Compare/contrast the above to the following:
Life Everlasting (1966)
(p. 147)
53 Since then, going on to a million persons have
Dedicated themselves to Jehovah God and have
been baptized in water and now profess to belong,
not to the anointed remnant of the “little flock,”
(p. 148)
but to the “other sheep.” In fact, no heavenly
calling, no spiritual Kingdom hope, were held be-
fore them at the time of their water baptism.Why was this? What did this baptism and bring-
ing in of such “other sheep” since 1934 mean?
54 Evidently it meant that the 144,000 who were
called to the heavenly kingdom had been picked
out by that time and that there was just a rem-
nant of those “anointed” for the Kingdom left
on earth.”
It certainly seems to me that the Society set the stage for the confirmation of their teaching. The circular reasoning is priceless! ‘Because the heavenly calling ended circa 1934, it was not offered to the “other sheep”, which meant they necessarily felt they had an earthly hope, and since they did, it indicates the heavenly calling ended circa 1934…’
bennyk
JoinedPosts by bennyk
-
288
Did the heavenly calling cease in 1935? Not anymore!
by AnnOMaly inwatch out for the questions from readers in the may 1st 2007 watchtower.
"when does the calling of christians to a heavenly hope cease?
" it's a good'un.. included are the statements:.
-
-
bennyk
-
288
Did the heavenly calling cease in 1935? Not anymore!
by AnnOMaly inwatch out for the questions from readers in the may 1st 2007 watchtower.
"when does the calling of christians to a heavenly hope cease?
" it's a good'un.. included are the statements:.
-
-
bennyk
In 1935 the "great crowd" of Revelation 7:9-15 was understood to be made up of "other sheep," Christians with an earthly hope, who would appear on the world scene in "the last days" and who as a group would survive Armageddon. (John 10:16; 2 Timothy 3:1; Revelation 21:3, 4) After that year, the thrust of the disciple-making work turned to the gathering in of the great crowd. Hence, especially after 1966 it was believed that the heavenly call ceased in 1935. This seemed to be confirmed when almost all who were baptized after 1935 felt that they had the earthly hope. Thereafter, any called to the heavenly hope were believed to be replacements for anointed Christians who had proved unfaithful.
(Difficulty posting, also see below) -
288
Did the heavenly calling cease in 1935? Not anymore!
by AnnOMaly inwatch out for the questions from readers in the may 1st 2007 watchtower.
"when does the calling of christians to a heavenly hope cease?
" it's a good'un.. included are the statements:.
-
-
bennyk
An interesting tidbit from WTS history is that in its original concept being part of the "anointed" class was a significant step beyond consecration. To be anointed was to be sanctified to sainthood. It was the "cream of the crop". It meant that you voluntarily "offered your bodies as a living sacrifice" (Rom 12:1), which was counted as a ransom payment for unredeemed mankind during the millennium (mystery doctrine).
But within this original concept, "anointed" members came out from among the temporary ranks of the "great multitude" (who were consecrated, but had not progressed beyond a "seed" in sanctification). Thus the two classes had existed alongside each other from day one.
Slight correction: The members of the 144 000, who were to share in the sacrifice (Mystery doctrine), were "sealed" -- NOT simply anointed. The members of the "Great Company" class were also considered "anointed".
-
38
MORE DRIVEL FROM APRIL 15TH WT STUDY.....
by Mary ini'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but on pages 28-29 of the april 15, 2007 watchtower study on let the congregation be built up, they seem to be trying to justify the notion that a person cannot be 'saved' if they leave the organization, even if they have just cause:.
paragraph 15 reads" in modern times, some have ceased associating with the local congregation, feeling that they will serve god on their own.
they may say that it is because their feelings were hurt, they think a wrong is not being corrected, or they cannot accept some teaching.
-
-
bennyk
The individual might go off on his own or be associating with just a few others, but where is the arrangement for congregation elders and the provision of ministerial servants?
Are Elders really necessary? I distinctly remember something else in the Proclaimers book (p. 53):
It took real courage in those days to withdraw from one's church. [...] But she stood firm, even though there was no congregation of Bible Students nearby. As her son later described her situation: "no study servant [elder] to lean on. No meetings. A contrite heart. A worn Bible. Long prayerful hours." (bracket in original)
-
21
Elders are after me--PART 2
by love2Bworldly inok--i have decided i do want to answer the door when the elders return.
i won't let them speak at all, i am going to hold up my hand and tell them to let me have my say.
i am planning to say the following, and i'm trying to keep it very simple and to the point:.
-
-
bennyk
Tell them you annulled your baptism seven years ago, and thus are not under their suzerainty...
-
8
Flaws in jw religion
by adam1989 inhi there been reading this forum for a few weeks and this is my first post.
i recently came into contact with a person who is a jw and although we respect each others religion she has recently started preching that the end is near and how much we should hate this current system.
we talk about the jw religion and she accepts my views when i question what she believes.
-
-
bennyk
Oh, the "End is near", is it?!?!
I've heard that "Deliverance is at hand!" Over and over again: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/118225/1.ashx
-
13
1914, 607 and why the details don't mean as much as the bigger picture
by drew sagan ini wrote this just because i recently saw some people on another site trying to defend the 607 date.
this is mostly for lurkers, those who still may be hodling onto the idea that there is truth in this date.
probably one of the most talked about wt doctrines is that of 1914 and the 'gentile times'.
-
-
bennyk
Most notably, since the bible students believed that Jesus had already arrived in 1874, they were not even ready for his arrival in 1914, so whilst Christendom was awaiting his return, bible students would not have been paying attention to his arrival. In fact, since they didn't teach Jesus' parousia happened till 1943, Russell and Rutherford would have been completely unaware that Jesus' didn't arrive till 1914, believing it had happened 40 years earlier.
Yep. And the Greatest Man book states (chapters 131 and/or 132) that when Jesus arrived in 1914, only his true disciples saw it. So I guess that "proves" that the Bible Students (later called JW's) were not his true disciples. The Society continued to teach that the Second Parousia began in 1874 until at least 1929 (Prophecy book).
-
31
Has the number of 144,000 changed?
by TooBad TooSad inthrough out my witness life i have always believed that when the partakers at memorial went up that means.
that some of the anoited were unfaithful and had to be replaced.
i have beleived this for 40 years.
-
-
bennyk
The following is a plausible explanation. Disclaimer: I do not believe the number of anointed is 144 000.
The replacement of an "unfaithful, formerly anointed" individual need not be immediate, but rather, is said to take place after the death of the individual. Thus, the number of recognized anointed members of the "Remnant" will fall both because of deaths of faithful Anointed AND the defection of unfaithful Anointed from the Watch Tower Society. Accordingly, it could be (but need not appear as) a one-for-one replacement because the cumulative defection of not-yet-replaced Evil Slaves would take place over several years, and could be followed by a total replacement in a SINGLE year. If the number of recognized replacements exceeds the number of those who have died faithful since the previous Memorial, the total number of "anointed" will appear to increase. (Of course, such an explanation is necessary only if the number 144 000 be literal.)
-
11
Caught in the headlights
by Honesty ini recently asked a jw to explain the discrepancies in the following scriptures between 1 corinthians 10:3-4 and 1 corinthians 10:9 in their new world translation:.
first i presented the scripture as it is rendered in another modern day translation, as it is rendered in the original greek and as it is rendered in the latin vulgate:.
1 corinthians 10:3-4 they all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink.
-
-
bennyk
This discrepancy is the result of the differences in the Greek texts. The Nestle-Aland text reads Criston with P46 D F G Y M latt sy co; the NWT translator(s) used the Westcott-Hort text, which here reads kurion with (Aleph) B C P 33. 104. 326. 365. 1175. 2464 pc sy(hmg). Then, of course, Freddy translated "Lord" as "Jehovah".
-
144
The New World Translation is a Mess
by Amazing inthe new world translation (nwt) contains thousands of serious errors.
the following regarding john 1:1, one of the most noteworthy verses to jehovah's witness and ex-jehovah's witnesses alike, provides a case example of how and why the nwt cannot be trusted.
there some few scholars that translate the word was "a god" or "a god" or "divine" but they are in the very low percentages.. in greek john 1:1 says: "en arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos.
-
-
bennyk
Vaughan and Gideon's Greek Grammar states (p.79): "An example of the qualitative or characterizing significance of the anarthrous noun is theos in John 1:1." (p.84) [re:John 1:1] "Had the article been used with theos, the suggestion would have been that the Word is identical with the entire essence of the Deity. As it actually stands, theos (without the article) is the predicate, and it is the nature and attributes of Deity that are ascribed to the Word. That is to say, it is the nature of the Word, not the identity of his Person, to which attention is called by the absence of the article."
(To those who would argue that Colwell's "rule" precludes a definite article in the predicate nominative preceding the subject, please see John 15:1b and consider that Greek MS Codex L has a definite article in the predicate nominative at John 1:1c.)
The Zuercher Bibel and Hermann Menge's translation (both German language) have a footnote at John 1:1 noting that the statement signifies that the Word was "goettlichen Wesens" (of the divine essence or nature).
I would be inclined to translate John 1:1bc "and the Word was with God, and the Word was god" because "God" (the definite theos) is construed in English as a proper noun, whereas "god" (the anarthrous theos) is not. (Of course, this is not distinctive when read orally.)
David Bercot (I believe it was he) gave an illustrative parallel using the Hebrew word adam as a proper name (Adam) and qualitatively (adam = human) to illustrate this:
"In the Beginning was Eve, and Eve was with Adam, and Eve was adam (i.e. human)"