[BEGINNING OF PAGE 6 POST THAT WAS VISIBLE USING FIREFOX, BUT NOT VISIBLE USING IE]
@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 [responsible] for signing off on the decision to include those words in the "masthead" of the Awake! [known that these words would lead some to conclude that we were prophets, prophets in the sense of being able to predict the future in contradiction to Jesus' words at Matthew 24:36 to the effect that 'nobody knows that day and hour'], 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 [soldier] 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)
[END OF PAGE 6 POST THAT WAS VISIBLE USING FIREFOX, BUT NOT VISIBLE USING IE]
@caliber:
Don't you see everyone ? ... by changing the generation meaning DJ is saying the F&DS has [successfully] wiggled out of this nasty damning fact above.
There was nothing for us to wiggle out of. Because Jehovah's Witnesses had the wrong understanding of Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34 when referring to "this generation," an adjustment needed to be made and this was the effect of the February 15, 2008, and April 15, 2010 Watchtower articles
DJ appears to be saying listen obediently but think for yourself.... when honest humble people take the Wt at it's literal word they could be stumbled !
Wait! Would you describe yourself as being "honest" and "humble," @caliber?
It's just too bad for you if you can't follow subtle crafty words that can change the entire meaning with the stroke of a pen !
What "crafty words" do you mean, @caliber?
Don't you know that you must read between the lines..think for yourself but at the same time "just go along with things" ? Like WT view of college education .. those summer assemblies discouraging education are just sort of reminds not to be taken too seriously !!
What do you mean by "read between the lines"? Are you suggesting that folks were encouraged to make irresponsible decisions with respect to their caring for their own families, such as foregoing a college education, which is a requirement is, say, something wants to be a physician, or a lawyer, or a school teacher? I'd like to see you produce proof that Jehovah's Witnesses are responsible for discouraging anyone to pursue a high school diploma or a college degree if you have it.
Why get so uptight by repeated firm counsel they are actually leaving all your decisions up to you.. you just aren't caughting on ...,these are mere suggestion !!
What does "caughting" mean?
@wasblind:
DJ, thank you for the lesson in basketball, it's true we learn something everyday and you have taught me well concerning the invention of basketball. But James Naismith did not claim to be directed by holy spirit. He did not claim this game came from God.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow you. It was you that suggest that it took the faithful and discreet slave 100 years to figure out the meaning of Jesus' words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 --
(@wasblind:)
Seeing this is so clear and believable how in the world did it take over 100 years for the Faithful and Discreet Slave to figure out ?
-- so I thought I would point out how some might be willing to say that it took 60 years before the NBA invented the 24-second clock to make the point that both of these statements aren't true! I wasn't talking about whether Naismith claimed to be directed by holy spirit, so you totally missed my point.
All through out the Bible, God used imperfect men to produce what we know as the Bible today, yes they were directed by holy spirit, because truth never changes or needs adjusting.
No one has said that truth changes or needs adjusting; you are saying this for a reason, but I have not said this. The fact that God used imperfect men to produce the Bible is true, that they were inspired by holy spirit is true, but these two facts have nothing at all to do with what you say here about truth never changing or needing adjustments since the only thing that changed was our understanding of Jesus' words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, and nothing more.
DJeggnogg says: "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose" [w10 4/15] merely builds on what was stated in the aforementioned article,"
DJ there is nothing to build on, or add too when the previous beliefs are no longer adhered too, they become null and void as if they were never taught.
I don't follow you, for the April 15, 2010 Watchtower article does build on the February 15, 2008 article. You do not have to agree with me, but my point stands as written.
@wannabefree:
Now, please, here we are at this website and it is 1995, how would you defend this meaning of generation? Again, it is 1995, the Faithful Slave has shared this flash of brighter light, the sheep have no choice but to accept this new and better understanding ....
"In the final fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy at Matthew 24:34-39, to what does the expression "this generation" refer? Jesus apparently refers to the peoples on earth who see the sign of Christ's presence but fail to mend their ways." Watchtower 1995 December 15 p.30
In 1995, I would define "generation" exactly as it was laid out in the December 15, 1995 Watchtower article. But I could not defend that definition of "generation" in 2010, because it has now been made known to Jehovah's Witnesses that how we may have previously understood the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34 was in error, since the word applies to a period of time that began in 1914 and ends at Armageddon, and not to the life span of the people that may have been alive in the year 1914.
@caliber wrote:
Don't you see everyone ? ... by changing the generation meaning DJ is saying the F&DS has [successfully] wiggled out of this nasty damning fact above.
@lisaBObeesa:
They think they wiggled out, but they didn't. They can't change the past. Before 1995, they taught [...] that GOD PROMISED the world would end before humans who were alive in 1914 passed away. They spoke for God and it was FALSE. Period. Nothing that they say now can change that fact.
There is nothing from which Jehovah's Witnesses need to wiggle out. We have no desire to change the past. We are a forward moving organization whose understanding of Bible prophecy is progressive. An adjustment needed to be made because we hadn't properly understood what Jesus meant when he used the words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, but that mistake has now been corrected. It is not false when Jehovah's Witnesses claim to speak for God, for whenever it is you read to others God's word or tell others what it says, we do so in connection with the "ministry of the reconciliation," so that God is, in effect, "making entreaty through us" that others might "[b]ecome reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:18, 20)
You see, @lisaBObeesa, unlike Jehovah, Jehovah's Witnesses are an imperfect people, and because we are being led by holy spirit, from time to time adjustments need to be made since it is always possible that our prophetic interpretation of Bible prophecy could be wrong. Or, maybe it is impossible for you to understand what I am saying here to you because you are afflicted with spiritual blindness. I don't see why what I'm saying to you here should be so difficult for you to comprehend though.
@djeggnog wrote to @lisaBObeesa:
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.
@Fadeout wrote:
Brother, it sounds like you are among those toying with Jesus' words, as the Watchtower warned us: This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.
I was toying with Jesus' words at all. What do you mean?
As far as the (now retracted) promise regarding the 1914 generation being "words of encouragement," there are many other ways to encourage people that don't involve lying. Is this an honest form of encouragement and a true promise?
But who was it exactly that lied, @Fadeout? As far as I can see, no one lied. I read your cute story about "a form of encouragement and a true promise" and I remember smiling, but who is the liar in this scenario:
(Dad)
You know, I'm stuck here with Sam since I am hoping we will be able to complete all of the external painting of the house done, what with our only having five hours of daylight left to get it done.
(Mom)
That's ok. The kids each have a car so just tell them to drive over to the Blakely store. I'm going to be working at the Wakefield store all day until 6 o'clock this evening. Sam will be dropping off the tickets to the game this afternoon, but I'll drive over during my lunch hour and leave the tickets in an envelope with the names of each of the kids with the receptionist. They can pick them up any time after 1 o'clock this afternoon.
(Dad)
Ok. I'll tell the kids when they get here or if they call me on the phone. Like I said, I have to be here until dark. Bye, Hon.
(Mom)
Bye.
[LATER...]
(Child #1)
Hey, Dad. Do you have the tickets for tonight?
(Dad)
Your mom's at the Wakefield store. You gotta drive over the pick up your tickets from the receptionist.
(Child #1)
Ok. Thanks, Dad. Bye.
(Dad)
Bye.
[LATER...]
(Child #2)
Hey, Dad. Did Mom leave the tickets with you for tonight?
(Dad)
No. You have to drive over the Wakefield store to pick up your tickets from the receptionist.
(Child #2)
Alright. Thanks, Dad. Goodbye.
(Dad)
Bye.
[LATER...]
(Child #3)
Dad, did Mom come home for lunch? If so, where did Mom put those tickets for tonight's game?
(Dad)
No, she didn't. You have to drive over the Wakefield store to pick up your tickets from the receptionist.
(Child #3)
Are you sure she said the Wakefield store? That's 20 miles away on the freeway and Sam doesn't know how to drive a car. She told me last night that they were being FedEx'd to Sam's house and that he was dropping them off at the Blakely store. I think Mom said that she would be working all day at the Wakefield store today, but that she would arrange things so that we could just pick them up at Blakely if she couldn't come home for lunch.
(Dad)
Now that you mention it, she did mention the Blakely store. Let me call your mother at Wakefield and find out if I sent the other kids on a wild goose chase.
(Mom)
Hello.
(Dad)
Did I send the kids to the wrong store?
(Mom)
You did, but I sent them both to Blakely. You do know that Wakefield is 20 miles out of their way and they ran into traffic coming here, right?
(Dad)
Yes. You know I've always been a very good listener.
(Mom)
How's the painting going? Are you on schedule?
(Dad)
Yes, I believe so.
(Child #3)
Excuse me, Dad, but I'm not working with a lot of time here. Is this going to be a long conversation?
(Dad)
Hold on, Hon.
(To Child #3)
I'm sorry, son. You were right. Head over to Blakely and pick up the tickets from the receptionist.
(Child #3)
Don't tell me you sent my poor brother and sister to Wakefield instead of Blakely!
(Dad)
Please forgive me, ok? I won't do it again. Is there anything else that you feel you need to chastise your poor dad for before you leave?
(Child #3)
No, Dad.
(Dad)
Bye.
(Child #3)
Bye, Dad.
(Dad)
I'm back, Hon. Your favorite son is not happy that you sent those his siblings off on a wild goose chase . You're going to have to do a lot of apologizing, I think.
(Mom)
Uh-huh. So have you decided yet what you're going to say to them tonight when they get back from the game or do you plan to just be unavailable tonight?
Question: Would you accuse "Dad" of intentionally lying to his children or would you say that Dad's purpose was to encourage or support his children's efforts to pick up the tickets for which arrangements had been made by "Mom"?
Jehovah's Witnesses do not intentionally go out lying to folks. Whereas in the past we once believed that what things we taught as to the meaning of Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34 meant one thing, today an adjustment has been made so that we no longer understand "this generation" to mean what we formerly understood these words to mean.
@TD:
The concept of a generation as a single human lifespan is threaded through several other JW teachings including their understanding of the Great Crowd of Revelation 7. No amount of word play is going to change that.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny and would never deny the fact that we once understood the words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 to mean something other than what we now understand these words to me. Why do you say "word play"?
@caliber:
TD..... could they not say "Millions now living will never die (1920's" ) if you overlap this with their children and their grand children they are this alive today !!!
No. That's just dumb thing on your part to be saying since we have never believed "generation" to refer to anyone's grandchildren.
(Disclaimer... Rutherford actually meant to say will not perish ) a future resurrection assured
And you know what "Rutherford actually meant to say" how?
@TD:
You can't even be a "prospective" member of the "Great Crowd" if you don't live to see the "Great Tribulation" because you have an absolute zero prospect of surviving an event you don't live to see.
I agree with you in this respect: Only those of the "other sheep" that are also survivors of Armageddon would constitute that "great crowd."
Therefore the instant that group is identified, the clock starts ticking. If the "Great Tribulation" does not occur in the lifetime of the target group, something is wrong. I don't think the perspective in the vision allows for any squirming around this at all.
This is just nonsense and makes no sense. There is no "ticking clock." Either one is one of the Armageddon survivors and not, and if he or she is, then he or she would be a number of the "great crowd."
The writer wasn't looking at the "Great Tribulation" as a future event and describing a "generation" of people who survive as a class
Which "writer." The writer of Matthew's gospel (the apostle Matthew) or the writer of the Revelation (the apostle John)? John doesn't mention a generation at all, but Matthew refers to both the "generation," not of people who survive as a class, but the period that began in 1914 when the presence of Jesus Christ began, which ends at the conclusion of this system of things.
The writer is on the "Other side" looking back at the "Great Tribulation" as a past event and describing a group composed of individual survivors
I suppose you could say that John was "looking back," but I believe he was looking forward to the future, which future began "in the Lord's day" (Revelation 1:10), during which he say the ride of four horsemen (Revelation 6:2-8) and a group of folks "that come out of the great tribulation" wearing white robes. (Revelation 7:9, 14)
@lisaBObeesa wrote:
Wow what a convoluted way to explain it!
@djeggnog wrote:
What did you find "convoluted" about the explanation I provided?
@lisaBObeesa wrote:
Simple explanation: Jesus was referring to a future generation that would witness the signs he described and would not pass away before he arrived.
@djeggnog wrote:
But your "simple explanation" is not even close to what Jesus meant by what he said at Matthew 24:34. It would seem that you are either reading comprehension-challenged so that you were unable to understand what I wrote in my post (granted it was rather long!) or you're just perverse. Whatever your reason for posting what you posted, I want you to be clear on one thing: At Matthew 24:34, when Jesus used the words "this generation," Jehovah's Witnesses were wrong; we were mistaken as to what Jesus meant by the word "generation."
@lisaBObeesa wrote:
Convoluted - highly complex or intricate and occasionally devious;"convoluted reasoning"
How many paragraphs and posts did it take you to explain and defend this "new light"? I offered a 4 sentence explanation. Truth is simple. Either Christ's presence started at another date and no one noticed; or it hasn't started yet. And why do you resort to insulting my reading comprehension and insinuating I worship Satan? Does your belief that you know the only "truth" give you that right? Does it make you feel righteous or superior? The difference between you and most everyone else on this forum is that we can openly discuss new ideas and adapt our truth to new evidence we find. It must be frustrating to watch.
I don't insinuate that you worship Satan. I positively state here and now that you do, for if anyone does not worship the true God, Jehovah, then his or her worship goes to Satan, the god of this system of things. (2 Corinthians 4:4) I don't believe I stuttered, and if you are offended or should feel insulted over my having said this about Satan being your god, you can end all of that right now by worshipping Jehovah. Have I also insulted your reading comprehension in the process? I don't think I wanted to do that, but there is no truth other than Bible truth to which we all need to adapt.
And maybe you don't get that, but quoting the Bible back to me, or quoting to me things that you once learned when you were actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses is not unlike Judas Iscariot positing an argument about the virtue of keeping one's integrity! Any former Jehovah's Witness that dares to quote anything to me from the Bible or dares to quote to me something they recall from an article (or happen to have copied from the Watchtower Library) only makes me smile since, in my view, anyone that uses the Bible or makes use of the Watchtower Library cannot be all bad!
I do know from experience that many former Jehovah's Witnesses use the Bible and WTS publications as a stick with which to beat their fellow (actually former) slaves down, but this is largely because they do not understand what things they read in the Bible and in this publications, and even if you should take this statement of mine as being an insult on your "intellectual capacity" (1 John 5:20), or upon your reading comprehension, just so you know, I would never view "babes in Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:1) as being mature Christians. Never!
One other thing I failed to mention: I tend to think of "convoluted" as being synonymous with "intricate," "complex," even "tortuous." English is my first language. You don't get to teach me; allow me to teach you not just the meaning of the words we use in this language, but how they might be used. I'm not insulted, nor do I feel insulted, by your posting of the definition for this word. I'm sure you had your reasons, but if I should need you to define a word that I'm not clear on how you are using it, don't worry: I won't hesitate to ask you.
And you still ignore 1914. It's so simple. They were wrong! Maybe you should examine that angle. What prevents you from doing so? All they have to do is say they were wrong, call it "new light"! But then they'd have to find a new date, to keep the sense of urgency, or consider that we may not be living in the time of the end; which, I understand, would probably be the demise of your religion. The original, and second or third redrawing of their map, was wrong. Even if they keep redrawing that map, because they haven't fixed the error, the map's still wrong and you're still lost.
You have stupid ideas that you don't mind boldly sharing with others; this makes you a rather courageous individual, but 1914 is THE year that marks the end of the Gentile times, which began in the year 607 BC. How could any of Jehovah's Witnesses ignore this year? Why on earth would any of Jehovah's Witnesses ever listen to your pitch about finding a new date when there nothing at all wrong with 1914? You sound rather clueless. Are you any good at math? If so, how many years are there between the beginning of the Gentile times and the fulfillment of them, and then tell me what the significance is of the number at which you arrive (upon doing the calculation) and the "seven times" at Daniel 4:25?
Your response, in regards to disfellowshipping, was full of outright lies; especially considering that JW family can be disfellowshipped for not heeding advice to stop associating with their disfellowshipped relatives.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind proving what it is you are saying to me here. Can you? Will you?
And as to the Governing Body, the holy spirit doesn't lie, truth doesn't lie, Jehovah doesn't lie. They're either directed by it or not. They're either Jehovah's organization or not. And don't claim they've never lied. I, and everyone else on this forum, know they have.
Explain to me how it is you feel the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, or any of Jehovah's Witnesses for that matter, aren't being led by holy spirit. This mantra I'm hearing over and over here in this thread about 'truth not lying' and 'God can't lie' and all of this is all just idle talk since none of it means anything with context. Got any of that? Got any context you are willing to share as you say these things to me?
@TD wrote:
The concept of a generation as a single human lifespan is threaded through several other JW teachings including their understanding of the Great Crowd of Revelation 7. No amount of word play is going to change that.
@wasblind wrote:
[You're] right about that [@TD], under the heading of Old Age/ Death on page 14 in the reasoning book it states: "But humans live just 70 or 80 years and then die." And on page 98 in the Reasoning book under the heading of Death they back it up with Psalm 90:10 and it's [quoted] in the reasoning book as saying "the usual human life span is 70 or 80 years."
What exactly is @TD right about, @wasblind? As I told him, we don't deny and we would never deny the fact that we once understood the words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 to mean something other than what we now understand these words to me. @TD used the phrase, "word play," but I have no idea what he means. Maybe he'll tell me later.
@elderelite:
Ahhh yes Eggnogg, I see asking you to keep it to ten paragraphs was bit ambitious... perhaps a mere chapter first then [we'll] work on getting it down to [paragraphs].
Ok.
but, to wit, your logic is as always seriously flawed. To say its been 96 years and thus jesus [meant] at least 96 years is circular logic at its worst...
Ok.
but since you clearly missed the obvious answer to YOUR question, I.E. give an explanation as what Jesus [meant] by his prophecy, how about you riddle me this, eggnogg...
If the generation of Joseph [consisted] of Joseph and everyone who lived around the same time as him, give me an example of the life span we are talking about here.. meaning.. Freddie Franz was part of the "generation" being spoken of. we know this because the branch said so at this years District conventions. So if he is the "joseph".. when is the cut off? Is it anyone who's life overlapped with [Freddies]? To be clear if [Freddie] is [equivalent] to Joseph.. and people are born every day.. when does the "overlap" end... help me out eggnogg.. think before you launch into your [dissertation]... make the first [century] application and then bring it up to the modern day in a logical [manner] (a tall task I know but i'm confident you can do it..)
In a message posted by @Doubting Bro he wrote, in pertinent part, the following (six paragraphs):
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)
Now note, @elderelite, how I concluded this point in my response to @DoubtingBro's post:
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.
Now you have here asserted that "Freddie Franz was part of the 'generation' being spoken of." And it is you here that has also asserted: "So if he is the 'joseph'.. when is the cut off? Is it anyone who's life overlapped with [Freddies]? To be clear if [Freddie] is [equivalent] to Joseph.. and people are born every day.. when does the "overlap" end..." But you are assuming facts that are not in evidence at all here. I never said that Freddie Franz was a part of the "generation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:34. I never said that Freddie is equivalent to Joseph. You are the one that is saying this; I've not said this and I wouldn't say this. Perhaps you would do well to read my entire response to @caliber's post. It's rather long, but you already knew that!
@jwfacts wrote to djeggnog:
How can you justify it as acceptable that the Watchtower didn't understand at the time, so it does not matter it was wrong. The Watchtower at the time still claimed they were providing food from God. If you disagreed at the time you could be disfellowshipped and [lose] family and friends.
@djeggnog wrote to jwfacts:
You speak about the Watchtower as if it were a person instead of the name of a magazine or the name of a publishing company staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses, which prints the Bible and Bible-based literature that Jehovah's Witnesses use in their Christian ministry. It is the faithful and discreet slave that provides spiritual food for the domestics in God's household, and not "the Watchtower" (whatever you meant by it).
@Gary1914 wrote:
You're just being silly and playing the semantics game. The Watchtower is the magazine in which the organization publishes the latest "truth.' In fact, the organization recently said that the words they print in the Watchtower are not their words but the words of God.
"Semantics"? Post a quote of this recent statement that you are claiming here that you found in the Watchtower magazine.
You seem to feel that everyone who does not agree with what you are trying to say is "unintelligent", "ignorant", "unable to comprehend". You on the other hand are brilliant and to be admired because you have it all figured out. You are a "real" witness of Jehovah and all other are just phony witnesses.
No, I don't say someone is "unintelligent," "ignorant" or any of these things you mention here that I might have said in this thread about someone's opinion because they don't agree with me. If I were to ask you to tell me what the difference between living molecules and non-living molecules, you might say anything, but if what you say should indicate that you are uninformed, I might say that you are "uninformed," but in the context of a larger discussion, I might also say that you are "ignorant" since in the world in which we are living, the majority of mass in the universe is non-living, all of the things that we know of today are on the periodic table, is mass, and a person that doesn't know the difference between living and non-living molecules would be "ignorant" in this regard.
If anyone is not an active witness of Jehovah, he or she is a seat warmer, not a genuine witness of Jehovah. They are counterfeit Christians. One other thing: If I am an intellectual, wouldn't that mean that I'm brilliant?
However, [what] you are doing is just what the Watchtower trained you to do. You are guessing. You are guessing and the organization to which you are affiliated is guessing. You even refer to scriptures and Biblical characters to give your guess substance. However, it is just your opinion. None of it is absolute truth.
Ok.
Witnesses love to say that what was published before is not important. It is what is being published today that matters. That's your stance, right? I get it, because when your "truth" changes in the next few months you can repeat that mantra.
Well, there are many things that were published, say, in the 1950s that are just as true today as they were back in the 50s. That's my stance. My "stance" is not an "all or nothing" one. If you get it, then you get it, and if you see a mantra here in anything that I have said or are saying to you now, so be it.
@jwfacts:
@djeggnog - It is never going to be possible to have a sensible discussion with you until you understand rhetorical fallacies. Your arguments are filled with rhetorical fallacies, (somewhat parroted from the Watchtower) such as taking a single Scripture out of context regarding not eating with a person, or the slippery slope argument justifying shunning due to pedophiles. I have articles on rhetorical fallacies and disfellowshipping at jwfacts.com that would be well worth your while reading prior to engaging in such pointless exchanges.
I don't care if you happen to collect articles on frogs or snakes. Personally, I have a fascination with learning about life, and learning about animals would be on my list, but how does your collection of rhetorical fallacies and disfellowshipping serve to help anyone get everlasting life? Where in the Bible is mention of such indicated as being necessary for mankind's salvation? You are off topic and I have no interest in discussing such things with you in a thread that I joined specifically to discuss Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34 according to the latest understanding that Jehovah's Witnesses have of the words "this generation."
@djeggnog wrote:
This statement of yours borders [on nescience and] reflects your ignorance and your unwillingness to be adjusted in your thinking, which is really the mental state of many Jehovah's Witnesses today that attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall as if they are members of a Christian club of some sort and warm the seats. These folks are among the ones about whom the apostle Paul spoke at 2 Timothy 3:7 , who are "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth."
@Gary1914:
First of all. djeggnog, you really need to get over yourself. I don't know what makes you think you are more intelligent than anyone here but it seems that you do. You are haughty and cannot give weight to any opinion other than your own. You seem to desperately want [to] believe that what the Watchtower teaches is true. I feel for you, really, because I used to want that too.
You say that 'I need to really get over myself'? You are saying that 'I seem to you to think myself to be more intelligent than anyone here'? You believe I am not only "haughty," but that 'I cannot give weight to other person's opinion, except my own'? Tell me this: Do you currently hold any opinion other than your own? If not, then does the fact that you don't make you a haughty person, too? Does it bother you knowing that you will probably never be more intelligent than you are right now?
I feel compelled to also ask you: Where did you come up with this notion that I desperately want to believe that what things Jehovah's Witnesses teach based on the Bible are true? (I realize you used the word "Watchtower," but "Watchtower" is the name of a magazine and a part of the name of the publishing corporation that prints the literature that Jehovah's Witnesses use in their ministry, the full name being "Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.," and although this publishing corporation is staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses, this entity doesn't teach anyone anything, but Jehovah's Witnesses are those that do the teaching. If you don't understand this, then I may be right as to your "probably never [being] more intelligent than you are right now," which, imo, is a sad state of affairs.
More succinctly, the Watchtower teaches no one anything, but it is Jehovah's Witnesses that do all of the teaching. I accept you at your word that you desperately wanted to believe that the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are true, but I do believe that what things I teach as one of Jehovah's Witnesses are true.
Is it possible for you to make your point without insulting people and questioning their intelligence? It is really getting [tiresome].
I do believe I sufficiently made my point in this thread as to the meaning that should attach to Jesus' use of the words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34; I believe I did so without insulting anyone, but those who are ignorant here, and without questioning anyone's intelligence, except those who might be paranoid here. If you are tired of listening to me, you could easily have turned the page and skipped my post to read the next one, so if you took the time to read any of my posts to this thread, especially the longer ones, then you would have yourself to blame for reading those posts. I did not and cannot be blamed by you for your decision to read any of my posts. If you felt insulted by anything I said in this thread to you, then perhaps it is you that 'really needs to get over yourself.'
For example, I never said a thing about the number of the anointed increasing; that was you that said this. I never suggested that the word "evidently" means 'we are guessing,' or words to this effect either; that also was you that said this. Your past comments have been off-topic and you're off-topic in this latest post of yours.
Just because someone does not agree with you does not necessarily make them unintelligent.
I didn't make such a statement, did I?
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps it is you who are not intelligent?
Since I am an intellectual that doesn't at all mind engaging those who are more intelligent or less intelligent than I, to be brutally honest with you, such a thought would never occur to me.
After all it is you who believe and defend the convoluted and ever changing teachings of the Watchtower.
I believe and defend what things the Bible teaches and nothing more. You are, of course, free to believe whatever it is you choose to believe about what it is I believe and defend.
It is you who defend that doctrines and dates and really, to me, that makes you unintelligent.
Ok.
I could understand your position if you were just one of those witnesses who go to the Kingdom Hall because they have "faith". But you have actually done some research and still believe that this is the "true" religion. Poor thing.
I admit being a tad disappointed that you seem to believe yourself to be better than "one of those witnesses who go to the Kingdom Hall because they have 'faith'." If you have no faith in God, no faith in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, then you are to be pitied. But let me tell you some significant about these Witnesses of Jehovah to whom you refer here that regularly attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall: It's possible that you may be right about some Jehovah's Witnesses being "seat warmers," as I have stated earlier in this thread, and these, too, lacking faith, may eventually leave our ranks at some point because these only memorize what things they read and study using WTS publications, while not really knowing what things the Bible teaches.
However, some of these Witnesses have done as much research as I have and for this reason are of the opinion that they have found the true religion. Some of these were reading and studying the Bible before they ever became Jehovah's Witnesses, and so when they became acquainted with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, they were convinced that we were practicing pure worship. Unlike you, those among us that "go the Kingdom Hall because they have 'faith'" are humble people, teachable, and because they have come to Jesus as if they were "young children," Jesus indicated that "the kingdom of the heavens belongs to suchlike ones." (Matthew 18:3; 19:14)
Just for the record, the Watchtower is a made up religion. They even made up a God and call him Jehovah. Their God only listens to their prayers, he is keenly interested in how many hours you put in every month and how many meetings you attend. Your God is in a little box and is not the God of the Bible who [encompasses] and cares for all of mankind. Your God is small and petty and does not want you to get an advanced education or to have associates and friends outside of the witness-club. Your God is glad when you turn out your sons and daughters because they do not want to be a part of the witness-club. Your God cannot make up his mind about doctrine and flip flops all over the place. This is a God you want to serve, then go do it.
Ok, but if are not serving Jehovah, then which god exactly are you serving? You might recall (or not) that Psalms 14:1 says that it is 'the senseless one who has said in his heart that there is no Jehovah.' Moreover, I do know for a fact that the God that I am serving cannot possibly be your god.
But do not come here with your ridiculous attitude and insults and believe that you are going to teach us poor ex-jws a few things. We've heard it all before and we know exactly where you are coming from.
I am able to teach anyone that wishes to be taught. If you were to lose your attitude, I could probably teach you a few things. You say that "we've heard it all before and ... know exactly where [I am] coming from," but this is not true at all. If you had actually heard from the Father as I have and have learned, then you would have come to Jesus as I have. (John 6:45) To the contrary, you do not know exactly where I am coming from, for you are not able to comprehend the things I am saying to you now.
Please note that people are disfellowshipped for reasons other than sexual misconduct. Many more people [voluntarily] leave the organization after opening their minds and doing some research.
What do you pretend to know something that you don't know to be true? More people are disfellowshipped because of sexual immorality and loose conduct than you may realize. I have never said here that everyone that has ever been disfellowshipped from God's organization were disfellowshipped for something that involved sex.
I'm not in the least concerned over the fact that some of the people here on this forum have elected to use their free will to make the decision to leave God's organization, for it is their God-given right to exercise their free will and to leave God's organization if leaving it is what they should decide to do. I'm concerned more about those that might be in fade, about those that might not realize that they have made excuses for why that have chosen to abandon God's organization, for even if they have not officially done so, their love for the world has resulted in their having "already committed adultery in their heart." (Matthew 5:28; James 4:4)
@Fadeout:
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and choose to disagree respectfully even with those who hold views I find offensive. I will gladly point out the flaws in their argument, though refrain from insulting their intelligence or personal character, as not only is this conduct unbecoming, but it is counterproductive when trying to make one's point of view accessible to an opponent. I also happen to believe that intellectual honesty demands such an approach.
Ok.
Many people are capable of comporting themselves in such a manner during even heated debate. Djeggnog, unfortunately, has proven not to be one of these. I have yet to find a devout JW who is.
Ok.
In the cosmology of the Witnesses, keep in mind, there is no valid reason for open disagreement with the Society, much less valid reason for leaving the organization or actually arguing in opposition to it. A person's actions invariably betray their "heart condition"-- that is, their basic "goodness" or "wickedness" and ultimately, worthiness or unworthiness of life. "Apostates" and "opposers" have bad motives; namely, to "shipwreck the faith" of faithful Christians. They are essentially cartoonish Emmanuel Goldsteins who, filled with hate, serve as channels for Satan and the demons to work through. Remember the warning of The Watchtower: "Satan's influence through the disfellowshipped member of the family will be to cause the other member or members of the family who are in the truth to join the disfellowshipped member in his course or in his position toward God's organization." -WT 11/15/52
This is true.
Thus, like King Saul, we have wholly turned against God and are now merely pawns of Satan. Should any faithful Christian feel the need to show respect, or even to be intellectually honest with such persons? Need a faithful servant of Jehovah seriously consider any argument such an evildoer might make? In other words... do any of us actually expect to get anything but Watchtower cultspeak in response to any question we might ask? I am reminded of how similarly I thought it appropriate to behave when I believed the WTS to be God's approved instrument.
Apostates have no questions; they have answers, but they cannot help anyone gain life. To the contrary, anyone that listens to their "cultspeak" as they use their perverted logic to twist God's word beyond recognition can only lead to the salvation of others being denied them. This I know: What things you have come to know about the Bible you came to learn from having studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, for unlike those in Christendom that have never studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, you know things about God's kingdom and about where we are in the stream of time that they have never known.
While the Father did initially draw you, when you no longer wanted to hold tightly onto His mighty hand and let it go, He let you go your own way, did he not? Who else is there on earth today that is carrying out Jesus' commission to preach the good news both far and wide, and not teaching folks false doctrines like that of the Trinity, the immortality of the soul and heavenly salvation for all? It is absurd to think that an evildoer could posit an argument that could contend with, while at the same time, champion Bible truth! A faithful Christian would not be honest were he or she to entertain or respect the opinions to those whose opinions are in direct conflict with what they have learned to be the will of Jehovah.
Despite his understandably condescending and arrogant demeanor, djeggnog did make an intriguing point I must respond to:
"did you conclude that what you read in the Awake! magazine trumped what you read in the Bible [at Matthew 24:36, 42]? Yes or no? If your response to this question is "yes," do you agree that such a conclusion was foolhardy[?]"
I sadly must answer yes to both questions.
Ok.
Being raised to believe that The Watchtower was God's approved instrument of communication with mankind, and that its interpretations came from God, as a child and a teenager I trusted those in positions of power to accurately convey the Bible's message, even if it seemed contradictory as to what I personally might interpret the Bible as saying as well as to the stark reality of the situation as the 1914 generation dwindled away.
If you were raised to believe the Watchtower magazine was God's approved instrument of communication with mankind, then this instruction was incorrect. If you were raised to believe Jehovah's Witnesses generally were God's approved instrument of communication with mankind, then this instruction was incorrect as well. What Jehovah's Witnesses do teach is that the faithful and discreet slave is the earthly channel through whom God is dealing with his people on earth today, and Jehovah's Witnesses to be a collective prophetlike organization that acts as God's spokesman on earth in publishing the progressive understanding of God's prophecies that we receive by following the lead of God's holy spirit to all. In the Bible, Jesus foretold that a faithful and discreet slave would providing spiritual food as a part of the sign of Jesus' presence and this is what indeed this slave is doing for its domestics in our own day which no other prophetlike organization is doing.
Fortunately, as I grew into my twenties, I developed a greater capacity for critical thinking, and developed a willingness to become aware of my own biases and consider views with which I was not comfortable. Thus, I have corrected the mistakes of my youth. I no longer believe the many unscriptural and unfactual teachings of the Watch Tower Society. I no longer condone their cavalier attitude toward truth. I am now fully aware of the fact that the organization's leaders lie about its history in order to enhance its image and cover [embarrassing] errors. And I am no longer willing to support an organization that tarnishes God's name with their false prophecy, bloodguilt, and lack of love.
Jehovah's Witnesses nor those who are taking the lead in our organization have lied about the history of Jehovah's Witnesses either to enhance its image or to hide any embarrassing errors, but has been quite candid in publishing whatever misunderstandings of Bible doctrines that we have determined to have been in error so that what things we teach at any given time are in accord with Bible truth. You yourself have tarnished God's name, and you clearly do not know God at all, so you can save these platitudes as to how appalled you are with how Jehovah's Witnesses have tarnished God's name since all that you have said here in this post merely reflects your disdain and disregard for sanctification of Jehovah's holy name.
@djeggnog wrote:
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?
@lisaBObeesa:
I was raised a JW. By the time I was 15 or 16 I had figured out that 1914 was false. I put my faith in God. I lost a few family members over it.
You were mistaken about the year 1914 being false. I believe that you were also mistaken as to this idea that you were putting your faith in God. If you lost family members over your disbelief, then imo there is only one to blame for that: You.
@djeggnog wrote:
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 [responsible] for signing off on the decision to include those words in the "masthead" of the Awake! [known that these words would lead some to conclude that we were prophets, prophets in the sense of being able to predict the future in contradiction to Jesus' words at Matthew 24:36 to the effect that 'nobody knows that day and hour'], that those words would not be there.
@lisaBObeesa:
What?
I apologize for the word processing error/typo. I've corrected that typo in the above quote.
@djeggnog wrote:
But what harm did those words do to you or to anyone?
@lisaBObeesa:
If I was harmed or not has nothing to do with if the Watchtower is a false prophet.
You didn't answer my question. What harm did these words do either to you or to anyone else?
@djeggnog wrote:
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 [soldier] 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?
@lisaBObeesa:
I never said I believed in any date. In fact I DIDN'T. My point is that the Watchtower SPOKE FOR GOD, they said it was THE CREATOR'S PROMISE...and it was false. THEREFORE, they are false prophets.
It wasn't the intention of Jehovah's Witnesses to suggest to anyone that we knew the "day and hour" when the end of the present system of things would occur, nor have we ever intimated that we knew the "day and hour" when the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ at Armageddon was going to arrive. The words in the masthead were unfortunate since it is apparent that no one knew that those words would be construed as if they were the prediction of a prophet, for, as anyone that has ever studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses would know, those words were to encourage the reader to have confidence, that is to say, to put their faith in "the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation of the sign that began in 1914 passes away," or whenever it was that "the generation of the sign that began in 1914" passed away," and should not have been construed to mean anything more than this.
Even if I HAD believed the date stuff it wouldn't matter. It would not change the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses are false prophets.
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
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 [soldier] 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.
@lisaBObeesa wrote:
Yeah..........I don't know who you are talking to here.
I was here talking to you about your attempt to hurt God because you decided that you didn't want to wait on Him and on his schedule any longer.
@djeggnog wrote:
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 ... did you conclude that what you read in the Awake! magazine trumped what you read in the Bible? Yes or no?
@lisaBObeesa wrote:
....comparing what I read in the Bible with the words in that masthead, I conclude that the Watchtower Society are false prophets.
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
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.
@lisaBObeesa wrote:
Right. What you said was:
[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.]
..And then I quoted some of the countless places in your 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.
Yes, you did. As a matter of fact, I didn't disagree with any of the things you said, and so your point is what? I assume you have one. What exactly am I missing, @lisaBObeesa?
@The Finger:
I always enjoy reading your posts.
"Many Jehovah's Witnesses are professionals like myself and it would be unthinkable of any of us to suggest to anyone of our brothers or sisters that they should not pursue a college degree or a good education, and those who failed to do so were those that bought into the hype (translation: lie) that they were encouraged to do so in order to enter the full-time ministry, which is not true."
Ok.
My wife lived thousands of miles away from me whilst we were growing up. She could have gone to University and her teachers wanted her to. Her father who was a servant in the congregation had a discussion with her teacher about how depraved the Universities were and how she would not be going as she was a JW.
Ok.
Another sister, some years back now, when I explained why I could not support the JW teachings without prompting from myself said how she had missed out on an education due to her belief, a few months ago I ran into her and had a chat. She told me how little future they had, no pension and the house not paid up. Her children were her hope. Not the organization. She still believes.
What exactly was this sister's explanation for why she decided to cut herself off from educational opportunities so that she finds herself economically disadvantaged than she might otherwise have been the case had she not made the decision she made to forego her education (which may have afforded her secular opportunities that those without a high school diploma and perhaps a college degree are not afforded)? For those that made the affirmative decision to forego such educational opportunities in order to pursue the full-time ministry without counting the cost before doing so I have little sympathy, for no one is God's organization and nothing in our literature ever urged anyone to not consider their circumstances before deciding what they might be able to do in the Lord's service. Often it has been the case that in order to enjoy the glory (and maybe the perceived prestige) that goes along with telling others that one has decided to become a regular pioneer or to go where the need for Christian ministers is greater, many brothers and sisters did so only to now find themselves in dire straits when what they needed to have done so much earlier than they ended up doing is to leave the full-time ministry and their part time employment in order to pursue full time employment, which for some meant returning to school to obtain their high school equivalency diploma so that they could find employment to cover their ever-increasing living expenses. I'm not obvious to any of these things, but I, too, was raised in the truth, and, like the saying goes, "My mama didn't raise any fools."
Back in April of 1993, the topic of auxiliary pioneering led to the following advice being given in the Question Box:
"As with regular pioneers, those who volunteer as auxiliary pioneers for one or more months should first count the cost. (Luke 14:28) This includes determining ahead of time whether they can reasonably expect to spend the required amount of time in the field ministry without neglecting other Christian responsibilities. A person’s decision to enroll as an auxiliary pioneer should be made after prayerful consideration of his personal circumstances. It should not be prompted by emotions stirred because others are applying. It should be a reasoned-out decision, accompanied by making a written schedule for fulfilling the requirements. It is important to read the application carefully and decide in one’s own heart that he can honestly say yes to what is required."
This sister you mention, @The Finger, and other folks like this, who made such bad decisions can and do receive assistance from others in the congregation with respect to their living accommodations, which may not be less than ideal, but would not be as nomadic as living in a tent as God's people have done in Bible times while serving Him, as often the adjustments can take six months to a year, or even longer before such ones can finally count the cost of re-entering regular or auxiliary pioneer service.
It may be so much easier to blame those Jehovah's Witnesses at the WTS, who dutifully published the literature that contained valid and sobering advice for those that failed to read it, for the decisions that we alone were responsible for making than ourselves, but if blaming others helps one to appreciate their need to make adjustments so that they might serve Christians interests more fully, or if leaving the ranks of Jehovah's Witnesses is thought to be a possible solution (I don't believe it is, but whatever!), then by all means that would be the decision of the one faced with making such a decision. Personally, I have no sympathy for anyone at all that does things to glorify themselves and not to glorify Jehovah God. None.
A few months ago I [received] an email from regarding Haiti and this is what it read.
"We suspect not a few of our young brothers and sisters attending universities may have died when those buildings crashed to the grounds with everyone in them. One nice experience--one sister was scheduled to attend a lecture on [psychology when (?)] she decided she did not want to hear that stuff. As soon as she got outside the entire structure collapsed before her eyes! Visible proof where 'higher learning' takes you--right into the ground!! Now if any want to attend university--they will have to move to another country--as all their bldgs crashed to the ground!! And believe me--their parents will work to send them there--that is the god they have confidence in--Jehovah is kinda of a sideline one.. Very sad moments--"
These viewpoints. Where did they get them from Djeggnog?
You said "these viewpoints"; I only read just the one in your post, @The Finger, but just as there is illiteracy among Jehovah's people, there is an ignorance to be found among us as well, but only those Jehovah's Witnesses that are educated in the ways of this world and are in a position to provide assistance to those that are not very educated can (maybe) combat such problems in our ranks. This does not mean though that anyone of us should be making it our aim to carve out for ourselves a life pursuing the best of what this world has to offer. The idea that there is a lesson somewhere in the structural collapse of a university building and the pursuit of "higher learning" is a ridiculous notion (and an ignorant one), but while I cannot personally sympathize with such ignorance, I'm willing to help those that say and believe such nonsense to become balanced, for whoever it was that concluded such wasn't balanced in this thinking. These viewpoints do not come from God's word, nor are they lessons taught by the faithful and discreet slave.
These encouraging ideas that had have been printed in the magazines seem to have had a detrimental effect on many.
I don't view this "viewpoint" in your post to have been "encouraging" by any stretch, but if an experience of someone should be published in our literature and someone should take from it a point that wasn't intended, how would this be characterized as encouragement from anyone? What I read sounded to me like the recitation of someone's viewpoint of a matter, but if someone were to tell me how, in their view, the suffering that someone experiences from some natural disaster of other calamity is an expression of God's disapproval of this or His disapproval of that, I would note this viewpoint as someone's opinion and would not embrace such as if it were true. Do you happen to be one of those that persons that takes to heart the things that someone says to you just because you share their point of view, or do you tend to think for yourself?
@Eiben Scrood:
I think the elephant in the room is whether a God of love would play with people's emotions and lives this way. Just say it's true that the Watchtower is backed by Jehovah - would you want to worship a God that does this to people? That intentionally uses his holy spirit to influence the governing body to make these changes knowing that he's going to use this same spirit to change it again a few years later and in the meantime seriously affect millions of people who are trying their best to serve you? I know that's not a god I'd want to worship.
This notion of yours is ridiculous and not borne out by the facts, and were you or anyone to suggest that God's holy spirit isn't the force that has impelled Jehovah's Witnesses to accomplish their ministry over the years, I would say that this conclusion is not backed up by the facts, but you are entitled to believe this to be true and to worship the god of this system of things, rather than Jehovah God, for all worship not based on truth goes to Satan.
@sabastious:
That's a good point. It is a catch 22 though, because God's holy spirit cannot lie. So how could it be his holy spirit when the Witnesses told everyone that the 1995 generation was the "truth"[?] Truth is the OPPOSITE of a lie. God, according to the Bible and WT theology CANNOT lie. There is NO WAY God was behind the last generation teachings because they have been superceded by the ones the succeeded them, and there is no good reason to believe that this current understanding will not be superceded by yet another teaching in 25 years.
While it is true that the Bible does say at Hebrews 6:18 that "it is impossible for God to lie," you have strung together a few things here that the Bible does not say, which things are based on a bit of human reasoning on your part. You asked, So how could it be his holy spirit when the Witnesses told everyone that the 1995 generation was the "truth"? because you have your own viewpoint as to how God's spirit operates. In responding to your own question, you assert two (2) things: [#1] There is NO WAY God was behind the last generation teachings because they have been superceded by the ones the succeeded them, and [#2] there is no good reason to believe that this current understanding will not be superceded by yet another teaching in 25 years. Both of these are conclusions that you yourself have reached, but it seems to me that you would have to know God to make your Point #1, and your Point #2 is rank speculation on your part.
Now the pernicious effect of this apostate viewpoint as expressed in your post is that anyone inexperienced could read these two points of yours and be persuaded to believe that his or her own doubts as to these things that the Bible teaches have been validated, and, as a result, turn away from true worship. You can believe anything you wish to believe, but when you speak such "twisted things," things that are based solely on human reasoning and not on God's word, and connection such human reasoning with Hebrews 6:18 as you have done in your post to give you wrong conclusions the appearance of being "scripturally sound," what you are doing is drawing away disciples of Jesus to yourself and to your own unscriptural way of thinking.
You have concluded that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have the truth because of this idea of yours that "God's holy spirit cannot lie," which is to charge Jehovah's Witnesses with lying. Of course, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I am not ignorant about the purpose of such allegations being lodged against us, since this is the kind of thing that Satan and his agents can be counted upon to do. Nevertheless, the truth does not change and, as you point out in your post, "God's holy spirit cannot lie." The truth just is, and it is and has always been the truth. During whatever length of time it was you spent studying the Bible, what seems to have been largely ignored by you in view of what you say here about a "1995 generation" (I don't believe mention is made in the Bible of a "1995 generation") is that Jehovah makes known his truths progressively, which has thus required His servants to make adjustments in their understanding of them. The foremost example is what occurred after Jesus' resurrection.
Jesus disciples has come to learn things about God's kingdom that had heretofore been unknown to anyone until Jesus taught them how they would be given assignment in it. What they had learned from the religious leaders of their day is that when Messiah came, he would remove the Roman yoke from off the backs of the Jewish nation, and would immediately set up and begin to rule over the earth. Yet despite all of the things that Jesus had told his disciples about this heavenly government of God and his having made with them a covenant for a kingdom, at Acts 1:6 we read their question: "Are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?"
While Jesus could have just told them in response to their question that they needed to shed those erroneous views they had held about God's kingdom, that the kingdom was a heavenly government and that they would all have to die before they would be raised us as had he to life as a spirit, since a spiritual body is required for heavenly life, and that they would thereupon become rulers with him, not at that time, but during the conclusion of the system of things some 2,000 years distant, Jesus did not correct their wrong viewpoint on this matter immediately. Instead, he told them at Acts 1:7, 8: "It does not belong to you to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. But you will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you." And they did indeed receive power on Pentecost in the year 33 AD when things that they had not clearly understood in God's word was gradually, progressively, elucidated according to how the holy spirit directed the revelation of these truths.
Why, with your once having been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you know yourself more about the things that pertain to God's kingdom than those of Jesus' disciples living during the first century AD knew. It was from that time onward when the holy spirit began to be poured out that Jesus' disciples began to "receive power" as to come to an understanding of the deep things of God. The apostles Peter and Paul, just to name two apostles, had been martyred for their work in connection with God's kingdom by the time the apostle John, who survived them, received the revelation from Jesus Christ in 96 AD, in which vision the fact that there would be a limited number of Christians -- 144,000 -- would be chosen to become rulers with Christ Jesus in heaven.
The apostle Peter didn't come to learn how they were to view those Gentile converts to Christianity when the spirit was first poured out in 33 AD, did he? No, but by means of His spirit, Jehovah progressively made it known to Peter by 36 AD that he should no longer view the Gentiles as unclean and certain foods that had formerly been prohibited under the Law of Moses for the Jews to eat. Years later, in 49 AD, Jehovah had progressively revealed to the early Christian congregation through His spirit that circumcision was not a requirement for Gentile Christians or anyone converting to Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses today have likewise had to submit to the leading of God's spirit over the years that we have been reading and studying the Bible, for it is not unusual that we will discern errors in our prophetic interpretation of God's word, and this is why faith in God's word is a requirement. Often it has been the case that Jehovah's Witnesses will understand a particular Bible prophecy in one way only to later read something in God's word that makes it apparent that what we may have concluded in the past to be in error based on the conclusion that God's spirit is now directing us to reach regarding that prophecy, and this is why it has been necessary from to time to make adjustments in our progressive understanding of matters. Such adjustments as made all of the time and these progressive changes in understanding are typically published in the Watchtower as they become apparent to us.
Now it is not that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is in possession of some special gift of the spirit that leads to such outcomes, nor do any of Jehovah's Witnesses today, including the faithful and discreet slave, possess some special gift of prophecy that helps us to discern Bible prophecy, for since God's spirit can never be in error and the gifts of prophesying, tongues, knowledge, etc., have all ceased during the first century AD (1 Corinthians 13:8), this is just not how God's spirit operates today. When any of Jehovah's Witnesses should discover anything in connection with God's word that raises one or more questions as to what is our current prophetic interpretation of God's word, that question may eventually be referred to the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, who is only now coming to hear of it for the very first time, and these men would then meet to discuss this question and other questions.
If it has been determined by the governing body that we had been in error in our understanding, not only is the one that brought the matter to the governing body's attention notified of its decision, but the entire association of brothers is also notified that there has been a change in our former doctrinal understanding of the matter. This is, in fact, one of the ways in which God's holy spirit directs Jehovah's Witnesses progressively into all truth. Reading your post, it is clear that you didn't know any of this, and while you are free to discount the manner in which the holy spirit leads God's people today, there is no such thing as "the Bible and WT theology." There is only the Bible, and if and when Jehovah's Witnesses should be mistaken in our theological viewpoint, we will readily admit our error as we have done many times in connection with Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34, and we will also make whatever adjustments are necessary in our viewpoint so that our progressive understanding of the matter is in sync with God's word.
It is bunk, plain and simple end of f*cking story.
My hope is that anyone reading this statement in particular in your post and my response to your entire post will not be persuaded to believe that you are being used by God to guide folks to the fountains of waters of life. You want folks to believe as you do that Jehovah's Witnesses are false prophets and do not have the truth, but what truth do you have? Do you have the truth that leads to eternal life? If so, what is it? Where can it be found here on earth? Which group here on earth has that truth that is going to lead you to everlasting life either in heaven or on earth? If it is your preference that no one listen to Jehovah's Witnesses, and you cannot point anyone to a sure hope for the future, then your goal would seem to be to give me the same sense of hopelessness that you have, @sabastious. Am I right?
@wasblind:
Amen to that Sab
Amen to what, @wasblind? With what exactly did @sabastious say in his post that you agree?
@sabastious:
The WT is flying at the seat of their pants which, by itself is fine, but they demand that people accept it as truth or fall out of the ever fickle "God's Love(tm)"
What you say is not true. The Watchtower is just a publishing house. Jehovah's Witnesses, who are going about their work of preaching the truth of God's word to others, do not demand that anyone accept what the Bible says as truth, or accept what we say to them as truth. If anyone at all should not believe the Bible to be God's word, if anyone at all should believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are not teaching folks the truth, we don't demand anything at all, but we will keep searching out those that want to understand the Bible better and want to become a beneficiary of the Bible's promises.
@flipper:
Not everyone. It's BS. There , I stated my view of the " generation teaching ".
IMO, you could have just as well have passed on posting anything at all to this thread, @flipper. You contributed nothing of substance to it.
@thetrueone:
The entire generation who saw the signs beginning in 1914 have all but passed away now. So what did the WTS. do to make them appear truthful and spiritually guided they added an (s) to Jesus's own words.
When did the WTS do this? When did Jehovah's Witnesses ever add an "s" to anything that Jesus stated at Matthew 24:34? Your post makes no real sense, because you are essentially posting a gripe about an adjustment that was made that you don't yet comprehend. The generation of the sign has not "all but passed away now." What don't you get about that? Jehovah's Witnesses now know that their previous understanding with respect to what Jesus meant by the words, "this generation," at Matthew 24:34 referred not to people that were alive in the year 1914, but to the generation of the sign of Jesus' presence, to the period when the sign began, which period, or generation, will come to an end at Armageddon, which is the climax of the conclusion of this system of things.
How fraudulent and deceptive can a group of people be. Well what do expect from an religion that thwarts lies of fearful provocation to cull people toward them and then exploits them to distribute their literature.
I know you mean well, but you sound like an illiterate to me. "Well what CAN ONE expect from A religion that thwarts lies of fearful provocation to DRAW people toward them....? What does "thwarts lies of fearful provocation" mean exactly? You are off topic, too.
@NewYork44M:
The fact that the governing body can throw out the "shingle generation" suggests that they don't care. The fact that the r&f accept the new light suggests that the governing body does not need to care.
This is a new one for me: What is this "shingle generation" about which Jehovah's Witnesses do not care? You speak in your post about the governing body as if they are not Jehovah's Witnesses and you also refer to "the r&f" as if some such designation exists among Jehovah's Witnesses. (It does not.) What "new light" do you mean?
@thetrueone:
The reason the R & F JWS have gone along with this deceptive patch job is because they have been under the mental control by the WTS and their fear mongering phobias that they instill into the people's minds.
What "mental control" to you mean? Have you ever been under "mental control" of Jehovah's Witnesses? If so, what was it like? What exactly are these "fear mongering phobias" to which you refer?
@Gary1914 wrote:
Is it possible for you to make your point without insulting people and questioning their intelligence?
[and]
Please note that people are disfellowshipped for reasons other than sexual misconduct. Many more people [voluntarily] leave the organization after opening their minds and doing some research.
@caliber wrote:
I thought these quotes to be very interesting to consider and bear repeating !! ( many here are not unintelligent sexual degenerates)
People insult me and question my intelligence here for being one of Jehovah's Witnesses here all of the time, but if you were to ask me whether it is my intention here is to insult people and question their intelligence, then I'd have to say "no" and "yes." My motive it not to insult anyone, but to point out how unintelligent their statements are. If it should be viewed as an insult when I should say to someone, as I did to @thetrueeone in my response to one of his posts, that when he wrote, "what do expect from an religion that thwarts lies of fearful provocation to cull people toward them" he sounded to me like an illiterate, I read, write and speak US English language, and because I didn't quite understand what he was saying and am qualified to call a spade a spade, I thought it important for me to communicate with him how I received his post.
If @thetrueone should decide to take offense over what I said, that's fine, but I'd rather he work on his communication skills, so that he doesn't come off as being illiterate, even if he didn't complete high school or was not home-schooled very well, and/or he never have a university education, since most of the people that post to this forum are not illiterate and have at least obtained a high school diploma. If these were just typos that would be one thing (I am guilty of making many of those!), but these were not typos in his post, but pure illiteracy, which made his post (and the other one) a difficult read.
You say that "many here are not unintelligent sexual degenerates," and I'd say that many here are, but this is not the point I was making when I made those two comments anyway. BTW, you didn't quote these, but @Gary1914 also wrote:
Just because someone does not agree with you does not necessarily make them unintelligent.
[and]
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps it is you who are not intelligent?
As I told him, more people are disfellowshipped because of sexual immorality and loose conduct than he may even realize. Maybe you were unaware of this, too, but I never indicated to him that everyone disfellowshipped from God's organization were disfellowshipped for something that involved sex. @Gary1914 brought it up; I did not. I also told @Gary1914 that he would not have felt insulted had he skipped on reading my posts, but he decided to read one of my posts and that post wasn't even directed to him, and I don't care that the man wasn't to play Mother Hen to the person to whom that post was actually directed. For all I care, he can go play Mother Hen somewhere else!
I had to tell me that I never said a thing about the number of the anointed increasing, and I never said that word "evidently" means that 'we are guessing.' It was @Gary1914 that actually brought these things up that you quoted here in your post, and if you had said them, @caliber, it's likely that I'd have said the same to you. And the man was off-topic!
Most of here are anonymous anyway, so folks really need to stop whining and crying, and going out of your way to be offended. If you are adult enough to be making these statements to me then you had better be adult enough to accept anything that you get back from me. I will hold nothing back unless I should choose to do so. Furthermore, I am not comfortable being courteous to someone that isn't courteous to me, but I won't go out of my way either to insult someone that has an ax to grind against Jehovah's Witnesses and doesn't feel like making nice with me because I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I do reserve the right though to decide if anyone here has lobbed a personal attack at me just because I have chosen, as they had chosen in the past, to be associated with Jehovah's Witnesses. Just as these others have a right to leave Jehovah's organization, I also have the right to be and remain a part of it.
I wish to add further to the above thought ..... Not everyone who have left are God hating , lazy, weak- minded loveless, evil sexual deviant perverts ... even if it says so right in the Watchtower ! A lot like myself are not even DF or DA , but remain in limbo to help and maintain natural, normal family ties.(which the Wt have sought to take away )
Then you are what I would call a counterfeit Christian, and, of course, you know well what you yourself are without my telling you this, but counterfeits do not love God and, in fact, are haters of God, and whether they be "evil sexual deviant perverts" or not is besides the point since all such wicked persons will end up in the symbolic lake of fire, correct?
Those marital ties to seek to maintain through your two-facedness toward God's organization will ultimately be broken at the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ if it should turn out that have not been obedient to the good news. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9) There is no "limbo" in God's organization, no proverbial "fence" either, for one is either on Jesus' side of the fence or they're not (Satan owns the fence). There is absolutely no limping in Christ. (Matthew 12:30; 1 Kings 18:21) Jehovah's Witnesses cannot take away the "normal family ties" that you currently enjoy with your family; only you can do that, and just know that you're just lying to yourself whenever you should say this.
In fact, Jesus is actually dividing families by means of the good news as if it were a sword.
At Luke 12:49, Jesus stated that he had come to start a fire on the earth," and the kingdom of God. At Matthew 10:34, he also stated that he had come to put a sword, not "peace upon the earth," and this "sword" has been over the kingdom issue that Jehovah's Witnesses preach, which is the real cause of "division" within the family circle. Like Jesus stated at Matthew 10:34, 35, about this division, whether now while you are a counterfeit or later, it will come to exist between "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law."
I believe that the stretching and shrinking of the term generation is all to do with the fact that the supposed starting point of 1914 cannot be moved or altered without undermining the bases for believing that God appointed the WTS in 1919.
Well, if this is what you believe, then you're wrong. The word "generation" as used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34, we now know to have been a reference to the period of the sign of Jesus' invisible presence which began in the year 1914 and that this generation, or period, will end at the conclusion of this system of things. The words "this generation" as Jesus used at Matthew 24:34 had been improperly applied to the people that were living in 1914, which Jehovah's Witnesses now know to be not the case. Of course, you are free to believe what you want to believe.
@djeggnog