QFR: "Warning - memorial partakers might be loonies!"

by cedars 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

cedars

Hello AGuest, peace be with you and all that!
I think the confusion lies in your attempt to reconcile what the Society teach with what is actually in the bible (or your interpretation of it). Last time I checked, this was a forum discussing witness beliefs, and the point that this thread makes is to expose the fact that the Society's teachings regarding the anointed are self-contradictory. Arguments are made that unilaterally undermine the claims of certain memorial partakers, without any acknowledgement that the same arguments (i.e. being mental/emotionally compromised) could be levelled against the Governing Body.
We would be here all day if we were trying to compare what the Society says with what is actually in the bible!
Finally, being humble has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Saul of Tarsus certainly was NOT a humble young man. Nor was Peter or a couple/few of the other disciples.
It's like you're trying to apply the Star Wars storyline to the Star Trek universe. Obviously we all 'get it' that, according to the bible (or at least your interpretation of it), all footstep followers of Christ and believers in him are anointed by holy spirit. The point was made, and I consider it a valid one, that individial members of the remnant when questioned will give a vague explanation of how they know they are anointed, something along the lines of "Because I just am!" This raises questions as to whether, according to the Society definition, being anointed is simply a case of deciding you are for yourself, and therefore (ironically) evidence of an inflated ego over and above your fellow worshippers. Haughtiness is not considered a desirable quality for those taking the lead.
Bless you, slave to Christ and so on... live long and prosper, etc.
AGuest

Dearest BOTR... peace to you and please do not take my comments the wrong way: I am NOT intending to content or "argue" with you; however, you've asked some interesting questions and made some intriguing statements and I would like to respond. This is NOT an attack on you, but merely an attempt to clarify some things and I offer them in the same spirit as did Priscilla and Aquila to Apollos:
Do they teach that the 144,000 ruling with Jesus in heaven that had to be reached a long time ago were do disloyal in heaven that they were kicked out?
If so, they are dead wrong, on several grounds. First, the 144,000 do not rule with Christ in heaven. They rule with him UPON THE EARTH. AND they rule with him along with the "great crowd." They initially GO to the spirit realm, yes, to be joined IN MARRIAGE to the Lamb; however, once that ceremony has taken place... "New Jerusalem" (the "city" and temple of God that these constitute)... comes down OUT of heaven... to the earth. At that time, the "sheep" are granted entry into her (by means of being "separated" from the "goats")... for the marriage FEAST. Some imposters manage to "get in"... by appearing to have on "marriage garments" - love. Because they pretend to have "clothed" themselves with such. But their true NAKEDNESS is revealed when, while at the marriage feast they reveal that they do NOT have love... for all. I posted that vision here some time ago and may related it again one day... but not during this thread, if that's okay.
Christ is supposed to have power, not Satan. Satan is not a co-ruler. He is subordinate. Jews don't conceive of Satan the same way we do. They are not bothered by Satan because only God is God. Satan cannot be God. End of debate.
All of this is true; however, some ARE kicked out "into the darkness outside." This hasn't occurred, yet, though, so IF the WTBTS is teaching what you ask... it is wrong. It is the marriage feast that some are kicked out of and the feast doesn't take place until after the marriage, which doesn't take place until New Jerusalem comes down out of the spirit realm, which doesn't take place until after the marriage... which doesn't take place until my Lord returns. Which doesn't take place until AFTER the "tribulation" has ended. Which tribulation has not even occurred, yet.
Even as a child, I could not believe that Jesus would have two tiers of humans. The anointed's self-selection reminds me of Pilgrim and Puritan predestinated. The concept of an elect is not present in the gospels that I recall.
NO anointed person self-selects, although many false christs make the claim. It is God who chooses, through Christ, by means of holy spirit. The one so chosen has absolutely NO say so or involvement; however, they also cannot DENY that choosing, once it occurs. Well, they can... but it doesn't go well with them when they do. Usually, the end result is suicide (which, BTW, is NOT an "unforgivable" sin).
There is an "elect," per se. These are those "elected"... or "chosen" to be members of the Body of Christ. Thus, those who actually ARE "in union with Christ" are the elect. This would constitute the entire Body, both the 144,000 from among the sons of Israel AND the great crowd; however, that is NOT the elect, as the Apostles and disciples meant. From their point of view, the "elect" were the "holy ones"... which would ONLY be the 12... and those other "apostles" who either walked directly with Christ... or were related to him by blood (i.e., James, Jude, the "older" men, etc.). Since all those "in union" with Christ constitute God's "holy nation," however, all could be said to "holy ones" and thus, the "elect."
Knowing the anointed as earthly humans should dash any thoughts that they are better or unique.
Okkaayyyyy??? And if one ever says, insinuates, or even intimates that they ARE better or unique... they are either imposters... or in danger of losing such choosing. Because it is those who KNOW they must be the LEAST among men, not the greatest... who must SERVE... not BE served... who are really the chosen ones, insofar as they make up the holy nation of kings and priests. But the "sheep" (that are separated from the "goats") are ultimately chosen, as well...
The problem I see with the elect is that the individual determines it.
Then such one is not of the elect. One cannot give oneself holy spirit, dear one. True, one can grant it to others... but one must have received it from another, either from Christ, the Holy Spirit... or by his permission. And just SAYING so... doesn't MAKE it so. Unfortunately, though, because we all reside in vessels of FLESH... which vessels HIDE what we truly ARE on the INSIDE... it's not always easy to know/tell. Unless one HAS received that holy spirit... because it is also "eyesalve"... and opens the eyes of the [formerly] blind.
Someone with a huge ego and self-importance is going to think that they are anointed. Humble ones will not think they are worthy enough.
Sorry, but this is inaccurate. A humble one will actually KNOW, yes, that he/she is not worthy, yes. But they will also know that they've been anointed... and won't hide that truth... because it IS the truth. In fact, it is because of humility that some will openly profess it, even knowing the fallout, ridicule, persecution... and in some instances death... that they will receive as a result. Moses was meek and a humble man. Yet, he knew he was anointed. David was, for the most part, a humble man. Yet, he knew he was anointed. Christ... the fulfillment of humility. Yet, he knew he was anointed. Some of the Apostles were humble, some not so much. Stephen was humble... yet, he knew he was anointed. ALL were humble... yet, knew they were anointed. It was their humility, however, that ALLOWED them to stand up and be "counted" as it were... and speak/do what they were given... even if it meant unpopularity... even death.
And, of course, some very UNhumble people were anointed (King Saul, Saul of Tarsus, Ananias, Peter, and more).
When have humans had the ability to judge another's worthiness before God?
I know you don't see this, but your statement above actually does just that. YOU have decided, by your statement, what kind of ego and sense of self one who believes they are anointed will have... and one who is "humble" will not have. When neither are deciding factors. MERCY... and one's faith (even if one lacks humility or, like Paul, has a super-hyper ego and over-indulgent sense of self-importance)... are the deciding factors.
Again, I am not trying to fight or argue with you, but only expound the way of these things... more accurately to you. I hope you can receive that.
Peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
cedars

I am not trying to fight or argue with you, but only expound the way of these things... more accurately to you. I hope you can receive that.
I know you're not arguing with me, and I'm not arguing with you, but you're completely missing the point. You're seizing this thread as an opportunity to give us all a lecture on what it means to be anointed, but what the thread is really about is what the Society thinks it means to be anointed and how their views on this subject are self contradictory. If you want to conduct a lecture on being anointed, born again, given the heavenly call, whatever you want to call it - maybe you should start a fresh thread? Just an idea...
Peace out, take it easy bro, all that stuff.
AGuest

Hello AGuest, peace be with you and all that!
Again, peace to you, dear cedars!
I think the confusion lies in your attempt to reconcile what the Society teach with what is actually in the bible (or your interpretation of it).
Perhaps (if you are confused; I am not)... but it was mainly an effort to explain further errors and inaccuracies in the statements by others wishing to reveal discrepancies in the Society's teachings. Some went from error... to error. Just trying to get folks back to what is TRUE, is all. And it wasn't my interpretation - it really is all in the Bible; however, I did not get it from there but from my Lord... who has been leadning me into "all" truth for a time now. But if you need, I can show you, verse by verse, where what I shared IS in the Bible. Just let me know...
Last time I checked, this was a forum discussing witness beliefs,
Ah, dear one... yes, that was the primary purpose of the forum when it started many years ago, and is still ONE of the primary purposes now... but hasn't been the EXCLUSIVE purpose by ANY stretch for many years, now. I'm not sure how long you've been visiting, but it's quite far from where it started way back when, IMHO...
and the point that this thread makes is to expose the fact that the Society's teachings regarding the anointed are self-contradictory.
Yes, I totally got that, dear one! But is it right to expose those teachings with more false teachings?? If so, how is that different from what they're doing??
Arguments are made that unilaterally undermine the claims of certain memorial partakers, without any acknowledgement that the same arguments (i.e. being mental/emotionally compromised) could be levelled against the Governing Body.
Yes, I got that. Heinous of them to do that, too. At the same time, though, some are making claims/statements as to what some things are "really" about... or what should be "done" about some... that are errors and based on still present assumptions learned from the WTBTS. I mean, okay, perhaps you have no problem staying in the dark as to the truth of these things... or hanging onto some WTBTS false premises. But others are reading (and commenting to) the thread... and perhaps they WOULD like the truth. You know, for a change...
We would be here all day if we were trying to compare what the Society says with what is actually in the bible!
Oh, oops, sorry - I truly did not know there was a time or post limit as to this topic. I mean, sometimes threads go for days and pages. Sometimes there are "sidebars" of similarly related subjects carried on within a thread. So long as it has some bearing on the TOPIC, I was under the impression it was okay. My sincere apologies if you feel the thread has taken a different direction than you intended.
It's like you're trying to apply the Star Wars storyline to the Star Trek universe.
I don't see it that way, but I would never say that you don't/shouldn't...
Obviously we all 'get it' that, according to the bible (or at least your interpretation of it), all footstep followers of Christ and believers in him are anointed by holy spirit.
I don't think that's what I said... although I did say all should/do partake (after Pentecost 30 CE)...
The point was made, and I consider it a valid one, that individial members of the remnant when questioned will give a vague explanation of how they know they are anointed, something along the lines of "Because I just am!" This raises questions as to whether, according to the Society definition, being anointed is simply a case of deciding you are for yourself, and therefore (ironically) evidence of an inflated ego over and above your fellow worshippers. Haughtiness is not considered a desirable quality for those taking the lead.
I get YOUR points... and got them from the start. Just adding mine, is all... in an effort to help those who want to know the TRUTH on this matter, do so. I mean, I'm tired of being lied to. That I have been doesn't mean I no longer want to even know the truth, though. And so I give the same benefit of the doubt to those who visit here...
Bless you, slave to Christ and so on... live long and prosper, etc.
And to you, as well! Peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA, a die-hard Trekkie... and Wookie-lover, too!
Bungi Bill

From my experience with ones who more recently began "partaking of the emblems", mental illness is all to common amongst them.
I should know, I was married to one such person.
(Bi Polar Disorder, and another condition that medical science has only been able to identify now, some 25 years after the event).
If that is a commentary on the calibre of WTS leadership, no wonder most JWs are so messed up!
Bill.
AGuest

I know you're not arguing with me, and I'm not arguing with you, but you're completely missing the point.
Ummmm... I think you're mistaking my response to dear BOTR (again, peace to you!)... as a response to you. Perhaps YOUR zeal has caused your eyes to deceive you?
You're seizing this thread as an opportunity to give us all a lecture on what it means to be anointed,
Well, no, not exactly. Again, I was only trying to correct some false understandings... which are based on false teachings. Because I no like false anything... and especially things that have to do with God and Christ... or that come from the WTBTS.
but what the thread is really about is what the Society thinks it means to be anointed and how their views on this subject are self contradictory.
Yes! But if one doesn't know what it TRUTHFULLY means to BE anointed, then while some who read this might agree with you... others who read it may say, "Oh, they're only taking issue with the WTBTS because they're bitter/angry, etc." But if you not only show them the WTBTS contradictions, but also the actual contradictions with what they say versus what the Bible states (because many here do still have their faith in that treatise)... then, why not?
But your reactions seems to ME very similar to that one might receive from the WTBTS when someone shows THEM where their teaching is wrong: "Well, we're not TALKING about THAT, right now." But, okay, if that's how you roll...
If you want to conduct a lecture on being anointed, born again, given the heavenly call, whatever you want to call it - maybe you should start a fresh thread? Just an idea...
Gotcha. My sincere apologies if I offended you with my contribution.
Peace out, take it easy bro, all that stuff.
Peace to you, as well!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA, a 'sis'...
clarity

Since the subject "Partaking unworthily" has been referred to already ...........
could we just have one more quick look at it.?
>
1Cor 11:27 has been used ....... look again ...............vs 21 says to eat your own meal beforehand.
Read down to vs. 33 ..... when you come together, wait for one another,
34.If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, that you not come together for judgement.
>
In other words, whoever eats or drinks unworthily, { because he hasn't eaten beforehand and is hungry, and drinks because he is thirsty, ...or in other words, is just using these emblems to "fill-up the stomach"} - ... will be guilty of disrespecting the body and the blood!!!!
>
The unworthyness is not in relation to guessing rightly or wrongly about being of the annointed!! Does anyone not see this?
clarity
AGuest

I certainly do see it, dear Clarity (peace to you!)... and at the risk of further offending dear cedars (again, peace to you!), will say that, yes, this too was a problem. Some would eat prior to and so NOT partake when they arrived because they were "full." Others would NOT eat before hand so consider the bread and wine a full meal to indulge in. In both instances, neither were discerning the BODY and blood of Christ. Rather, they considered the meal merely a spread of "refreshments" if they wanted to partake or not.
But let's look at the entire context, the WHY of why they were eating too much or not partaking at all:
"I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!
"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.
"So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment."
They weren't eating TOGETHER... because they had "problems" with one another! Some sat on this side of the room and shared the meal with those they lliked... while avoiding those they didn't. Some ate it all, leaving nothing for those they didn't like. Some wouldn't eat at all... because it meant eating with those THEY believed were "unclean" (according to the Law). In doing this, ALL such ones were unclean themselves... on the INSIDE. Why? Because... they were JUDGING others. They were imagining "differences" between them and others... which they used to show that THEY had "God's approval."
If they didn't get a handle on this, though... they would be eating and drinking that very same judgment... against themselves. For with the judgment that they were judging, they would BE judged.
So, they needed to "get right" within themselves... so that they could discern the body of Christ... and partake of it WORTHILY.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
cedars

AGuest - not that you listen to a word I say and think about it, but for what it's worth:
Perhaps YOUR zeal has caused your eyes to deceive you?
Nope, my zeal is to expose flawed teaching, your zeal is to replace it with your ideas. My eyes aren't deceiving me at all any longer, and I take exception to your claim that they are.
But is it right to expose those teachings with more false teachings??
I'm not exposing their teachings with more false teachings, because I'm not trying to teach anyone anything! You're the one who's trying to do that. I'm just clearly demonstrating how the society's "logic" works against itself, and is self-condemnatory! Sheesh, it's like talking to a brick wall. Also, if your arguments make so much sense, please can you make them a little more succinctly? Not that you should need to propound any truths or correct the society's teachings (or apparently my own "false teachings") here because the purpose of this thread is to show how the doctrine is flawed, not necessarily replace it with fresh doctrine. Everyone can do that for themselves, in the same way that evidently you did.
May the force be with you my brother... lots of nice fluffy things.... keep the faith and all that....
williamhconley

The May 1st 2007 QFR Watchtower is responsable for the sharp increase in Partakers.
That article lifted the due date of 1935 for the anointed. No more 1935 limit to be of the anointed. That same article even stated that some of the anointed in the first century were not spiritually strong or serving as elders or servants.
When I read that I knew the number would increase significantly. It's interesting that they stated later on that it's a personal matter & no one should judge those who partake. However, with that article the GB is doing exactly that...judging them and even suggesting that they are mentally unstable.
Some partkers have realized that in reality they are not part of "the faithful & discreet slave" as they are never consulted on any issue. The OD and a study article several years ago put those partakers in line by letting them know who really is in charge ...the Governing Body of 7 members and that they do not need to consult with anyone else not even "fellow anointed".

QFR: "Warning - memorial partakers might be loonies!"

Share this