The elders' power is imagined. They don't understand "no." Try, "I don't recognize you as a competent counselor. I don't recognize you as an authoritative representative of God or Christ. There is no reason for me to meet with you."
Old Goat
JoinedPosts by Old Goat
-
31
JC was formed, without even letting me know!?
by magotan inno one will take my intent to da or df seriously.
they called me again (three brothers this time) and asked me to meet with them.
i had no intention of doing so....simply told them there was nothing to talk about.. .
-
-
-
63
Book - "A People for His Name" by Timothy White
by VM44 in.
"a people for his name" by timothy white is an early, but still excellent, book about the history of the jws.. here is a page containing portions from the book.
http://members.fortunecity.com/peopleforhisname/peopleforhisname.htm.
-
-
Old Goat
Another book you should read is Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet by Schulz and de Vienne. Impressive history. e-book on barns and noble or paper at lulu.com. The detail is impressive.
Russell took key elements of his end-times theology from Barbour (and others). Barbour was a fruitcake. Is fruitcakeism catching?
-
11
How many current Elders,M.S's,C.O's D.O's are around that were pre 1975?
by karter inin my old congro i think there might be 1 elder who was pre 75 no m.s's .. c.o's only 1 i know of.. .
karter.. .
-
-
Old Goat
I was an elder in 1975. I was a congregation servant before that. I became a Witness in the late 1940s. The 1975 mis-adventure opened my eyes to the Watchtower's double standard. If anyone else had proposed that folly, they'd have been disfellowshipped or at least they would have been 'warned' not to speculate. F. W. Franz drove huge numbers of Witnesses off some sort of mental cliff. He should have been removed from his position. I would have been if I'd done something like that. He wasn't.
-
65
What strand of Christianity gave birth to WTBTS?
by Band on the Run ini know about johnathan edwards and william miller being some of the forerunners of the wtbts.
how about much earlier in time?
was there a group during the middle ages or even earlier that preached something similar to the wt doctrine?
-
-
Old Goat
It is a mistake to say Russell was most influenced by Second Adventists (Advent Christians, Life and Advent Union, etc.) Russell self identifies as a millennialist Age-to-Come believer. By the time Russell met him, Storrs had left Adventism and was advocating a British Literalist theology. The same is true of Stetson. Stetson was an Age-to-Come believer, a Millenarian, and in his last years he wrote for The Restitution and The Rainbow, both Millenarian publications. Age-to-Come theology differs radically from Millerite Adventism. Russell also read and knew Thomas Wilson, Benjamin Wilson's nephew. Wilson's magazine is noted in the Herald of the Morning. Wilson was an Age to Come believer, not an Adventist.
While Russell believed Miller played a part in the divine plan, he rejected Miller's theology. He saw Miller as important only because he fit in a date system Russell inherited from Barbour. People often point to Barbour as an Adventist influence. However, by the time Russell met him, Barbour had switched to Age-to-Come belief and accepted Mark Allen's belief system. By the 1880s he associated his congregation, the Church of the Strangers, with Allen's Church of the Blessed Hope. Allen did not advocate any form of Millerism.
Much of what we might see as Russell's radical theology owes its development to British Separatist and Anglican writers. Henry Smith-Warleigh is an example. One can find elements of Russellite belief in various medieval era sects such as the Petro-Brucians and some of the Polish Brethren. You will find some similarities among some of the Paulicans. Some of his doctrine seems to trace to a second century sect called the Abrahamites.
It is an uninformed view that associates Russell with Adventism on the basis of his meeting J. Wendell. Russell felt Adventists were seriously out of the light of truth. You can find several discussions of the three principal approaches to Christ's return in Zion's Watch Tower. He says that Millenarians (British Literalist, Age to Come believers in the US) most nearly approach the truth. He was, as documented by Schulz and de Vienne, an age to come believer from 1870 to 1876, well known to readers of The Restitution. Schulz and de Vienne's next book considers this; their research is stellar.
You can trace Barbour's theology by reading Schulz and de Vienne's Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's forgotten prophet. Russell's Age-to-Come theology is traced on their private blog. You'd have to ask for an invitation. Expect to be quized and maybe turned down. They tend to pick people with professional credentials with a real interest in the subject. You can trace it yourself through the pages of the Age-to-Come preiodicals such as The Restitution.
Schulz and his partner have a public blog, though it is far less interesting than the private one. You can find it here: http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
To read the private blog one must agree not to repost the material elsewhere. So, while I'd love to quote long sections of it, I cannot. I will say that it presents the most thorough, well documented research I've ever seen. I look forward to the publication of their next book.
-
61
WHAT REASON DOES THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE TO DENY JESUS MEDIATOR-SHIP FOR EVERYONE?
by ÁrbolesdeArabia inaguest, jehovah-jirah, lars58, rick fearon, finkle, or another scholars on jwn.
what reason does the governing body have for telling.
seven million jehovah's witnesses, "jesus is not your man dude!
-
-
Old Goat
Some of you seem to think I support Watchtower doctrine. All I did was explain the belief. You need to ask yourself why a simple explanation would cause you to be offensive. If you finally bother to read Jeremiah, you will see that the New Covenant is only with Israel. Many Christians take that to be "The Israel of God," the body of Christ.
That understanding is much wider than the Watchtower has it. No? But it still leaves out all those who reject Christianity. Others, such as the Church of God - General Conference (Atlanta) take this to apply to literal Jews. If that's true, it's still not an all inclusive covenant because it leaves out all Gentiles.
Even the Watchtower believes that Christ's sacrifice is for all, though they limit the new covenant to the 144k. If you don't know this, you were never much of a Witness. That's very basic Watchtower doctrine.
I don't see this as about control. Maybe you gave up your right to think and your ability to reason when you became a Witness, but I did not. It's about skewed, narrowly focused doctrine. How, please tell me, does Watchtower teaching on the New Covenant control anyone? No one from Bethel visits each congregation and says, "Well, you can partake of the emblems, but you cannot." If you feel or felt controlled by the Watchtower, then you failed to feel responsible to God and Christ.
If we move this discussion into their very unscriptural Governing Body doctrine, then we can discuss the desire to control. That doctrine isn't rational, and it's not scriptural. Its current expression reminds me of Eli's sons dipping their over large forks in the sacrifices.
All religions have control mechanisms. The Watchtower is no different. Some control mechanisms are more or less scriptural. The Watchtower's structure does not approach the New Testament standard. The Bible has it (in Hebrews chapter 1) that God's voice to us in the last days is through Christ. The Watchtower has it that God's voice is the Governing Body.
The recent change isn't exactly new. In the late 1960s they tried to introduce that through, of all things, a written review. The negative feed-back they received was overwhelming and the matter was dropped. The focus then was the Society's directors. The Watchtower's governance structure is a distorted type of Episcopalianism. The Bible presents a semi-autonomous Congregationalism. I'm not going to discuss that at length, nor am I going to debate Watchtower New Covenant doctrine with you. They have it wrong. But some of you have misrepresented it. Misrepresenting it detracts from any valid argument. Doesn't it?
You're parroting Ray Franz without doing the research. If you're going to object to this doctrine, do it effectively - and accurately. The initial question asked why the Watchtower taught what it did. I answered that question. If you continue filled with anger over what you see as Watchtower abuse, then they do still control you. Substitute reason for anger. And stop calling me names.
I became a Witness in 1948. I've seen many changes and not a little abuse by those in authority. I handled that in various ways, usually privately. That stopped being possible some few years ago. While I differ doctrinally in some areas, it is the abusive, self-worshiping nature of the current crop of administrators that has left me on the outside wondering how I managed to accept all of this for so long.
-
61
WHAT REASON DOES THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE TO DENY JESUS MEDIATOR-SHIP FOR EVERYONE?
by ÁrbolesdeArabia inaguest, jehovah-jirah, lars58, rick fearon, finkle, or another scholars on jwn.
what reason does the governing body have for telling.
seven million jehovah's witnesses, "jesus is not your man dude!
-
-
Old Goat
In Watchtower theology Jesus is mediator of the New Covenant. That much is scriptural. They limit the new covenant participants to God and the 144,000. A covenant is a contractual agreement. The new covenant is described in Jeremiah. The new covenant organizes spiritual Israel as a nation. A mediator is different from a propitiator. In Watchtower theology Jesus is the propitiator (peace maker, reconciler) for all. He is the mediator between God and the Bride of Christ in the New Covenant relationship.
If one believes that only 144K are part of that covenant, then one must believe that Jesus' mediatorship concerns only them and God, the parties to the covenant. There is a distinct difference between a covenant instituting sacrifice and a propitiating (sin atoning) sacrifice. In Christian theology, Jesus' one sacrifice filled both functions. There is Old Testament precedence for that.
The Watchtower does not teach that Christ's sacrifice does not cover all. While their teaching on mediatorship may be flawed, it is consistently misrepresented. They do not teach that all Christians are not covered by Christ's atoning sacrifice. Witness soteriology is unnecessarily convoluted.
Personally, I’m inclined to see the number 144,000 as symbolic, though I admit there is some merit in the Watchtower argument that it is a literal number. The issue rests with God, and, unlike the Watchtower that brooks no contrary view, I’m willing to let it rest with him. I see all the issues as to the timing of ultimate salvation as a replay of 19th Century discussions that went no where then and are meaningless now.
The problem isn’t that they see Jesus' mediatorship as confined to a small number. They see his propitiating sacrifice as applying to all, and that is sound Christian doctrine. The problem rests in their tendency to make basic doctrine as hard to understand as is possible. And they express what are no more than personal beliefs as if they were the inspired word of God.
-
52
Was it EX JW literature / WT's or the BIBLE which woke you up? Post scriptures if any....
by EndofMysteries ini considered myself immune to ex jw stuff.
no amount of old watchtowers or anything would change me.
it was seeing treatment of others by elders and the bible itself, which woke me.
-
-
Old Goat
Apostate material is usually silly ... and wrong. The governing body puts itself in Jesus' place. Elders are untrained, speaking their own opinions in place of God's word. The love that is supposed to exist between brothers is hard to find among elders. Circuit and District Overseers are often self-serving and full of pride. IF Witnesses represent God's truth even on a small scale, the organization is corrupt. Eli is sitting in the temple of God, and his sons are abusing the congregation.
I liked being a Witness in the late 1940s and through the 1970s, even through the 1975 crap. I started disliking some practices about 1970. Among these was a Watchtower Society grab at congregation money about 1980. Now that's a story and a half. I'd love to tell it, but I was so involved that my story would identify me. I stayed on as an elder through issues that would curle your hair (assuming it's straight). One of these involved a child molestation case where the District Overseer told us not to procede against the mother who facilitated the abuse. I finally threw up my hands and resigned as an elder citing health reasons and age.
My family are all witnesses. I keep my issues to myself.
-
30
Are you a writer?
by Hortensia ini think that at least a few of you are writers, maybe more.
i mean honest-to-god working-for-money writers, writers with a small "w" rather than a capital "w." my experience is that writing is a lot like theater: a few stars at the top making the bucks, a middle level with lots of people who work hard and don't make much, and then a lot more hopeful people at the bottom who are trying to make a living writing with no luck so far.. tell me about it.
what kind of writing do you do?
-
-
Old Goat
Young Adult books, articles for professional journals, feature articles for newspapers.
-
10
Russell, Barbour and ... Albert Barnes - 606, 607, 588, 587 before 1914
by kepler inin the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a rube-goldberg based prophesying formula, i had mentioned a couple of historical leads i thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way.
explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead.
but nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century americana, there might be some insight after all.. theologian albert barnes (17981870) graduated from hamilton college, clinton, new york, in 1820, and from princeton theological seminary in 1823. barnes was ordained as a presbyterian minister by the presbytery of elizabethtown, new jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the presbyterian church in morristown, new jersey (18251830), and of the first presbyterian church of philadelphia (18301867).. .
-
-
Old Goat
Russell and Barbour did not point to 607 BC; they pointed to 606. The 606 date was derived from Elliott's Horae, a standard work on prophecy. The chronology they used was develped by Christopher Bowern, an Anglican clergyman, and published in the fourth edition of Elliott's book. The 2520 year concept traces to an American clergyman who published in the late 1700s and from him to John Aquila Brown, a silver and gold smith turned prophetic student. After Brown published in 1823 the 2520 year concept became general. Others before Barnes pointed to 607. The Watch Tower was late to recognize the date.
If you really want to know all the details, you need to read Schulz and de Vienne: Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. The book is available from lulu.com. It is available as an ebook from Barnes and Noble. It's very detailed and has many, many reliable footnotes. It's refereshing to see real historical research such as this is, instead of crap. Buy that book. Read it.
-
45
The great crowd has no mediator. Jesus is only the mediator for the 144K
by blond-moment inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft-ey9qodgw.
-
-
Old Goat
Mind you wrote: still the New Covenant is only offered to 144000 or GB.........until proven faithful at death.....and does not apply until then if one wants to look at it as it only applies to them.
I'm not sure I understand your comment. The Governing Body is not the same as the Bride of Christ (144,000 in Witness doctrine). The New Covenant is with all of Spiritual Israel. Not even Witnesses think it's just with the Governing Body. (At least not yet. ...)
Every church has an eccesiastical structure that they pretend to find in the Bible. Witnesses are no different. I'm at a loss as to know how to reply to what you wrote; i simply do not understand what you're saying. Clarify.
All of my children are Witnesses. Two of them are Pioneers. One was for a period in foreign service. I may wish they saw the Watchtower organization more clearly. They're grown, mature individuals. I cannot make decisions for them. I still hear comments about how well I raided my children. I shrug them off. I had little control over what they became. The most I ever did was try to teach them to reason.