The strange thing is that if/when the WTBTS come up with a new definition there would be people like djeggnog that are willing to support it with hundreds of words and continue at the same time to brow beat others for not having 'deeper understanding'.
Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?
by slimboyfat 245 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Black Sheep
eggnog
After reading the above, this is what did you wrote:
Pity a convention is three to five days long, not exactly what we are discussing here, is it?
I'm sorry, but trying to communicate with you is as if I were trying to have a conversation with a 14-year-old kid.... etc..
Did I really?
Prove it. Post a link.
... and while you need this time to pimp up your report card, look up the noun 'contemporary' in a reputable dictionary. (Not that Jesus is reported as using that word to describe 'this generation' anyway ).
-
Vanderhoven7
Attempting to justify your organization's right to assign any meaning iyt wants to words used in scripture, you wrote:
<<Or, more specifically since we are talking about interpretation here, you may recall in Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus, we read at Luke 16:22 Jesus' relating to us how it was that following Lazarus' death, he was "carried off by the angels to the bosom position of Abraham" (NWT) or how he "was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom" (KJV). Most people today would interpret the expression, "bosom position of Abraham" or "Abraham's bosom" to mean that Jesus was saying that Lazarus had died, but Jehovah's Witnesses interpret this expression differently to mean that Lazarus had come into God's favor, just as we read at John 1:18 how Jesus had come to be "in the bosom position with the Father" (NWT) or was "in the bosom of the Father" (KJV).>>
The problem is that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable. Think of how this story was understood at the time.
-
outsmartthesystem
Hey Eggster - I have a question. If there is no such thing as two overlapping generations.....but rather it is ONE generation made up of "contemporaries" of a particular event (that event being the supposed composite sign of Christ's presence in 1914) with the lives of some of the older "contemporaries" overlapping with the lives of some of the younger "contemporaries".........then why don't the shmucks in Brooklyn change the masthead of the Awake back to what it read prior to 1995?
Theoretically "the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away" still (according to your belief) rings true, does it not? I mean.....that "generation" is not just alive....but still young and vibrant!
Since the "understanding" is so clear....why not change it back instead of hiding behind the newer....generic masthead?
Could it be that they (the shmucks in Brooklyn) know that the new interpretation is a bunch of bullshit too and they didn't want to face the backlash of trying to explain to the PUBLIC (since the masthead isn't on the secretive cult study material study edition Watchtower) their ridiculous new "understanding" of what truly comprises this "generation" they are referring to? Could it be that the PUBLIC would call them out on the false prophecy that they promulgated up through the 90s and then make mincemeat of the new..... pathetic attempt of reinterpretation so as not to be TECHNICALLY guilty of false prophesying?
Seriously, why not change the masthead back if there is nothing to hide?
-
outsmartthesystem
I think I've figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are INDEED TWO separate generations. It's just that......in a parallel with Christ's INVISIBLE presence......the line between the TWO generations is INVISIBLE........thereby making it seem like it is just ONE contemporary generation.
Thank you. I'll be here all week
-
Vidqun
Black sheep, I believe he is referring to me with those words. Allow me to take up the slack.
Eggy, we have been discussing “generation” and in your explanation you include the term “contemporaries”. That’s why I gave you the dictionary definition of “contemporary” so that there is no misunderstanding. And I quote:
Our new interpretation of Matthew 24:34 isn't about overlapping generations, but is about contemporaries of a particular event, and the event began with the composite sign of Christ's presence in 1914. We now understand that this event -- the composite sign -- marks the beginning of the "generation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:34, so we no longer apply Jesus' use of generation to people, since these would be contemporaries of one another during the "generation of the sign." The lives of some of the older ones during this generation of the sign would overlap the lives of some of the younger ones during this generation of the sign. Again, there aren't really two groups, the "older" group and the "younger" group, but here's another hypothetical:
Then you explain your theory with the following illustration:
Imagine a three-day convention and I have two parts to give on Days 1 and 2 at the Dallas Convention and two parts to give elsewhere on Day 3. You have two parts to give elsewhere on Day 1 and two parts to give on Days 2 and 3 at the Dallas Convention. You and I are contemporaries at the Dallas Convention on Day 2 even though I was there when it began on Day 1 and you were there when it ended on Day 3. The Dallas Convention represents "the generation of the sign," so that while I was there when it began, you were there when it ended and our lives overlapped at the Convention on Day 2, making the two of us contemporaries there.
I see you also use the word “overlap”. It gets easier on the ear, the more one uses it. But really Eggy, you will not even get away with this illustration in your TMS. Let’s face it, this is not a good illustration of explaining JWs stance of “this generation”. Two overlapping lives at a convention? Come on now, admit it, it is not fitting, using a three day convention to explain a generation of 50-100 years. I am sure you can do better than that. If you don’t believe me, why don’t you go and ask one of the elders at your cong. whether the illustration works or not.
-
RubaDub
Wow, looking back on my Great-Grandmother's life (born in 1870 and died when I was 10), I bet she never realized that she was part of the same Generation that saw both the War of 1812 and the invention of the iPad (and who knows what else in the next 25 years or so in my lifetime).
Rub a Dub
-
djeggnog
@iCeltic:
Djeggnog - when watchtower changes a doctrine, you believe it, when watchtower demands that you live a certain way, you do it. When watchtower instructs you not to post on sites such as this you, what, ignore it?
Let me see if I understand what you are saying here: Your conscience tells you that I should not be posting messages to JWN? Really?!? You truly believe that I should be obeying your conscience? Seriously?!?
You have been misled to believe something that really isn't true or taught by God's organization. Although it is not advisable that Jehovah's Witnesses visit websites like this one for those without serious doubts as to their faith might succumb to some of the flawed argument posited here and what faith they did have before coming here is gradually eroded away. It can happen and this is the reason for the many articles that the Society has published in this regard. However, to my knowledge, the fact that you and many others might consider yourselves to be apostates does not mean that I view you as such. Some of you are misguided individuals that have never learned the truth.
You should know that I do not rely upon the subjective judgments of others for the decisions I make and the conclusions I draw. If anyone's conscience should accuse the person, it is a sin for that person and they should not be here, but if one's conscience should excuse the person, then they commit no sin. (Romans 2:15; James 4:17) No one can decide for me who is an apostate and who isn't an apostate. Many of you have Bibles, but put more faith in the hype than the things that Bible teaches so that you parrot as doctrines what others believe to be sins, or rules or commands, when what is being spread is opinion, falsehood, lies like 'the Society instructs you not to post on sites like this one.'
Even if this were true, what things the Society suggests or admonishes doesn't rise to the level of a command from the Almighty, which is the very thing that we find Jesus condemning about the teaching of the Pharisees, or they proscribes rules that took on the dimension of commands and taught these "commands of men as doctrines." Contrary to what you believe, the Society doesn't promulgate doctrines, nor does it change Bible doctrines. It is Jehovah's Witnesses as a body of Christians that interpret Bible doctrines. Believe me: There are those of us that know the difference between a recommendation that comes from the governing body and a command that comes from God.
Now it's true that certain ones among Jehovah's Witnesses -- not all of them being elders, for many sisters are participants in the propagation of such "commands of men" as well -- and many former Jehovah's Witnesses here like you and @cantleave are also just as guilty of engaging in spreading such propaganda about the Society's teaches and iron hand on God's congregation since that is what some of you did before you disassociated yourself or were disfellowshipped from it, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach such a "doctrine," and neither does the Society teach such a false doctrine, and repeating this mantra as to a violation of some rule imposed by some Grand Poobah of Jehovah's Witnesses against posting on websites such as this one over and over again simply won't make this false doctrine true.
You are free to be judgmental and be a busybody in other people's affairs, @iCeltic, but Christians should not be judging others and should live quietly and be minding their own business and not be minding someone else's business. If you were a Christian, then you would to be paying attention to yourself and to what things you do and not be worrying about me and the things I do.
Christians are a free people, and as such are guided by their own consciences that have been trained to distinguish between right and wrong. You do not have to believe me. I'm fine with you and others on here believing whatever things you wish to believe, which is how it should be, with each one carrying his or her own load and each one proving to himself or herself the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Furthermore, I would no more take advice from a disgruntled, expelled former Jehovah's Witness than I would take advice from a pedophile on how to properly raise my children. Please take a moment to read what I wrote in this last sentence so that you're clear on what I said and what I did not say, since I do know there to be a lot of ignorance on this forum: I did not say nor did I call you a pedophile. Please note that this is not a personal attack on you, @iCeltic; this is called an analogy.
Jesus made a similar analogy at Matthew 17:25-27 when making the point to his apostle Peter that kingdom heirs, sons of the kingdom, are not obliged to pay taxes to the king, for only "the strangers" are obliged to do so as "the sons are tax-free." But since they were living at that time under the authority of "the kings of the earth," namely, Roman authority, so as not to cause such ruler to stumble, Jesus told Peter that it would be best if both he and Peter pay the head tax anyway. What Jesus didn't say to Peter was that he was obliged to pay taxes to Caesar, but that, in order "that we do not cause them to stumble," we should pay our taxes.
Since no one would take advice from a pedophile on child-rearing, what this analogy of mine says is that I would view as suspect any advice that you might give me as to my obligations as being one of Jehovah's Witnesses. So whatever it is you might want to sell me, I've no interest whatsoever in buying it. I prefer to rely on my own Bible-trained conscience for the decisions I make, thank you very much. If you are merely concerned about my salvation or my spiritual welfare, please don't be; I'm fine. Instead, you would do well to worry about yourself and your family in helping them to prepare for what's coming down the pike real soon now.
Perhaps you've noticed that at the beginning of this century a revamping occurred, so that the governing body as it formerly existed is no more; for example, the president of the Society does not sit on the governing body. Eventually, there will be no governing body as they are now known to us and all communications as far as our organized work is concerned will soon be coming through the elders.
Now things are changing and many of you that have monitoring God's organization for some reason -- maybe you do so as a backstop against the possibility that you were wrong and Jehovah's Witnesses is God's organization, I don't know -- have been left totally in the dark. But I'll continue to post here as long as I decide to do so until @Simon should declare JWN to be an apostate website.
@Vanderhoven7:
The problem is that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable.
Ok.
Think of how this story was understood at the time.
Why should I when you don't seem to have done any thinking?
@outsmartthesystem:
I think I've figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm happy for you.
@RubaDub:
Wow, looking back on my Great-Grandmother's life (born in 1870 and died when I was 10), I bet she never realized that she was part of the same Generation that saw both the War of 1812 and the invention of the iPad (and who knows what else in the next 25 years or so in my lifetime).
Your great-grandmother would not be a part of the generation that saw the War of 1812 and the iPad generation, even if she were to have died after April 3, 2010. This notion of yours is ridiculous.
@djeggnog
-
Bungi Bill
DjDamnFool,
Christians might be free people:
- Jehovahs Witnesses, though, are "free" only to do what they are told!
No amount of baffflegab / circumlocution / verbal diarrhea (or staight out codswhallop) from you or anyone else changes that.
Bill.
-
iCeltic
If there is no problem with you posting here post your congregation and position held, if any, in that congregation. My conscience? What on earth are you talking about? I couldnt care less if you posted here or not, you are of no threat to me, but it is clear to me that Jehovah's Witnesses should not post on these sites, I remember hearing that myself from the kingdom hall when I went. Either you are lying or the brothers delivering talks on not even looking let alone taking part in conversations with, as you would call them, apostates, are lying.