregation (and out of it). Even so, whether you are related to anyone that has been disfellowshipped from God's organization, that news has an effect on some that it doesn't have on others, and only when it happens to you do you come to find out it effect on you.
Some Jehovah's Witnesses feel quite strongly about associating with those that might corrupt the spirit within the congregation and they do not care if you were disfellowshipped for immorality or for picking up your former smoking habit again, they are repulsed by you and they do not want to be around you or for you to be around them. When they see a Disfellowshipped Person at a meeting, they view you as a leper, even if the Disfellowshipped Person should be a relative, and the desire of many of the friends is that you change congregations where they do not have to see you. They don't want to shun you at all; they want you to disappear. They are indignant over how you could have treated the undeserved kindness of our God, Jehovah, with such contempt, with such disregard, that you couldn't resist the urge to sin, so they shun you due to the embarrassment they feel over your making the choice to sin about Jehovah! (BTW, I placed this exclamation point here instead of a period purposely.)
Until it happens to them, the friends cannot understand how you could have gotten yourself disfellowshipped and they don't care to see you or to be around you. This is how they feel, especially the older ones that have been in the truth for years. And once the shunning begins, it gets easier and easier to do to your friends in the truth, and to one's own relatives as well. But here's the thing: The Watchtower has published many articles about disfellowshipping, and whether the disfellowshipped individual is a relative or not, these articles provide cover to those in the local congregation that wish to treat the disfellowshipped one with contempt, whether at the Kingdom Hall or even in public places.
No one among Jehovah's Witnesses can dictate to any one else among God's people what they should think or do, and no one that has ever read the Bible and/or studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses would ever conclude that anyone at all could dictate to them how they should feel about the disfellowshipped individual. These articles are not written as directives to Jehovah's Witnesses as to what they should think, as to how they should feel, or as to what they should do. As I said, they are written to provide cover to those who choose to let the disfellowshipped individual know how they feel about them sinning against their God. If it doesn't disturb your conscience to speak to a Disfellowshipped Person, not in a social context, but in a non-spiritual context, you are certainly free to do so, but you are also free to say nothing is nothing is what you decide to "say" when incidental contact is made with a disfellowshipped individual.
You go to visit your girlfriend, your spiritual sister, whose fleshly brother is currently disfellowshipped at her home, and her disfellowshipped brother answers the door. You are free to turn around and leave the home without a word, or you may say to the Disfellowshipped Person that you are there to see his sister and you would appreciate it if he would let his sister know that you are there. Whatever. Notice in this scenario, I have described incidental contact with a disfellowshipped individual, but there has been no directive to Jehovah's Witnesses in any of our literature that requires that we take this action or that action.
Maybe you are at a social gathering with your spiritual brothers and sisters when a relative of one of the guests at this gathering shows up. The room might go silent or someone at this gathering might save the gathering by offering to take the Disfellowshipped Person away from where folks are gathered together to find out the purpose of the Disfellowshipped Person's visit. It might be that he or she is there to inform that an automobile accident has occurred just down the street that may affect someone at that gathering, like the victim's mother of father could be there at this gathering. Perhaps a neighbor's Christmas lights have caused an electrical fire and the Disfellowshipped Person is there to inform everyone of it that they might escape injury. Maybe the Disfellowshipped Person is there because he or she needs gas money and knows that his or her relative is at this gathering.
There is no excuse for anyone to be treating a Disfellowshipped Person with disdain, not really, since we are all sinners and in need of having our sins covered by the ransom sacrifice that was made by the Lord Jesus Christ. We have all of us sinned many times before we came to know God and God came to know us. But, still, when the Watchtower prints articles about how we should treat disfellowshipped persons, they are not just written for non-disfellowshipped Witnesses of Jehovah, but are also written for disfellowshipped Witnesses of Jehovah, for in these articles is counsel, not just to help the disfellowshipped one to appreciate the gravity of sin and why Jehovah hates those that practice sin, but to also (1) help them to not repeat whatever it was they may have done, which resulted in their having been disfellowshipped in the first place, and (2) help them to understand the actions that some of their former brothers and sisters have taken or are taking against them since the hope is that they will be reinstated, and will return to the service of our God.
@Fadeout wrote:
Nobody is disputing the fact that the Bible promises a peaceful and secure new world. Surely you realize that the key point here is the timeframe that was made an integral part of the promise by the Awake! writers. It is one thing to say "The Creator promises a secure and peaceful new world." It is quite another to say "The Creator promises a secure and peaceful new world by next Saturday." One promise is of an event at an undetermined time in the future; the other is of an event that will take place in a specific timeframe, which will definitely be proven correct or false when that timeframe has elapsed.
@wasblind wrote:
According to the mastheads above the WTS did include a specific time frame, by stating this would happen before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away. that indeed is a time frame, because they are talking about that specific generation. What they wrote in the mast head before 1995 was indeed the same as saying " "The Creator promises a secure and peaceful new world by next Saturday."
You're repeating yourself.
@elderelite:
@eggnogg.. I can provide a very simple explanation that even you should be able to follow without a ten paragraph retort..
Good luck with that. Speaking for myself, I don't think you can possibly control how I respond to your "simple explanation." Let's see.
Jesus said this generation would by no means pass away. It didn't. The end came in 70 C.E., less than 40 after he said that. One generation. Thank you for reading and following along.
Thank you, too, for the, uh, simple explanation.
As I said above below in response to @whereami's post, it strains credulity for anyone to believe that Jesus had one thing in mind when using the word "generation" in the minor fulfillment of his prophecy regarding the sign of his first presence during the conclusion of the Jewish system of things and another thing in mind when using the very same word in the major fulfillment of his prophecy regarding the sign of his second presence during the conclusion of this system of things.
In the minor fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, we know now that by "this generation" Jesus didn't mean "a 25 to 30 year period," but he actually meant -- at least -- a 37-year period. We know this now, but the Christians living back there in the first century AD during this 37-year period didn't know what they came to know after Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans. They came to know only after 70 AD that when Jesus used the word "generation," he was referring to a period of time, and not just 20 or 23 years.
In the minor fulfillment, this "first generation" was impacted by the great tribulation that destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD, some 37 years after Jesus' prophecy, and while in hindsight we know there were 37 years between when Jesus uttered this prophecy and its fulfillment, Jesus wasn't predicting a number of years at all, but an event in the generation of the sign that lasted for a period of 37 years. In the major fulfillment, however, we know that some 96 years have elapsed between now and the year 1914, which was the beginning of the sign of Christ's presence, so we know that the generation of the sign is a period of at least 96 years and counting.
@wasblind:
On page 4 of this post I did ask this question ,It is very clear that the WTS is the one who made that promise because it didn't come true.
You're still repeating yourself.
@djeggnog wrote:
When did "faithful and discreet slave" become a title? It's not a title no more so than the "rich man" in Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus is a title.
@Doubting Bro:
Since you're such an expert in English, clearly you realize that Jesus' parable about the rich man or about a group being a faithful slave is descriptive in the Bible. However, the WT capitalizes the [phrase] Faithful and Discreet Slave in their publications. So, by capitalizing they are making it a title.
Thank you for sharing this thought with me. I don't agree with it because in the original Greek language in which Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus was written, there were no capital letters, so what you are essentially doing here is applying what you believe to pertinent to the rules of English grammar to the Greek language. You may not even understand what I just said to you in the preceding sentence, but I wonder if you notice my use of the phrase "Disfellowshipped Person" and "disfellowshipped persons" in my post to @jwfacts above.
If you did notice, what in your opinion is Disfellowshipped Person" and how would you distinguish this phrase from "disfellowshipped persons," another phrase I used in that post? You were being facetious, but I am an expert in English grammar, and so I'm now taking you to task for attacking me as you did by now asking you to explain to me the difference you see between the phrase "Faithful and Discreet Slave" and the phrase "Disfellowshipped Person." Specifically, what I'm wanting from you is to be informed as to your opinion on whether you also believe Disfellowshipped Person to be a title. I look forward to reading your response to these questions, but I would prefer that after we're done here that you stop going off-topic. You can start a new thread and ask this question; maybe I'll join it and maybe I won't. You won't know until you do this.
As for the generation thing, you certainly put a lot of words out there to attempt to explain such a simple concept. Under your line of reasoning (and the WTS) I am of the same generation as my great grandfather because my life overlapped about 12 years or so with his. He was born in 1890.
Well, I cannot know what it was you read, but were I to assume that you were telling me here that you read something in one of my posts that suggested that you and your great-grandfather were of the same generation, I would then need to see what it was I wrote, because whether one agrees with the content of my posts, they are always well-reasoned and, if you can get past the occasional typo in them, typically well written.
Since I cannot possibly fathom a guess as what it was you thought you read in one of my posts, here's briefly what I said to @caliber:
In referring to the way in which the word "generation" is used at Exodus 1:6, I pointed out that Joseph's generation would have been at least 110 years, because Genesis 50:22 indicates that Joseph lived for 110 years. But because Exodus 1:6 specifically says, "and also all his brothers and all that generation," it appears to be the case that the word "generation" includes those of Joseph's siblings that survived his death who were Joseph's contemporaries. I told @caliber that "ten of Joseph's brothers witnessed events before Joseph's birth and at least two of those brothers lived after his death. So while Joseph's contemporaries were of various ages, they were viewed as being a part of 'the Joseph generation.'"
I also repeated to him the point that @Leolaia had shared with me regarding Joseph's third oldest brother, Levi, who was born in 1772 BC (the year of Levi's birth could be 1773 BC!) before Joseph and who died 1635 BC at the age of 137, some 22 years after Joseph's death. So adding this 22 years to Joseph's 110 years, which would be 132 years, but allowing an additional year, I went on to ask @caliber if he thought the Joseph generation to be 133 years in length? The point I was making was that Levi and any other siblings of Joseph's would be Joseph's contemporaries and would, therefore, be a part of the Joseph generation.
I then asked @caliber if he thought we would be on the right track in guessing that the end of this system of things will occur some 37 years from now in the year 2047, some 133 years after Jesus' invisible presence began in 1914? I think it's useless speculation, because I take Jesus at his word when he said that "[c]oncerning that day and hour nobody knows" and that "[we] do not know on what day [he] is coming." (Matthew 24:36, 42)
Based on Exodus 1:6 says, I have been here referring to a generation as being a period of time, what you are calling my "line of reasoning" is not mine, but is yours. If you are living contemporaneous with someone else, it's true that your life would overlap theirs provided you were older than this other person or you survived the death of this other person. But if you are not a sibling of your great-grandfather, then I don't follow you at all and you're making no sense at all.
Perhaps you are familiar with the Michael Jackson generation, who was born on August 29, 1958. This generation could be said to have begun with Michael's eldest sibling, Rebbie (Maureen Reilette "Rebbie" Jackson) born May 29, 1950, and all nine of his siblings (including Brandon Jackson, Marlon David Jackson's twin brother who was born on March 12, 1957, but died at birth, stillborn, and his half-sister Joh'Vonnie Jackson, the daughter of Michael's father, but whose mother is not Michael's) would all of them be a part of the Michael Jackson generation although Michael died on June 25, 2009, at age 50. This generation is now 60 years in length and counting since Michael's siblings were all his contemporaries, and their lives overlapped Michael's. Not that it could happen, but were any children to be born to Michael's parents, Joseph Walter "Joe" Jackson and Katherine Esther Scruse Jackson, after June 25, 2009 -- maybe Joe has another affair and another child! -- would not overlap the Michael Jackson generation so consequently these other "siblings" would not be contemporaries of Michael.
Again, if you are not a sibling of your great-grandfather, then I cannot take your point seriously. It would seem that you are devoid of understanding my previous post. Whether your great-grandfather was alive when you were born so that your lives overlapped is not the point: You would just not be a part of your great-grandfather's generation as you imagine yourself to be in the same way as Exodus 1:6 describes the Joseph generation.
Elderelite asks a [valid] question. If the fulfillment of Matt 24 was a duel prophesy which had it's first fulfillment in the days leading up to 70 AD which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and [its] second fulfillment starting in 1914, why doesn't the timeframe match up. Maybe not exactly to the day, but certainly within a similar frame. The fact is that it's been 96 years, more than twice the amount of time. So, either Jesus meant one thing in 33 AD (or CE if you [prefer]) and something totally different in 1914, or the 1914 date is inaccurate.
Tell me why you believe @elderelite's question to be "valid." I find no validity in it, but why do you? Why should the 37 years in the minor fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy regarding the conclusion of the Jewish system of things "match up" with the major fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy regarding the conclusion of the present system of things in our day? If you have a point to make, it's vague. As to the "AD" or "CE" question, I have no preference; I tend to use "AD" while you might read "CE" in Watchtower publications.
Why would Jesus change the meaning of such an easily understood term?
You have yet to tell me what you believe Jesus meant when he used the words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34. Why don't you tell me what you believe Jesus meant by these words?
@Mad Sweeney:
There is no clergy in JWs. There are no titles. Sure, right. THE Governing Body, THE Faithful and Discreet Slave, Branch Overseer, District Overseer, Circuit Overseer, elders, ministerial servants, pioneers.
And your point is what? Would you regard the "Building Committee" or the "Writing Committee" to be clerical titles, too? Do you and @Doubting Bro know one another? Did you maybe attend the same school. Just asking.
@djeggnog wrote:
As to this last question I just asked you, there are many immature ones among Jehovah's Witnesses that do not read the very literature we place with those not Jehovah's Witnesses, and neither you nor they can find anywhere in any of our literature that indicates that a disfellowshipped or someone that disassociates themselves from God's organization is cut off from familial association with their own relatives. I cannot force you or any of these immature ones to read our literature, and I cannot force any of you to comprehend what our literature says on this particular topic.
@lisaBObeesa:
I always amazes me when JWs say that they do not shun family members. My entire JW family shuns DF family members. All my friends who are ex-JWs are shunned by all of their JW family members.
I never said that disfellowshipped persons aren't shunned in God's organization; of course they are. They are disgusting in their filth, care nothing about God's righteousness and often seek to find an excuse for the sinful things that they're doing.
I don't know, but you probably wouldn't want an adult brother having sex with your teenage daughter; you probably wouldn't want an adult sister having sex with your son; you probably wouldn't cotton to having one of the brothers periodically invading your home on meeting nights and stealing from you; you probably wouldn't want to be pawed, prodded and patted down by a brother that has had too much to drink whenever he comes over ostensibly for a shepherding call. It occurs to me that you probably wouldn't want your husband supposedly in the truth, if you were married, to be having an affair with the woman at the office who is his boss. Nor would you likely want to learn that for six months the boss at your job, who you thought was in the truth, was actually using you to launder money or as a drug courier without your knowledge.
Usually when something doesn't affect us personally, it's easier to stay aloof to the kinds of issues that the local body of elders have to deal with daily in many of the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses; like the apostle Paul said at Ephesians 5:16, "the days are wicked." But when it's you or someone you know, like one of your relatives, or you are being implications in wrongdoing of which you were completely unaware, you are given a ticket to sit at a Judicial Committee, and depending upon the outcome and the skill and fairness of those sitting on that Committee, you tend to look at disfellowshipping a whole lot different than you do when you are being self-righteous.
I won't repeat my remarks here as to why the articles from which you thought it to be a good idea to quote to me -- I'm in the truth and I'm familiar with all of them! -- were designed to serve a purpose. I've already made that case in my post to @jwfacts. Perhaps you read it; perhaps not. I will say though that you're off topic here. Maybe you knew this already, but thought you would feel better about your situation were you to lob a rant at an elder or feel a bit of relief after moaning a bit of the unfairness of being disfellowshipped and the shunning that some among Jehovah's Witnesses are quite expert at doing and in making the Disfellowshipped Person feel like crawling into a hole when all you shoplifted was a couple pair of stockings worth less than $20 "because I needed them for work." This is what the Disfellowshipped Person told the elders on the Judicial Committee thinking the retail price of what was stolen, or attempted to the stolen, could be used as leverage for a reproof. She didn't get it and everyone in the room thought this was her first time getting caught.
@wasblind:
I'm finding it hard to believe that DJ has ever been associated with the JW's
Why? Because I seem to know more about what the Bible teaches than what you seem to know? Because I seem to know a lot about human nature than you seem to know? Because I happen to be one of the most frank among those folks you have ever met here in cyberspace that doesn't bite his tongue and isn't shy about calling a spade a spade?
Tell me this, @wasblind: What does your post have to do with the topic about Jesus' use of the words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34? Do you know? Do you even care that you are off topic here with this? Are you trolling me or what?
@coolhandluke:
I was having a conversation with my childhood best friend a couple of days ago about this very subject.... The conversation arose because we were trying to pinpoint the moment when we looked around and decided that there was something wrong. We were 16 when this announcement came. We were both pissed beyond belief.... It took me another 9 years to leave and him another 11. But I thank them for releasing this hot garbage on us. It was the beginning. It was the first question without an answer that was plausible except that they were wrong.
What was the first question without an answer? I didn't really follow you? Was the subject the one that was raised in this thread regarding Jesus' use of the phrase "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, or do you mean something else? What did "we" decide to have been "wrong" exactly? What was the announcement you heard when you were 16 years old? You said it took you "another 9 years to leave and him another 11"? What exactly did you hear nine years ago that gave you pause. I'm really not clear on what you are saying here.
@Fadeout wrote:
This particular Promise, according to the Awake!, is for that event to happen "before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away." Since it is of course a Promise, the wholly appropriate question to ask is "Who made this promise regarding the 1914 generation?"
@djeggnog wrote:
If this is how you understand God's promise to us, knowing (as you should!) that nobody knows "that day and hour" (Matthew 24:36), then who else can you blame if you yourself were putting faith in these words of encouragement, which is what they are? These words weren't a prediction as you are making them out to be as if the faithful and discreet slave could actually countermand Jesus' clear words at Matthew 24:36.
@lisaBObeesa wrote:
djeggnog.......they were not words of encouragement. They didn't say 'maybe the end will come before the gen of 1914 passes away.' They didn't say 'Probably the end will come before the gen of 1914 passes away.' Instead, the 'faithful and discreet slave' said that it was THE CREATOR'S PROMISE that the end would come before the gen of 1914 passes away. And YES, that means that the 'faithful and [discreet] slave' went directly against Matthew 24:36. Facts are facts. sorry.
Please don't be sorry. You're right; as you say, "[f]acts are facts." However, were you putting your faith in the words of mere men? Were you? In whom should you have been putting your faith? You don't believe these words you quoted from the Awake! to have been "words of encouragement," but I'm sure that in hindsight, had those responsibility for signing off on the decision to include those words in the "masthead" of the Awake! that those words would not be there.
But what harm did those words do to you or to anyone? Did you tire from patiently waiting for the new world of righteousness to arrive? Really? Time ran out for Jehovah and Jesus for you were willing to go through the motions of being a faithful Christian solider until a particular date, and when that date came and went, that was it? Time's up for Jehovah and Jesus and the kingdom of God? You are one less person that will become a part of the nucleus of the new earth because Jehovah took too long, right? You are out to hurt your God? to make Him feel pain of heart because your heart hurts, is that right?
I don't think such a strategy even works on human beings, but maybe it'll work on Jehovah. Of course, He made mankind, but you think Him to be clueless when it comes to human nature. I mean, He's never lived among us. Your angst at Him will certainly make Jehovah look inwardly at Himself and realize that He has to change. Maybe your strategy will work. Personally, I doubt it will have success, but maybe.
Tell me this: When you were reading the Bible, not reading articles in WTS literature, but actually reading the Bible, do you remember reading somewhere in Matthew's gospel the words, "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son. You do not know on what day your Lord is coming"? (Matthew 24:36, 42) Assuming your answer to my question here is "yes," then comparing what you read in the Bible with the words in that masthead --
Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away.
-- did you conclude that what you read in the Awake! magazine trumped what you read in the Bible? Yes or no? If your response to this question is "yes," do you agree that such a conclusion was foolhardy, especially if it should turn out -- as it may well have done, but we'll see! -- that "the generation that saw the events of 1914" should not be among the Armageddon survivors, and it even turned out that not even you were among those survivors because you were just so ticked off with Jehovah and the fact that He was using imperfect men that dared to put the words "the generation that saw the events of 1914" in the masthead of the Awake! magazine that made you throw up your hands and say, "I'm sorry, but it was just too hard for me to obey the good news"? (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)
@djeggnog
