Posts by bennyk

45

Update Regarding How The May 1 QFR Is "Playing" In The Congregations

by Justitia Themis in

i have been emailing with a sister in my congregation regarding the qfr.

i told her i wasn't discussing it with most jws, because i didn't want to hear any of their "new light" garbage.

i told her this isn't new light; this just means that what we paraded out in 1935 as "new light" was wrong.. she sheepishly (no pun intended) agreed.

bennyk

Ozziepost writes:
From another angle, by cutting themselves off from Joe Ratherflawed's scheme, they've opened up a real Pandora's Box - how will they stop the number of the "anointed"™ at a 'respectable' number so that they're still well under the 144,000?

I may well be wrong, but it seems that this QfR was almost unique among articles of the past four decades in not mentioning the number 144 000 in connection with the heavenly hope.

I think the WTS is interested in seeing the reaction to this article to determine whether or not they can feel free to "adjust" the teachings regarding the Anointed. Perhaps the number 144 000 may be tentatively suggested to be figurative, or they may wish to begin teaching that the 144 000 (as a literal number) were being gathered simultaneously with the Great Crowd (thereby countering the unspoken question many have regarding the length of time necessary for gathering the Bride Class). This latter option would be a partial return to the teachings of Russell.

45

Update Regarding How The May 1 QFR Is "Playing" In The Congregations

by Justitia Themis in

i have been emailing with a sister in my congregation regarding the qfr.

i told her i wasn't discussing it with most jws, because i didn't want to hear any of their "new light" garbage.

i told her this isn't new light; this just means that what we paraded out in 1935 as "new light" was wrong.. she sheepishly (no pun intended) agreed.

bennyk

Hmmm.

And in this QFR article, the number 144 000 was conspicuous -- by its ABSENCE.

3

current policy on swearing, as in oaths

by carla in

what is the current policy on swearing an oath to tell the truth?

such as in court, affidavids, passport office and that sort of thing.

i thought they were not supposed to at one time has this changed?

bennyk

The WTS' official teaching is that it is a conscience matter. They recognize that some may find swearing an oath problematic, due to Matt. 5:34-37 & James 5:12. The Courts will typically allow one to "affirm" that what is given as testimony is true; I have personally done this before giving testimony.

24

The JW lady came back/Who really is our Mediator?

by Guest with Questions in

jw
friends

continuation of my first post: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/132283/1.ashx.

this past tuesday the jw lady came back, which surprised me.

she came with her husband and i told them that it wasnt really fair (one against two).

bennyk

So what do Jehovah Witnesses really believe?

This is not unlike the question: "How long is a piece of string?". It really rather depends -- on the piece of string.

Officially, the Watch Tower Society's teaching is that Jesus serves as Mediator of the New Covenant, and consequently is Mediator only for those in the New Covenant, viz. the 144 000. The "Other Sheep" are said to be under [emphatically, NOT in] the New Covenant; therefore Jesus cannot be their Mediator. However, in my (limited) experience, very few Witnesses actually believe this.

In public prayer I not infrequently stated that the prayer was offered through our Mediator. On occasion (e.g. meals in our home), I actually apologized to guests for having done so. (I professed to be anointed while affiliated with the Watch Tower religion, and so did feel that Jesus was my Mediator.) Most Witnesses seemed entirely unaware of the Society's teaching. What was disturbing is how many also did not seem to care and would accept the Society's reasoning with no further consideration of the matter.

30

Was There Something That Ever Bothered U About The "Truth" While U Were In?

by minimus in

jw
friends

when i used to read the prophecies of revelation and see the society's interpetation i often thought to myself, "how could this be"?

i shelved a lot of things, hoping that maybe i'd understand over time or the "light would get brighter".. as an elder, i used to wonder how they (the society) could tell the elders one thing and put into print another thing.

while the rank and file were being told at the watchtower studies how the elders were to not judge unfairly at judicial committees, the elders were told to be safe rather than sorry when it came to "removing the wicked man from our midst".

bennyk

I never agreed with the Society's teaching (1979) that Jesus was not Mediator for the "Other Sheep."

I did not find the new (1985) baptismal vow questions acceptable.

I found the QfR in the 01. April 1986 Watchtower disturbing.

I did not agree with the Society's pre-1995 timing of the separation of the Sheep and Goats.

I did not agree with the Society's claim (w 01/1992) that Jesus was not divine.

&c., &c.

213

Ask Fred E Hathaway, a.k.a. Q. Bert

by Fred E Hathaway in

for those who feel that i've hijacked your thread(s), i'm still relatively new here, so your forgiveness (based on this acknowledgement and apology) is appreciated.

i'm posting this link, http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/131766/2343640/post.ashx#2343640, on the other threads as soon as i can.

bear with me as i attend to the necessary housework involved.. fred/q..

bennyk

A blast-from-the-past:

01. April 1986 QfR:
Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: "Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.

This is most fascinating. When the F&DS was supposedly appointed in 1919, the Watch Tower Society was still teaching that the Resurrection had begun in 1878 -- a teaching not altered until 1927 -- and which teaching the WTS now rejects as false. (Indeed, one would be disfellowshiped today for holding the pre-1927 view.) Does it not bugger the imagination to believe the Lord appointed over all his belongings an organisation that (by its own published standard) would be 'rightly branded apostate, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship'?

41

Is the end really coming?

by themonster123 in

well, as anyone on this board knows i"m a newbie....and witnesses kind of are scaring me with their "end is coming" business.

basically, cuz of three things:.

1) the last convention was called "jehovah's day at hand!

bennyk

As an antidote to any anxiety felt regarding the name and message of the 2006 "Deliverance at Hand" District Convention, please see the following link: "Deliverance at Hand"

288

Did the heavenly calling cease in 1935? Not anymore!

by AnnOMaly in

watch 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

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…’

288

Did the heavenly calling cease in 1935? Not anymore!

by AnnOMaly in

watch 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 in

watch 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".