There must be an "organization" (page 2)

DaCheech

They told him that everything in the universe is organized

Comets and meteors crashed on earth millions of years in an organized manner organized by God's organization

Triple A

JW’s are quick to dismiss anything not directly supported in the Bible! They say "the word ‘Trinity’" isn’t in the Bible, therefore, a false teaching." Okay, how about "Organization?" Where is that in the Bible?

I have been waiting for this arguement to be thrown out. And ask the JW, "Don't you believe in a Theocracy?" Which should get a yes. Than ask them to show me in the Bible where Theocracy appears and if they can not shouldn't they reject it as a false teaching.

A Paduan

What about where Jesus is quoted as saying, "Whereever two or three of you are gathered, there I will be also"?

"there I am also" Yep, but not as the wt taught you - there'll be a fourth who is discriminated against, and sacrificed - or even crucified

Confession

Yes, that would be the reply. They would use the parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Tares). They might also use the scripture that speaks of "...all things being gathered together again in the Christ." There is Daniel's prophecy about the heaven-high tree being cut down and banded with iron so it would not grow for a time. But to demonstrate that time might pass between Jesus' day and the late 1800s does NOT mean that God ever intended to use an exclusive organization of human beings to accomplish his purposes.

I highly recommend the paper, "Does God Work Through an Organization," by Tom Cabeen. It's the one Blondie provided a link to in her above post. (Here it is again: http://www.brci.org/Attachments/Org.pdf It was when I finished reading those words that I finally concluded I'd been suckered. (September 15th, 2004, by the way. Coming up on my One Year anniversary.)

Not that the contents in that well-worded piece alone did the trick. But Tom does a wonderful job of tactfully proving from the scriptures why this claim so many of us came to accept is simply untrue.

Here's another personal experience. While, as a Witness, I used to be able to provide the answer to any criticism I'd receive, once I was unable to do so. A person very dear to me, who was studying with JWs, called and asked me how to counter an argument presented her by a non-Witness. She simply asked me to read Mark 9:38-41.

Now, to set this up for your friend--if he will listen--take him to a few verses preceding this passage (verses 33-37.) There you will read how Jesus asked his apostles what they'd been arguing about. As we know it was about who of them was to be "greatest." He told them the greatest one would be the "servant of all," and said, "Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me..."

This is a scripture JWs refer to all the time. And what is the understanding? The simple principle Jesus set forth is that He would define greatness--not in the way selfish humans usually do--but in who was the most humble and child-like.

Okay, great. Now read on, starting at verse 38.

38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; 40 for he that is not against us is for us."

All right, now what's the point here? The point is frigging that "...he that is not against us is FOR US!" This was not a situation in which Jesus said, "Hey I know this guy. He's cool with me." He was clearly stating a principle: "He that is not against us is for us." You don't have to be part of some order or clique or "organization" in order to be acceptable to Christ. And, remember, Christ had really chosen this twelve. But despite this, he told them to leave the guy alone.

Can you think of anything more opposite from what JWs teach? "He that is not against us is for us." For the Watchtower Society it's, "He that is not with us is doomed."

If you can read the first set of verses in that chapter and easily grasp the point, why can you not do so with the second set of verses?

Ténébreux

38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; 40 for he that is not against us is for us."

I especially like the next part where he tells them that if anyone stumbles one of these little ones (referring to the man they had just been talking about) it would be better if he were thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck. They love to quote that bit to show how bad "stumbling" is. And what do they mean by stumbling? Causing someone to turn away from the organization, that's what. So they manage to take a quote that's specifically talking about how unimportant it is to be with a particular group, and use it to explain the disastrous consequences of not being with the organization. Just brilliant.

TheOldHippie

Confession - to which (your argument) the JW reply will be that it refers to the time before the Christian congregation had been fully organized, and so during that time, it was not necessary to be connected with Jesus or the apostles. Because the Jews as a nation were still under a pact, they already were in an organization, God's organization, and so all the "individual" Christians were free to be exactly that. When, then, the Christian congregation was founded and the pact with fleshly Jews done away with, they had to join what was thereafter God's organization, namely the new Christian organization. From then on, it was therefore no more possible to be an "individual" Christian, but one had to work together with organized Christianity.

ezekiel3

Here is an angle for you...

Out of the 41 Kings of Isreal and Judah, 35 were apostate.

That's over 85% of the appointed rulers of "God's Organisation" at that time!

Does that mean we are to follow apostate leadership if it is part of the "organisation"?

Will Power

Ezekiel - good point - that would explain how the WT with all its false prophecies, blood guilt, stumbling others, etc. can still call themselves god's channel.
and make agreement to their claim a requirement for salvation!

sir82

Does that mean we are to follow apostate leadership if it is part of the "organisation"?

Well, of course it does!

Haven't you been paying attention to the 100's of times they have recently referenced the King Saul vs. David scenario? David hides in the cave, catches Saul "easing nature" (one of my favorite euphemisms), but refuses to spear him because "how could I thrust my hand out against the anointed of Jehovah?"

I think this particular passage may soon catch up to or surpass the references to the "apostate Korah rebelling against Moses" references.

Will Power

omg sir too funny

> King Saul vs. David scenario? David hides in the cave, catches Saul "easing nature" (one of my favorite euphemisms), but refuses to spear him because "how could I thrust my hand out against the anointed of Jehovah?"

can you give me a reference? I want one of these

willplease

There must be an "organization"

Share this