Watchtower forced to alter doctrine.

by apocalypse 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  apocalypse

  Someone mentioned the meeting of the 120 where a replacement for Judas was made. It was stated that the Bible doesn't say where they were.

  Contrary to that assertion, the Bible writrer Luke, in the last verse of his record states that they were in the "temple continually", from the time of the ascention till Pentecost. This would have included the event of the choosing. The record in Acts chapter 2 also demonstrates by its entire context that they were indeed in the Temple when all things took place.

  There is a great deal of evidence to prove that all events took place in the Temple, while there is not even one shred of evidence to indicate a "private home" as the Watchtower asserts. The "upper room" event mentioned in Acts chapter one was a single event the evening of the ascention.

  Why the big point?

  Simply, as the Pentecost paper points out, the events of Pentecost 33 CE are used to assert the authority structure of the Governing Body. If they twist the truth of the events, then their authority is false.

  As well, the Watchtower has asserted throughout its history, that it is necessary to get out of the "Churches" and into "private homes" in the supposed same manner as the 1st century Christians got out of the Temple. That is the foundation for the book study which is carried through till this day. As well, the first Kingdom Halls of the Watchtower organization were taught to be parallel to the getting out of the "Temple" of Christendom and into their own "upper room".

  In fact, many of the first Kingdom Halls were rented rooms chosen specifically on the second floor of buildings. Everything is an allegory in WatchtowerWorld.

  This issue is of paramount importance, because the truth about it undermines the entire structure of the Watchtower Organization.
• 

  JosephMalik

  There is a great deal of evidence to prove that all events took place in the Temple, while there is not even one shred of evidence to indicate a "private home" as the Watchtower asserts. The "upper room" event mentioned in Acts chapter one was a single event the evening of the ascention.

  Apocalypse,

  No evidence not even a shred? Really? This is a historical narrative not a prophetic one such as the verses where the Temple is also called a house. Luke knew the difference between Temple and house and used the proper words needed to describe each in his record. That is proof enough. And the verse you use as proof was regarding events that took place later. What it states is this:

  Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, {from: or, at home}

  See, even in this text that took place after Pentecost we see that Luke knew the difference between temple and house. After all they did not live in the temple so they also had to meet at homes. So you are the one that has no proof. After the Holy Spirit was poured out and huge crowds had to be accommodated things may have moved into the temple. But the events took place where Luke said they did since he knew the facts. It is not our place to put words into his mouth or alter the meanings of his epistle.

  Joseph
• 

  apocalypse

  Well actually you need to do more research. As I pointed out in the Pentecost paper which you have not read, yet commented on, Luke wrote Acts as well as Luke. In his work named LUKE, Luke writes...

  *** Rbi8 Luke 24:50-53 *** 50 But he led them out as far as Beth'any, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 As he was blessing them he was parted from them and began to be borne up to heaven. 52 And they did obeisance to him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they were continually in the temple blessing God.

  From the time of the ascention till Pentecost, they were in the temple blessing God.

  Now, Luke does not go contrary to that by saying "house" in Acts. The latter part of the account in Acts 2 shows clearly the same think as Luke 24:53. The use of the word house is generic. God says over and over again "MY HOUSE" and Jesus quoted that when throwing the money changers out of THE HOUSE.
• 

  JosephMalik

  Now, Luke does not go contrary to that by saying "house" in Acts. The latter part of the account in Acts 2 shows clearly the same think as Luke 24:53. The use of the word house is generic. God says over and over again "MY HOUSE" and Jesus quoted that when throwing the money changers out of THE HOUSE.

  Apocalypse,

  This was already covered. Acts was a historical account devoid of the symbolisms used in his Gospel. And the difference between temple and house and Luke's use of such words in this letter were already demonstrated in Acts chapter 2:46. To put it more simply the context in the two works are not the same. A comparison may work in some cases but not all and house is not as generic as you think. When evidence such as Acts 2:46 is provided then no basis for such comparison or use exists. Now I blocked out the texts to show the possibilities without forcing the conclusions that you put on them. This is enough for everyone to make their own evaluation of the texts and come to their own conclusions. That they also preached in the temple is not under dispute and I showed this as well. But they did not spend all their time there. They also used a house, an upper room and the houses of others. Luke knew the difference and let us know that he did right where it counted most.

  Joseph
• 

  apocalypse

  You suggest that they used a "house" in the sense of private home, as well you sugest they used an "upper room" in the same sense as the Temple.

  That does not seem correct.

  The Apostles did not live in Jerusalem. They were only using that "upper room" because this was lodging for them. To suggest that somehow it was more than what might be considered a hotel room when for instance Jehovah's Witnesses visit a convention in another city, doesn't agree with the context.

  If after talking about your first evening in a hotel room the day before the convention you follow up by discussing the Public Talk, what would you conclude about your listeners of they assumed the Public Talk was given in your hotel room?

  The accont of Luke says ... 51 As he was blessing them he was parted from them and began to be borne up to heaven. 52 And they did obeisance to him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53And they were continually in the temple blessing God.

  This puts them sqarely in "God's house" from that time forward on a daily basis. That agrees with Acts 2:1 which says nothing about any house or upper room, but only "same place". That also agrees with Acts 2:14-42 which discusses Peter's sermon which was obviously heard by thousands. That also agrees with Acts 2:46 which says plainly "TEMPLE". That also agrees with the fact that Jesus instructed that they stay at Jerusalem because the Temple was there. Taht also agrees with the fact that they were Jews and were REQUIRED to be in constant attendance at the Temple at Pentecost. That also agrees with the fact that Acts 2:5-11 records Jews in attendance from 19 different places.

  In an upper room, or a private house? That does not agree with the body of information.

  Now, the account in Acts says that after leaving the site of the ascention, they returned to their "upper room" . Why would they do anything different? Directly after the ascention, it was getting on in the day and they would have at some point had to retire to their "hotel room". The fact that they had a few visitors that shared with them is not a point that can be stretched to, as you suggest, say that Luke's account in Luke 24:53 is somehow in error.

  These people were JEWS, and CHRIST himself told them "do not depart from Jerusalem". Why Jerusalem? Why not Switzerland? Because Jerusalem was the heart of the worship of God, where God's "HOUSE" was, where Jesus expressed a passion for usoiled worship by throwing out the money changers.
• 

  JosephMalik

  You suggest that they used a "house" in the sense of private home, as well you sugest they used an "upper room" in the same sense as the Temple.

  Apocalypse,

  No I do not. I posted my comments on the text and we went through this several times already. Enough is enough. Let the readers decide how to understand the texts. It is enough to give them an alternative to your views. You have no support for your view as shown and insisting that this one text in Luke's Gospel (which does not mean 24 hours every day) alters the way we should view Acts simply does not work. Each has their own purpose and perspective. If this does not fit your interpretation of the texts then so be it.

  Joseph
• 

  apocalypse

  To each his own. The reader can decide. I have never had a problem with that. In fact that is the motive in writing contrary to what the WTS teaches.

  However, when someone attempts to support an idea and yet cannot answer important questions that bear on the matter, then it needs to be noted.

  If the Apostles and those with them were in an upper room or even a private home, then how did over 3000 people listen to Peter's discourse?

  At some point they were in the Temple because Acts says so. So then, at what point does the transition take place? When did they leave that "private" house and appear suddenly at the Temple?

  They did not move, the Scriptures say. In fact the other way around, the people came to them.

  So if you feel they were in a "private home, at which verse does the transition take place?

  Edited by - apocalypse on 27 October 2002 6:47:36