by Halcon 109 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
and what you write are your ideas
rightly
a large part of the church continues to live its life
but there is the GRIS that deals with all the various sects
and it is also very active on the internet
they hold conferences and other things they study russel and the millerites make videos against them they call them freemasons
I know because I know some priests in there
they have documents and researchers and they question the doctrine as is done here, with a fair amount of success
JWs did kind of have the threefold baptismal Father, Son, and “spirit directed organisation”, although I think they’ve dropped that now?
Watchtower would never be so radical as to say so, but personally I doubt that the baptismal formula at the end of Matthew is original. Why? Because it’s not found elsewhere in connection with baptism in the NT. Throughout Acts baptism is simply into the name of Jesus, no mention of three. It’s the kind of addition that would be made as the church moved in a Trinitarian direction. The medieval Hebrew version of Matthew omits it. I don’t know how early the church fathers begin citing it. That would be interesting to know. And aqwabot123, I know this isn’t proof and you can provide a 2000 word refutation of the idea in 30 seconds. I’m saying it’s possibly an addition to the text, not definitely. There are no major variants that omit the phrase, as far as I know.
My impression is that the WTS sees baptism as a symbolic step of officially joining the organization. In that sense, you could be baptized any time you leave one religion for another.
Yes, that’s true. I noticed that when Christadelphians get baptised, they “accept the hand of fellowship” by joining an ecclesia, usually the following day. (Baptised on Saturday, join fellowship on Sunday) So for them baptism is linked but distinct from membership. Whereas JWs tend to see baptism and joining JWs as one and the same.
In the Russell days, they referred to dedication as consecration. The present JW folderol of 'dedication and baptism' consists of studying through doctrinal books, answering questions on the creed/beliefs to the satisfaction of examiners, 'dedicating' to God (the only part of this which is private), official baptism in public with the date recorded permanently, and later the added baptism vow containing verbiage to identify as a JW in association with the WT religion.
I maintain that this constructed process was invented primarily for legal reasons to prove in court that a person was a practicing JW. This came up in the Rutherford and associates 1918 trial where men were claiming to be members of the faith and exempt from the draft, but the WT didn't have a way to substantiate their claims. It's part of what landed Rutherford in jail in 1918. Back then it was all about the draft.
Just a note: There is one place where God, Jesus, and the holy spirit (holy ghost) is mentioned in regard to baptism. Matthew 28:19 does say this in the King James Version (and the RNWT) "Matthew 28:19 in the King James Version reads: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" RNWT: Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,
Matthew 28:19 does say this in the King James Version (and the RNWT) "Matthew 28:19 in the King James Version reads: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" RNWT: Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.
A JW by means of this verse could say that it is implied that a JW baptism is being performed in the name of all three. Does it teach something different tho?
Halcon, I think a JW baptism is “ In the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit Directed Organization “.
I have enough common sense to work out the story is likely true because there is a photo of the woman in the newspaper and she is wearing a JW convention badge
Woman exists therefore anecdote is true. Yeah, great logic. 🤦♂️
Halcon, the WTS has "adjusted" the baptism questions over time. As I see it, the WTS was trying to distance themselves of the clear words "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. (Note that the WTS does not capitalize "holy spirit" but the KJV does "Holy Ghost." (to match WTS teaching that the holy ghost is not a person). The phrase in Matthew 28:19 has disturbed the WTS because that phrase is often used by other Christian religions to base who is involved is this relationship. The WTS baptism questions show this as time goes by. "Watchtower continued to clarify that baptism is not in the name of any organisation.
"A Christian, therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit." Watchtower 1955 Jul 1 p.411
Emphasis of baptism shifted from Jesus to Jehovah.
"We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organization. No, we dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a very personal relationship between us and Jehovah." Watchtower 1966 Oct 1 pp.603-604
In 1985, a significant change was introduced. In total disregard to Biblical guidance, and Watchtower's previous comments, it became a requirement for the baptismal candidate to announce their desire to become associated with an Organization.
"At the close of the convention baptism talk, the baptism candidates will be in position to answer with depth of understanding and heartfelt appreciation two simple questions that serve to confirm that they recognize the implications of following Christ's example.
The first question is:
On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
The second is:
Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization? Having answered yes to these questions, candidates are in a right heart condition to undergo Christian baptism." Watchtower 1985 Jun 1 p.30
In 2019, reference to the holy spirit was removed altogether.
“(1) “Have you repented of your sins, dedicated yourself to Jehovah, and accepted his way of salvation through Jesus Christ?”
(2) “Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization?””
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMINDERS May 2019
Whilst the baptism questions no longer include the holy spirit, this is not the impression given to the public. The "Bible Questions Answered" section of jw.org has an article What is Baptism? (as of 8 Sep 2023) and answers the question by saying; "'In the name of' means that the one being baptized recognizes the authority and position of the Father and the Son, as well as the role of God’s holy spirit." There is no mention that the baptism questions omit holy spirit and include the organization. https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/baptism.php
(This has been gradual and most jws don't even remember the questions in the past. This a tactic the WTS uses often, not bringing attention directly to the change, but just slips it in and hope no one notices, One case is that of the 7,000 year creative day, by 1987 no reference, and in 1989, only a quote from a previous article, Jws today don't even know about the 7,000 creative day, the linchpin for the 1975 chronology. Now they just say "thousands and thousands of year)
1987 January 1 WT p. 30
Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long.
(Insight Book Volume 1, Creation, “And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.”
