Posts by AnnOMaly

Not to mention that the brochure's discussion of Rutherford correctly identifying the 'great multitude' again completely misses the glaring discrepancy where,

- The designation 'great multitude' only applies to those who come out of the great tribulation;

- The great tribulation is still a future event;

- What was identified as the 'great multitude' back in 1935 did not come out of the great tribulation and the vast majority of that group is now DEAD;

- So Rutherford actually mis-identified the 'great multitude' in 1935 - it wasn't them!

Maybe one day they'll invent some 'overlapping great crowd' doctrine ...

45

"New Book" God's Kingdom Rules

by booker-t in

i heard that on sat the jws released a new book at the convention god's kingdom rules.

is it a verse by verse of ezekiel or daniel?

does it mention the "overlapping generation"?

P. 53. The section about Rutherford identifying the 'great multitude' in 1935 and personal recollections of those who were there at the convention: Henry A. Cantwell must have mis-remembered what Rutherford said and the Writing Department let it slide:

"I recall very well the day Brother Rutherford spoke on the subject. ... After covering the matter quite thoroughly, Brother Rutherford asked all who believed they were part of the great multitude to stand. I immediately stood up and then looked around, and it seemed that most of those present were also standing. From that day forward, there has never been a question in my mind as to whether I was of the anointed."

However, the next page (p. 54) relates that Rutherford asked those hoping to live forever on earth to stand. This would be the 'Jonadab' class who had been specially invited to the conventions. These were not even considered 'Jehovah's witnesses' as they were not categorized as 'spiritual Israel' (Isa. 43:10), or as 'anointed.'

On the other hand, the 'great multitude' had long been thought of as a secondary heaven-bound class, spirit-begotten, but these had not properly fulfilled the responsibilities of their 'high calling' as the anointed Bride class. Nobody could know whether they were in this 'negligent' or 'less faithful' group (see Philbrick's comment on p. 53) until they got to heaven and Jesus decided.

Rutherford asked the earth-bound Jonadabs to stand up and, once they did so, drove home the point of what he'd been harping on about by declaring, "Behold! The great multitude!" No wonder one eye-witness remembers there was an initial silence (an account related repeatedly in WT publications). Suddenly, the anointed-but-secondary, heavenly class became a non-anointed, earthly class.

Therefore, Cantwell's recollection of himself standing up puzzles me. He was already an active publisher in the early '30s (1975 Yearbook, p. 157) which would make him one of the anointed classes who were not asked to stand by Rutherford (contrary to Cantwell's faulty recollection). In the early '30s, Jonadabs weren't 'consecrated to the Lord' and not 'Jehovah's witnesses' entitled to be publishers¹ so how could he have stood up identifying himself as a Jonadab in 1935?

Is this another example of an idealized view of WT history overwriting individuals' memories of the events?

----

¹ 1935 appears to be the first time Jonadabs were invited to participate in field service. (If I'm mistaken, somebody tell me.)

*** w66 2/15 pp. 120-121 par. 22 Identifying the Present-Day Beneficiaries ***

A five-day general convention of Jehovah’s witnesses was announced. Beginning with the April 1, 1935, issue of The Watchtower the announcements thereof said: “Again The Watchtower reminds its readers that a convention of Jehovah’s witnesses and Jonadabs* will be held at Washington, D.C., beginning May 30 and ending June 3, 1935. It is hoped that many of the remnant and the Jonadabs may find it convenient to attend the convention. Heretofore not many Jonadabs have had the privilege of attending a convention, and the convention at Washington may be a real comfort and benefit to them.” (Page 98) “This is a service convention, and it is expected that all the remnant and the Jonadabs will participate in the service.”—Page 110.

* At that time the Jonadabs or “other sheep” were not considered to be “Jehovah’s witnesses.”—See The Watchtower, August 15, 1934, page 249, paragraph 31.

.

Bulletin, July 1935, p. 1-2

"Considering this on an average of five persons to a home, the Kingdom message in printed form was made accessible to over a fourth of a million people as the result of this convention; and undoubtedly this participation in the field service by both the remnant and the Jonadabs prepared all who attended to appreciate the marvelous blessing the Lord had in store for them Friday afternoon, when the scriptures bearing upon the “great multitude” were unfolded one after another in a grand, indescribable panoramic view. From that time forth none had' any difficulty in recognizing their place in the Lord’s organization and seeing clearly what was required of them. When Brother Rutherford asked those who believed they were Jonadabs to hold up their hands and indicate it, in some sections of the hall it seemed as though fifty percent of those present did so. The great joy, unity and enthusiasm manifested by those throughout the remainder of the convention is indescribable ; nothing could hold them back from praising Jehovah."

45

"New Book" God's Kingdom Rules

by booker-t in

i heard that on sat the jws released a new book at the convention god's kingdom rules.

is it a verse by verse of ezekiel or daniel?

does it mention the "overlapping generation"?

AnnOMaly

Thanks for the next few chapters, wanna.

P. 50 - "As we saw in Chapter 2 of this book, the Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant in fulfilling Bible prophecy. However, at that time they believed that Christ's presence had begun in 1874, that he had begun to rule in heaven in 1878, and that the Kingdom would not be fully set up until October 1914. The harvest would extend from 1874 to 1914 and would culminate in the gathering of the anointed to heaven."

[Then the rationalization that, even though they were wrong and working out details before it was time for holy spirit to guide them to truths about God's purpose, God was still leading them.]

So on p. 50 they admit that the Bible Students believed Jesus had been present since 1874. How does this square with what was said earlier? How could they prepare for something that, to them, already occurred 40 years beforehand?

From my previous post:

P. 16 - "Consider this: Would people have been prepared for the beginning of Christ's presence if they were not able to distinguish Jesus from his Father Jehovah? Surely not!"

The BSs' Arian-esque view of God and Jesus had nothing to do with preparing for the beginning of Christ's presence. Anybody who is acquianted with BS/JW history knows full well that they taught Christ's presence began in 1874, that they only started to believe his presence began in 1874 after the 'fact' in 1876, and that the first hint of Christ's presence having begun in 1914 only popped up in 1930! How can anybody be prepared for something that they missed and were clueless about for 16 more years?

P. 20 - (Caption) "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence."

... FALSE!

59

BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?

by 88JM in

was listening to bbc radio 4 late sunday night, and in a programme about migration, they referenced the "babylonian conquest of jerusalem in 607 b.c.

" which caught my attention.. did they not mean 587 b.c., or did i understand it wrong?.

the link to the programme is below - sorry if you're not in the u.k. as you probably won't be able to listen to bbc programmes.

AnnOMaly

Even if a correction is broadcast, this reference will now appear in a future WT article about Jerusalem's destruction.

"According to the BBC...."

Oh heck. You're probably right. Or it'll be circulated in emails: "BBC journalist John McCarthy said, 'The Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem [was] in 607 B.C.' See, even the worldly media are vindicating our Bible chronology!"

Thanks for the clip, 88JM!

59

BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?

by 88JM in

was listening to bbc radio 4 late sunday night, and in a programme about migration, they referenced the "babylonian conquest of jerusalem in 607 b.c.

" which caught my attention.. did they not mean 587 b.c., or did i understand it wrong?.

the link to the programme is below - sorry if you're not in the u.k. as you probably won't be able to listen to bbc programmes.

AnnOMaly

Oops. Shoot the researcher! LOL.

30

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed references

by GoUnion in

this topic has been covered extensively but i just wanted relate what hapopenes with this subject and my elder father.

he called me up one day to check in on me he always asks if i'm going to msettings and i always tell him no im not.

well this time he wanted to know why i didn't trust the g.b.

AnnOMaly

He said he and my mother have looked at the wt articles again and they are confident this is the truth.

But he hasn't looked at how they misused references? Then how can he verify whether your objections have any validity or not?

Do not get embroiled in any other controversy they might want to bring up. If they try to goad or guilt you into coming back to meetings, repeat what you said in your OP - you cannot trust the GB because they misrepresent scholarly sources. The ball is in their court to prove you wrong. If they don't want to even try and 'correct' or 'readjust' your thinking on this by examining your evidence (hey, your salvation is at stake! Act hurt at their apparent lack of care), then it's end of discussion. Make your dad feel ashamed that he has not done what he said he would do (OP: "He didn't believe that the watchtower would do this, but he said he would look it up.").

45

"New Book" God's Kingdom Rules

by booker-t in

i heard that on sat the jws released a new book at the convention god's kingdom rules.

is it a verse by verse of ezekiel or daniel?

does it mention the "overlapping generation"?

AnnOMaly

OK, the old literature is out-of-date and NooLite™ has replaced it. But that doesn't excuse the modern-day misrepresentation of what used to be believed and preached. At least (unlike Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth'), there are copies of the original documents to cross-check.