bttt
An Apostate Myth
by nicolaou 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
james_woods
Hey - sorry about not chaining on your thread; did not know it was there...James
-
eyeslice
I agree with Little Toe in that we should not be mislead into think that those in Bethel are either theologians or spiritual giants. My opinion is that the JW thing has lost its way totally.
Personally, I do not think the GB has much room to manoeuvre over such doctrines as 607 BCE, 1914 or no blood - they simply at this point would not get away with it without a mass exodus. What they will do is continue to tinker with these doctrines, as they did with the 1914 generation'.
Eyeslice -
IP_SEC
If they changed this teaching while certain ones from they 80s are still alive, they would feel pressure to aplogize to certain ones about disfellowshiping them over this subject.
There were also certain ones who stayed faithful who knew about the 80s struggle over 607. These ones would explode if the society changed the 607 teaching. NO?
-
Dr Jekyll
they would feel pressure to apologize to certain ones about disfellowshiping them over this subject.
They wouldn't apologize, in their arrogance they would accuse those who were disfellowshipped of running ahead of the organisation and of being independently minded.
I don't think the org has ever apologised about anything.
-
Leolaia
I think you're right that many Witnesses would just continue to accept Watchtower authority if the Society just drops the whole 607/1914 issue. It is true that a good number would be stumbled like there were with the "new light" in 1995 about "this generation", but I think there would be many who would be relieved that they no longer have to believe all that 1914, 1918, 1919 mumbo jumbo; I think the Society's attempts to find a biblical basis for the organizational importance of 1918 and 1919 are among the most difficult beliefs for ppl to understand. If the Society stops trying to justify its authority through flawed and logically-contorted chronology, and just simply makes the claim that it is God's organization (as it has already been doing), I think the majority already in it will go along with it and welcome the disposal of difficult chronology. The main problem (aside from the number who would be stumbled by the change) is that for new converts there would not be any claimed biblical basis for their claimed authority, and so it might be a little more difficult to convince them; on the other hand, there is no biblical basis for 1935 as the general ending of the heavenly hope, and generally proselytes accept that notion with little resistance. As for indicating the closeness of the end without 1914, that date has already been weakened with the passage of time and the Society now generally relies on their muckraking on the present state of the world and the "composite sign". They could either continue this way without making further use of chronology, or they could set a new date to stir the drones into action. They just missed an opportunity to move 1914 to 1935 (by adopting 586 BC), thereby furnishing a biblical basis for 1935 and facilitating 2005 as a possible date for the end (1935 + 70), but with the present "generation" doctrine and the fact that we are now in a new century, the Society would probably be more inclined to set a date closer to our time.
-
TopHat
3) Even their claim to measure up to Christ's description of true believers - that "they have love among themselves" - is a hollow one. There are just as many nasty individuals amongst them as anyone else.
In the cong I went to...we had the meanest, nasty, greedy, corrupt, Elder you ever want to meet but yet could get up on the platform and give the best spiritual talk of anyone I heard.
Go figure!
-
The Leological One
If dates or doctrine get to hot to prove, they only have to wait for the "true light" revealed in the "book of Brian chap2 verse 6" with the release of "The Newer World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" - 2007.
Steve.
-
nicolaou
Excuse me for bumping this back up again but with all the excitement about the new "generation" teachings floating about I think it might be worth it.
Don't expect too much guys. The society can change or drop any teaching or date it likes; 1914, 607, the generation, the anointed, the remnant, anything! There are no sacred cows except one - AUTHORITY. They can dress that authority anyway they like and attach a new name or label to it, they don't care so long as they retain it.
Fiddling about with the 'generation' doctrines is simply a way to preserve their authority into the future. There will be no mass exodus of affronted and shocked JW's. Some will murmer, a few may leave, then they'll all pick up their Songbooks and sing like before . .
-
Knowsnothing
Nicolaou, I think your absolutley right. The WT and Protestant groups attacked the Catholic Magisterium doctrine, yet the WT has been enforcing Magisterium, albeit veiled, all along.
If the Society stops trying to justify its authority through flawed and logically-contorted chronology, and just simply makes the claim that it is God's organization (as it has already been doing), I think the majority already in it will go along with it and welcome the disposal of difficult chronology. The main problem (aside from the number who would be stumbled by the change) is that for new converts there would not be any claimed biblical basis for their claimed authority, and so it might be a little more difficult to convince them. -Leolaia
I agree with this as well, except I think that given that JW's now number 7.5 million, they can now use the argument (as was used on me) that numbers don't lie. 7.5 millions JW's can't be wrong! They don't need to prove dates. The WT has been 'faithfully' providing food for 130+ years, and that qualifies them to be the FDS. The WT has taught no hellfire, no trinity, etc. for about the same length of time, and that qualifies them to be the FDS. Ad nauseum.