by biometrics 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I think that at the end of days I will declare myself a believer in the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
I do find Catholicism very interesting but it's also quite dark so I'm not sure about that.
The Baptist Church always appealed to me even in my ministry days so we'll have to see.
I do have some friends who are Baptists.
I'm in no hurry though!
at the "end of days"Erbie may be at the Second Coming, when all who are happy with the "fundamentals of the christian faith ", and just that, are as the Bible puts it "on the right hand" of "Jesus".
Well, I certainly hope so.
I don't wanna work for him down there.
No way!
Have you ever had prickly heat?
I was a born in. I had nothing to revert right back to.
All I had was a Bible that was only mine because I wasn't born to a towel head, buddhist, scientologist, wiccan, whatever, none of which I was a descendent of.
Right on Fernando. Occasionally, even the WTBTS gets periferal snippets right....but unfortunately nothing that was original to them.
Snare and racket religion invariably represents the antithesis of the gospel.
The gift of God is eternal life/redemption/joy/rest/peace/worship through Jesus Christ our Lord
biometrics said: "reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom"
I agree with the thoughts that some others have mentioned. The terms "Christendom" and "Christendom's commentaries" and the like are simply WT loaded language.
Whenever the WT sites some non-WT reference (and of course, they don't usually give where it comes from), but if it agrees with what the WT is saying, then, it is from a "Bible scholar" or a "Bible researcher." But anything disagreeable comes from "Christendom's commentaries" or "worldly publications" and the like.
The fact is, most WT publications come from Christendom's commentaries. For example, the historical information in the current Book Study (Acts) follows fairly closely with the NAC commentary on Acts (Polehill is the author of that one). What you will get in a decent academic commentary, that you won't get in a WT commentary is: alternative views and the reasons for those views, copious notes with references to other books, and, generally speaking, a complete lack of the "we know best" smug arrogance that is typical of WT pubs. When there are possible alternative views, WT pubs tend to pick one that they go with and never mention any others, or glibly dismiss them as unreasonable.
For example, within the last few years, the Society has come up with "new light" on some of Jesus' illustrations in Matthew chapter 13. Many of the old understandings were based on W. E. Vine's understanding of these (although the Society never owned up to that). But if you compare the "new light" explanations with recent academic commentaries from "Christendom," you will see that for the most part, they now agree with what "Christendom" has been teaching for many years. How about that! Even the Society has reverted right back to Christendom's "apostate doctrines."
Phizzy, that's a brilliant post. That's exactly what I think.
Have I gone back to Catholic donctrines? To be honest, I suppose the truthful answer it perhaps, maybe, er, not really, not sure, perhaps not.
In other words, I am reserving my position. I'm absolutely determined never again to allow anyone else to dictate to me what I'm going to belieive. No-one else is going to judge my actions, and if they do, well, that's their problem.
I also no longer believe, if I ever really did, that the Bible is the source of all truth and the one and only source....well, the WT doesn't believe that, does it, despite the protestations in the Bible Teach book? They have a constantly brightening New Light which means new teachings. They say "Believe this or else, that is, until we tell you what to believe next."
I'm also certain that elements of truth can be found in many places other than Christianity. And that's as far as I'll go at the minute.
Interesting thread...
Love this because reverting back means they think they actually moved forwards!
But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..."
I always thought this was a very strange admission... that if a person quits submitting to WTS indoctrination and simply goes by what they find in the Bible, they will adopt doctrines that were being taught before the WTS existed.
My wife left the JW's 12 years ago (just before we married). For a long time we had no religion. Then we found one that has no clergy, no doctrine, no sermons, and no rites. Within this church there's lots of differing opinons on the bible and we accept all those opinions. There's even a branch for non-theists in this religion. We worship in silence once a week and work together to try and make the world a better place and help each other out as we try to live peaceably together. We're Quakers.
thinker
