In effect the GB says the new testament was only written for the 144k - right?

by Comatose 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Band on the Run

  This was a news flash to me. I can't recall hearing it. Perhaps they said this after I left. It is utterly ridiculous. The way they exclude people is reason enough to run away from their religion. 144,000 is such an incredibly small number of the earth's inhabitants. Why would Jesus preach or the NT authors write for such a small crowd. It is silly. Beyond silly, it shows contempt for humanity. Jesus loved humanity. Certainly, all the crowds that gathered to hear him as he went about his ministry believed the message was for all. I can't recall a single incident in his ministry where Jesus spolke of 144,000.

  The WT teaching mixes symbolic statements in Revelation, a book that was very controversial and rejected by most church fathers, with all the other Bible books. Of course, as I recently discovered, first century Christians had no Bible. Indeed, Jesus did not have the Old Testament. Jews of that time had reference to only a few books of what we now call the Bible.

  My major complaint against the Witness is summed up by this view. It seems that the GB is brain addled and doing serious recreational drugs. As wikipedia noted in its JW article, the beliefs are very separate from mainstream Christian belief. I ask the question whether Witnesses are truly Christian. Reading Paul's genuine letters, the apostle Paul would rebuke the WT in the strongest terms as being contrary to the gospel he preached. This teaching further contributes to the view I had while active: no matter what you do, it is never sufficient. You should be doing more. This teaching is a hallmark of the cult. It is worse than the Roman Catholic priests having special powers that the laity do not. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The concept of the Elect always bothered me.

  I am addicted to this forum. It troubles me. Nevertheless, I am constantly shocked by what I learn on this site. No family member ever mentioned this teaching. Also, I don't agree that first century Christians were any different than Christians today. It makes no sense. This movement to restore first century worship makes no sense to me. We do not live in the first century. There were so many different Christian communities even in the first century. How do we choose which version is the correct one? It is very scary when people take no responsibility for their beliefs and actions. Someone telling you something does not make it a fact. When I was young, there were few avenues to research religion, esp. if one had no access to a research library. The Internet has changed the world. I'm sliding down in my seat to the basement level.
• 

  KateWild

  Coma,

  In reponse to the OP, I would agree the GB don't want the NT to apply to the R&F. But when I read Rom 8.14-17 I felt spiritually drawn in. I am a very religious person. So I assumed I was anointed, the elders had a good old laugh and tried to convince me I wasn't.

  After reading it all again, we can't actually know what is or isn't symbolic wrt the anointed. No anointed person has contacted me beyond the grave. I don't belive in any of that anymore now, except there are individuals that make a difference in the world. Sometimes on a big scale and sometimes in private. These are truly special. Kate xx
• 

  dropoffyourkeylee

  It is my hope that the new NWT being more readable will open the eyes of a lot of the Witnesses. If a person simply reads the letters of Paul it becomes self-evident that the WT doctrines of two classes is wrong. For them to have the doctrine that the NT applies mostly to a small special anointed class, and that the vast majority of Christians cannot read it as a message to them, is a travesty. It robs the NT of its meaning and makes a joke of Christianity.
• 

  jgnat

  It's not that hard to show. Find a list online of Jesus' promises, look them up, and ask a Witness which apply to them, not being of the anointed class. Many of the promises are to do with heaven. Immediate exclusion.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I've researched the heaven part. There is a huge problem. Greek thought about heaven was so dominant that most Christians talk about heaven. Yet Jesus, a Jew, and Paul, would have believed in a bodily resurrection. I was surprised to hear this. A priest explained it when someone in the parish died. It is not clear what happens when someone dies in Christian theology. She referenced Jesus statement that God could raise the very rocks to replace the Pharisees. I forget the exact reference. It is a familiar scripture. God can raise us again. It spooks me b/c this sounds siimilar to the WT formulation.

  I am struck that there is no express reference in the NT. It is the same with the existence of the Trinity. Jesus speaks of the KIngdom repeatedly. No one asks questions. Perhaps the original understanding is lost. It seems as though there is vagueness. I don't read Jewish thought in the first century. HIs audience may have known what he was talking about. Anyway, whether in heaven or on earth, Jesus, Paul, and no other NT writer spoke of different classes of believers.

  I still don't understand the anointed in WT usage. It seems as though the Holy Spirit would reveal to you whether you were anointed. Also, far more than 144,000 JWs declared themselves anointed. It was generational. Part of my anxiety growing up was that we believed the fewer anointed on earth, the closer Armageddon was. My great-grandfather passed a long time ago. According to the teachings when I was in, Armageddon should have taken place many decades ago. It strikes me that personality type would play a role in viewing yourself as anointed. Again, it was forbidden in my time. With the GB even more firmly in power, what does it matter? One would think that they could abandon the two class system now.

  Is there a test for being anointed? What are the criteria? It seemed a spooky thing when I was in.
• 

  designs

  If Christians cannot settle whether the 144,000 Jews of Revelation are literal or symbolic (its just left up to the individual reader's eschatological views) how can a JW be singled out for their two class views.

  You have nominal Christians holding 180 degree opposite views on scriptures ie heaven only vs life on earth eternally etc. so why the dish on this interpretation.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Designs,

  I can only research so much. It is strange that I never asked where people go when they die. My research convinced me that the priest is correct. Heaven does not make sense. It is a Greek idea. Jews believe in the physicality of the resurrection so I assume Jesus and Paul also believed in it. The details don't bother me much. There are so many details that the NT or even the writers of later Christian authors do not address. When I was a Witness such details were important to me. The WT was always speculating. I tend to absorb broad categories now.

  Part of it is adopting more of an Anglican mindset. The denomination keeps definitions and doctrine broad in an attempt to be an umbrella group. How I live my life today is more important than what happens in the future. If God exists, God cannot be pushed into human terms. Jews believe in the transcedence of God. God is that which is not human. Dogmas don't appeal to me. It is a very different approach from fundamentalism. I do read academic NT literature b/c I am interested in knowing the "historical Jesus," particularly the "son of man" research. It is important to me whether Jesus as a man believed he was the Messiah. Again, the scriptures are unclear. One can see glimpses in the gospel record.

  It does seem that either people could reference what Jewish was saying based on the existing culture or they did not find it important enough to mention. I wonder if Leo ever posted on this topic. It seems that with archaeology and modern research methods, scholars should have a good sense of what people in the time period believed. I don't have answers. It is interesting that I also read that for most of history Jews did believe in a resurrection. When you died, you died. For some reasons, some Jews started believing in a resurrection about one hundred years before Jesus' birth. If I recall correctly, the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection and the Pharisees did.

  This is not my field. I only can read it at certain times so I am an arm chair scholar. It blows my mind to read many of the findings. Also, though, as I've noted before my absence from the field for long stretches allows me to see how scholarship, even at a high level, has trends. When I was in college in the 1970s, "Q", an unfound document that was the basis for the Synoptic gospels existed. Time passed and I read that few scholars believed in Q's existence anymore. Lately, I read that "Q" has been revived. If these scholars who devote their lives to NT research don't know many basics, how does the Governing Body? It is impossible for the GB to know. I would rather live with questions than false answers.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Rattigan,

  "Revelation is for our day"?

  This has been the catchcall of each generation, not just this one.

  I suggest that research into the process during the first 600 years of Christianity in regards to Revelation is in order.

  Decide whether Revelation (or any other NT book) should be in the Bible. It is only the RC Church that took a vote on which books should constitute the Bible, and that vote took place in the 15th century. All others base their decision on Tradition. Ironic, isn't it?

  Doug