the latest flip-flop (allbeit a minor one.).
the "wise instruction" (as described by the society) given is that sisters now have to wear head coverings when interpreting sign language public talks.. differs from the previous instructions that sisters didn't need to do so.. .
w02 7/15p.27 questions from readers.
Actually it seems to rate SL interpretation higher... which suggests that the big deal in 'teaching' (which was not the point in 1 Corinthians 11 anyway) is to be seen.
Quite an interesting piece of casuistics in any case, possibly offering some insights into the authors' psychology, values and standards of (self-)"importance".
we have all heard how the gb can make mistakes and it's ok because jesus apostles had wrong expectations too.
for instance.
peter had faults, james and john too - also, "lord, are you restoring the kingdom to isreal at this time" - etc.
Hi xelder,
That's not what I meant -- at all! :)
I felt the question as you put it was almost rhetorical (and there's nothing wrong in a rhetorical question), not prejudiced: of course "the apostles" in Acts are not portrayed as flip-flopping the way the WT GB has done. I only wanted to point out that the very idea of them working as a collective, central authority over the worldwide church is a very artificial one which covers a much more complex historical reality -- and that reality does include considerable doctrinal variation, although not from any "central" "governing" source.
Welcome!
we have all heard how the gb can make mistakes and it's ok because jesus apostles had wrong expectations too.
for instance.
peter had faults, james and john too - also, "lord, are you restoring the kingdom to isreal at this time" - etc.
Can anyone name a single time when the apostles as a group, under prayer and claiming God's direction as a group, ever established a belief or clarification, and then a few years later received "new light", or a different understanding of any kind, thus causing them to redirect individuals or congregations on a different course than they had previously established as from God?
It seems you have carefully worded your question so as to elicit a negative answer... ;)
Afaik the idea of apostles acting "as a group" is only found in the book of Acts and there they are indeed not portrayed as contradicting themselves as a group from one moment to another; disagreement between them is carefully limited to trivial matters (e.g. Paul and Barnabas) or smoothly resolved (e.g. Peter and James).
However, if you consider the whole NT "apostolic" material in some sense (as the early church did) you may get a pretty different picture. Not that of a "governing body" changing its mind as time goes but of individual "apostles" and movements which had actually little in common, and often are found in strong disagreement with each other when they happen to deal with similar topics (e.g. Matthew vs. Romans on the validity of the Law, James vs. Romans on faith and works, the so-called "apostolic decree" and Revelation vs. 1 Corinthians on food sacrificed to idols, and so on). You have also different and mutually exclusive views integrated in the same work (e.g. the Son of Man will come before the preaching of the Gospel to Israel, Samaria excluded, is over, Matthew 10; after the preaching is extended to the diaspora as a testimony to the Gentiles, but immediately after Jerusalem's fall, chapter 24; after the preaching is extended to all the Gentiles, without any chronological indication, 28:18ff -- all of this on Jesus' lips btw). You have also very strong differences between works ascribed to the same person, e.g. the correction of the eschatology of 1 Thessalonians (the day of the Lord will come anytime, without any forewarning sign) in 2 Thessalonians (the day of the Lord cannot come now because the 'man of lawlessness' must come before, and he cannot come now for some mysterious reason). So there are indeed indications of doctrinal revision within most if not all segments of the early Christian nebula. What is actually lacking is the evidence for any constituted group of "apostles" beint acknowledged as a collective overarching authority by all of them -- iow, we do not see the Twelve (as per the storyline of the Gospels and Acts) working practically in such function over the universal church.
it has been recently proved ( as far as i'm concerned) that paradise the jw view of it isn't coming.
scriptual evidence is so thin as to be non exsistent.
ok so what about armargedon then?
It's rather strange, when you think of it, that an obscure pseudo Hebrew toponym (symbolic place name of an imaginary battlefield) occurring only once in the weirdest book of the New Testament (Revelation) has become THE keyword for JWs' end-time expectation. The eschatological-oriented segments of early Christianity had way more meaningful and positive terms for what (or, more exactly perhaps, whom) they expected. They were hoping for the advent (parousia) or coming (erkhomai ktl.) of the Son of Man, the Day (hemera) of the Lord, Jesus' revelation (apokalupsis) or manifestation (epiphaneia). They were expecting somebody they knew and loved rather than something they dreaded. For sure it had a negative side (not so much the "great tribulation" or distress which concerned only Jerusalem and was already past, at least from the Synoptic Gospels standpoint, but the subsequent universal judgement), but it was overwhelmingly positive from a believer's perspective. "Sons of light" expecting the "day" to which they already belonged (1 Thessalonians 5), as the coming out of their own "hidden" reality (Colossians 3). This bright aspect of early Christian eschatologies is completely lost in WT doctrine. JWs tend to fear what they expect rather than look forward to it, I think.
i posted most of this on another thread but i want this to stand alone so i can refer back to it in the future.
one of our resident apologists has given her response on this thread.
you can judge the relative worth of her response for yourself.. "by their fruit you will recognize them.
To the op: I think those kinds of "scriptural criteria" to recognise "true believers" either individually or collectively are pretty difficult to use (1) from a modern cultural context with different values, and (2) taking into account the huge differences (and frequent conflicts) between different types of early Christianity and texts.
For instance, we could easily take issue with the potential "fruits" of Matthean Christianity: did it not radically question traditional family values and loyalties (Mt 8:21f; 10:34ff; 12:46ff; 19:29; 23:9)? Did it not promote a certain indifference to the future, if not a positive (if one dare say) longing for death and martyrdom which sometimes borders on self-hatred (5:29f; 6:24ff; 10:38f; 16:24ff)?
Or, did not the mutual love of the elect in Johannine Christianity lead to complete rejection of those who did not share their premises (2 John 9--11)?
Such attitudes we might naturally construe as "bad fruits" but it is quite obvious that the authors didn't.
And when we consider the possibility that many of the NT anathemas are directed at other types of "Christian" believers who were no less sincere in their own beliefs, which sometimes are also echoed elsewhere in the NT (compare Matthew 7:21-23 with Romans, for instance), the ideal of one valid standard for all "true Christians" seems even more fanciful.
the one constant in life.
there is only one significant constant in life and that constant is simply: we all die.
no matter how successful we become, we will die.
aligot,
You make it sound like you have not much hope left to abandon actually... :)
Reading your post I was thinking that 30 years ago we might have taken issue with older Catholics clinging to the hope of heaven simply because they had held it during their entire life... Sic transit amor veritatis, or Au boulevard du temps qui passe? ;)
it is my understanding that the scholars of the wts say that the "70 years" began when the land was "completely depopulated", not when jerusalem was destroyed.. .
if that is the case, they should have jumped from their 537 bce date back to the removal of inhabitants during nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year, thus making that 607 (or 606) bce.. .
did russell start the 70 years (and hence his 2520 years) with the destruction of jerusalem or with the depopulation of the land?.
I could imagine a number of possible WT replies (such as, disconnecting the date from the oracle and/or making the latter a fictitious prophecy to a fictitious audience, in a sort of flashback, "vision"-like setting, addressing the situation the escapee had left in Judea, hence a prophecy after the event although before the knowledge of the event); only (1) all of this may be a bit sophisticated for the WT readership, (2) potentially damaging to the fundamentalistic side of its relationship with scripture, and (3) dangerously close to the "higher critic" concept of a purely literary "prophecy". Last but not least, if "celebrated scholars" (aka. "mommy") haven't spoken on this particular issue (or, until somebody digs up what they might have said about it), how could scholar know which line of defence to choose?
it is my understanding that the scholars of the wts say that the "70 years" began when the land was "completely depopulated", not when jerusalem was destroyed.. .
if that is the case, they should have jumped from their 537 bce date back to the removal of inhabitants during nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year, thus making that 607 (or 606) bce.. .
did russell start the 70 years (and hence his 2520 years) with the destruction of jerusalem or with the depopulation of the land?.
I didn't remember the WT addressing this question so I looked up the book The Nations Shall Know that I am Jehovah: the writers do not seem to have perceived the problem anymore than scholar... they do discuss the variant reading in v. 21 but they fail to address the fact that the oracle given in December (607 by WT chronology) and to be delivered to those who live amongst the ruins still foretells the desolation of the land as future... If this has been discussed elsewhere in WT literature I have no idea...
my eyes fell out of my head when i found this....i always thought the tree of knowlege had "magic powers" but the watchtower said no, no it's just symbolic.. this is how the verse reads in the nwt bible.
gen 3:6 "the woman saw that the tree was good for food and it was something to be longed for to the eyes, the tree was desirable to look upon......." {repeats the same verse twice!}.
check out the nwt footnote study version.
There is an implicit aspect to this story which was pretty obvious to any ancient hearer/reader familiar with mythology but is often missed by modern readers with a monotheistic or humanist backgroud: Eden was Yhwh's garden (cf. 13:10), a "garden of gods" (probable first sense of the plural gan-'elohim in Ezekiel 28:13; 31:8f; whence the plural in Genesis 3:22 which is a vestige of the original polytheistic setting of the story). The garden was not planted for mankind but for the gods. Like in most ancient creation myths mankind is not created for its own sake but to serve the gods*, in that particular case in a gardener's office (2:15, "to till it and keep it"). Which means that both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life are god food, much like nectar and ambrosia. From such a theocentric perspective the story makes much more sense than from the anthropocentric one which is so natural to us.
* E.g. 'Enuma `elish, t. VI l. 1-10:
When Marduk heard the words of the gods,
His heart prompted him to fashion artful works.
Opening his mouth, he addressed Ea
To impart the plan he had conceived in his heart:
"I will take blood and fashion bone.
I will establish a savage, ‘man’ shall be his name.
truly, savage-man I will create.
He shall be charged with the service of the gods
That they might be at ease!The ways of the gods I will artfully alter. (
it is my understanding that the scholars of the wts say that the "70 years" began when the land was "completely depopulated", not when jerusalem was destroyed.. .
if that is the case, they should have jumped from their 537 bce date back to the removal of inhabitants during nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year, thus making that 607 (or 606) bce.. .
did russell start the 70 years (and hence his 2520 years) with the destruction of jerusalem or with the depopulation of the land?.
Fwiw, the WT used to link the start of the 70 years with the murder of Gedaliah in the 7th month and the move of Johanan's groups to Egypt (Jeremiah 41--43; e.g. W 6/1 1972 QFR); Jeremiah 52:30 is explained away as follows in the Insight book (entry Nebuchadnezzar)
About three years later, in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, more Jews were taken into exile. (Jer 52:30) This exile probably involved Jews who had fled to lands that were later conquered by the Babylonians. Lending support to this conclusion is the statement of the historian Josephus: "In the fifth year after the sacking of Jerusalem, which was the twenty-third year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar marched against Coele-Syria and, after occupying it, made war both on the Moabites and the Ammanites. Then, after making these nations subject to him, he invaded Egypt in order to subdue it."—JewishAntiquities, X, 181, 182 (ix, 7).
