Posts by Cold Steel

86

Fallacy of Baptism "in Holy Spirit"!

by The Searcher in

the following comment taken from the march 1st 2013 watchtower, is nothing new.

to witnesses the world over it's a basic teaching which even the kids understand; "humans with heavenly prospects have been baptized in water and with holy spirit and are thus spirit-begotten disciples of jesus.

" (john 3:3, 5) (both at the same time??????).

Cold Steel

In ancient Christianity, everyone who was baptized received the gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands by those authorized to confer it. Nowhere do the scriptures state that only some received it. Today, most sects don't offer the gift of the Spirit by the laying on of hands...just baptism by water. But water is only one half the baptism.

26

Is God Truly Omnipotent??

by Cold Steel in

while acknowledging god as the most powerful force in the universe, i wonder if he is omnipotent.

this thought came to me as i watched an old star trek: tng, where everyone's favorite fictional omnipotent being, q, was featured.. .

if he is omnipotent, why could he not remove the "bitter cup" of suffering from christ in the garden?

Cold Steel

What God am I speaking of? Your God, whatever you envision Him, Her or It to be.

Did God organize Earth from existing matter or did he "speak" the matter into existence? If the Universe was created in one cosmic bang, there would be a conversion of energy to matter. It's possible that God then took that matter and began forming, or organizing, worlds. It seems to me, though, that if God could just snap His fingers and create a fully formed earth, why would it take Him thousands if not millions of years? I don't know what JWs believe, but I know Evangelicals who believe it was seven 24-hour days.

The issue of omnipotence also raises the question that if we become "joint heirs with Christ" and "inherit all that the Father has," what will be we do to pass the time in the eternities? Sing and play harps? Or will God simply place us on a garden world to spend eternity hiking, having family reunions, barbecues, and such?

7

Armageddon and the Second Coming

by Cold Steel in

can anyone explain the jehovah's witness eschatology surrounding armageddon and the second coming of christ?

i realize the church teaches that jesus came "invisibly" in 1914 and is ruling from heaven, but if he is ruling, why does evil still exist?

if satan and his angels were cast out of heaven to earth, how was man tempted before 1914?

Cold Steel

No comments here on Armageddon? To Jehovah's Witnessses, Armageddon is at the very heart of their theology. It's something they should know about and be able to defend. Yet there are no responses to these questions on these all-important events of Armageddon and the Second Coming. It really must be an issue of members learning these things through internal outlets other than the scriptures.

The Watchtower, in April 1972, made this statement:

So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come?...These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?...This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses....Of course it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record.

We all pretty much know what a review of the record would reveal, but I can scarcely believe an entire religion would depend on an internal publication in lieu of actual scripture. Interesting.

26

Is God Truly Omnipotent??

by Cold Steel in

while acknowledging god as the most powerful force in the universe, i wonder if he is omnipotent.

this thought came to me as i watched an old star trek: tng, where everyone's favorite fictional omnipotent being, q, was featured.. .

if he is omnipotent, why could he not remove the "bitter cup" of suffering from christ in the garden?

Cold Steel

Interesting responses. Do you all think that comprehending God is impossible?

Flamegrilled talked about God "[deciding] was most important and the price he was prepared to pay (John 3:16)." But paid to whom? In a transaction, one must pay and one must receive. Jesus paid the price of sin, but who or what, established that price of sin? It was a blood sacrifice of a sinless being, and that's repeated in the New Testament.

Omnipotent can mean either "unlimited power; able to do anything" or it can mean the "ultimate power, or having as much power as possible." Are there any restrictions on God and what made Satan think he could dethrone God? Where would he get the power or glory? It's not explained in the Bible?

7

Armageddon and the Second Coming

by Cold Steel in

can anyone explain the jehovah's witness eschatology surrounding armageddon and the second coming of christ?

i realize the church teaches that jesus came "invisibly" in 1914 and is ruling from heaven, but if he is ruling, why does evil still exist?

if satan and his angels were cast out of heaven to earth, how was man tempted before 1914?

Cold Steel

Can anyone explain the Jehovah's Witness eschatology surrounding Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ? I realize the church teaches that Jesus came "invisibly" in 1914 and is ruling from Heaven, but if He is ruling, why does evil still exist? If Satan and his angels were cast out of Heaven to Earth, how was man tempted before 1914? And how did Christ cast them out of people? Did the evil spirits simply travel between Heaven and Earth?

Armageddon is also a question mark with me. According to the scriptures, Armageddon comes just before the Millennium, but it happens in Jerusalem and only concerns Judah and the Beast. The JW concept resembles Ragnarök, the last great battle, one of good versus evil. But in the Poetic Edda, the battle ends with the destruction of both. The scriptures indicate that Armageddon ends with Jesus (Jehovah) coming to the Mount of Olives and save the unconverted Jews. They explain it thus:

And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. (Zechariah 14)

Note that this refers to the coming of "the Lord my God," which is Christ. John wrote: “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.” (Revelation 1:7) After the coming of Jehovah, Zechariah writes: “In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.” So Jehovah comes, saves and converts the Jews, and then there is mourning because the Jews realized their fathers had killed the Messiah.

What does this mean?

Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same
He comes to Jerusalem and descends upon the Mount of Olives, which fulfills the words of the angel: " Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet...." (Acts 1:4-5)
Every eye shall see Him, including those in the spirit world who "pierced" Him
He will come with all the saints (members of the church), who will be caught up to meet Him

To me, this is all obvious, with little room for misunderstanding. Yet the JWs are insistent that this is all wrong, and though it's carefully described in the Bible, and in some detail as shown above, and it's as if it were lifted from their scriptures and thrown in the trash can.

I'm not trying to trash JWs, but I'm sure the Governing Body has read and knows about these scriptures. How do they rationalize Armageddon being a local event that excludes the Jews? And why would John spell out the divisions in the 144,000 in the tribes of Israel if it was just a "spiritual" interpretation. I'm baffled by their interpretation, but that's another issue.

If you're a Jehovah's Witness and don't wish to respond here, please send me a PM. Also, do the JWs usually study prophecy, or do they just read articles about it? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but the JWs I knew back in the 70s seemed to be much more knowledgable about the scriptures than today's members.

26

Is God Truly Omnipotent??

by Cold Steel in

while acknowledging god as the most powerful force in the universe, i wonder if he is omnipotent.

this thought came to me as i watched an old star trek: tng, where everyone's favorite fictional omnipotent being, q, was featured.. .

if he is omnipotent, why could he not remove the "bitter cup" of suffering from christ in the garden?

Cold Steel

While acknowledging God as the most powerful force in the Universe, I wonder if He is omnipotent. This thought came to me as I watched an old Star Trek: TNG, where everyone's favorite fictional omnipotent being, Q, was featured.

If He is omnipotent, why could He not remove the "bitter cup" of suffering from Christ in the Garden? If He could have redeemed mankind without the suffering and death of His Only Son? If He established all the rules, couldn't He have said, "Heck, it was only a piece of fruit...don't worry about it!"

My understanding is that God's sense of justice requires that He live by a set of established rules, and that had not He required it, no redemption, or atonement, could have been made. This is the message of the whole New Testament. The logic is that had removing the bitter cup been an option, any Father who Loved His Son would have opted for it. Certainly anyone who comprehends the barbarism and cruelty of the Romans, combined with the pains He had to suffer in the Garden, would have to ask why it was necessary.

Another thing is the creation. According to the scriptures, it took Him seven days, or eras, to create the Earth. Had He been completely omnipotent, why didn't He just "speak" the Earth into existence? The Hebrew words describing the creation seem to describe an organization of existing materials. It does not indicate a speaking, and then it happened, situation. Geology seems to indicate that it took many years to organize and prepare the Earth. Q could have just snapped his fingers and the Earth would have been there in a flash of white light! Total time, two seconds. But of course that's fiction.

Reading the scriptures, I can't find anything to indicate that God has unlimited power, not in the sense of this fictional character.

What do YOU think?

33

Did you ever have any real weirdos ? in your congregation who were Elders ?

by smiddy in

.....some of the things he did and got away with , to me now is unbeleivable , and maybe to you.. in all fairness he was well versed in the bible and very clever how he used it to put a critic to rest at the doors and in one instance when i was witnessing with him , he demoralised a pastor of his church .and i was impressed at that time.. but he had some strange ways , he was always looking for someone to break gods laws so to speak .he did set himself up as the policeman for enforcing gods law on the congregations .

( this is my description ) he was known to stand outside bros/sis.

homes to see if he could find something incriminating against them .

Cold Steel

The scriptures state that in the mouth of two or three witnesses would every word be established. Can a JW be disciplined on the testimony of just one elder, or must there be more? What if it's a he/she said/he said?

I'm not a JW, but we had one distinguished man who used to visit our local church. The only thing that indicated that he was getting a bit wierd was when he pulled out a wallet that held about twenty or so photos of his mother. Then, as people began to inch away from him, he'd pull out a brass casket from his suit's top jacket pocket and open it. Inside was a photo of his dead mother, all laid out in her coffin. This man was at least 60 years old and, not surprisingly, unmarried. My point is that people can appear normal, but inwardly they have some serious personal issues. If you gave anyone like that any authority at all, it could be a disaster! One other thing about him was that one fellow was trying to show him something in the Bible, and suddenly he went nuts! Seems the guy had licked one of his fingers to turn a page. The next thing we knew was that he snatched his Bible back and said he didn't want anyone's "spittle" on his pages. Although he was very wealthy, he at first demanded that the person pay for a new Bible. We finally got him calmed down, but to this day when someone says "wierdo" I think of that guy.

As far as I understand it, the office of "elder" is an office that does not require ordination, so when their terms are over they simply become "former" or "ex-elders." So what's done can be undone.

22

Jw.Org & Mormon.Org See something similar? Me too...

by TeenageInsider in

http://www.jw.org.

http://www.mormon.org.

has anyone noticed the site is veeeery similar?

Cold Steel

The two religions share a great deal in common. They both have their roots in Adventism and Miller, both have apparent links to the Masons (Joseph Smith confirmed Mason, Charles T. Russell very strong evidence for being a Mason), and both believe in a Jesus that is very different from Christian theology.

First, I see no overt similarities in the two sites except both are religious. Chances are you people would find any religious art “creepy” because you’re critics. But if there are similarities, I don’t believe either site borrowed from the other.

As to your allegations above, the two religious movements are vastly different. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established in 1830, well before William Miller shaped his controversial eschatology. Joseph Smith, in fact, was a vocal critic of Miller and wrote a number of critiques of Miller’s theology and his errors. You’re also off base about Adventism (which came after “Mormonism” by several years, BTW). There are far more differences than similarities in theology, eschatology and philosophies between Mormonism and Adventism, and maintaining that there is reflects an embarrassing ignorance of American religions. Mormonism is a restorationist movement and Adventism is a protestant movement.

The ancient church had far more in common with the LDS church. For example, the ancient Christian church believed not only in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and, but that He was known to Old Testament prophets as Yahweh, or Jehovah.

An organization headed by a quorum of twelve apostles;
An open canon of scripture;
A foundation based on apostolic authority, including the Keys of the Kingdom with the ability to bind on Heaven and Earth;
The authority to baptize by water and confer the gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands; also, to cast out devils;
Revelation, such as theophanies, angelic ministrations, and the Holy Spirit;
Prophecy and healings;
Witnesses. The followers of Jesus saw the many miracles Jesus performed just as the Mormons saw many miracles and healings. The early apostles saw the resurrected Christ and spent 40 days off and on with Him learning the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. In like manner, every major vision received by Joseph Smith was witnessed by at least one other person. Three others who were impeccible witnesses saw the angel, heard the voice of God and saw the gold plates. The scriptures state that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Offices such as bishops, elders, seventy, priests, teachers, deacons, evangelists, etc.; and
Belief in baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29), the physical resurrection of all mankind, be they good or evil, and that the elect can become coheirs with Christ, inheriting “all that the Father has.”

The only church today that has the same organizational structure and basic beliefs is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There’s also substantial evidence that the church not only believed that man has an immortal spirit, but had a premortal existence, a concept now popular in numerous near death experiences. As far as I know, the LDS church is the only church that believes in the premortality of man or baptism for the dead. People decry our secrecy in some matters, but that was one of the faults cited concerning the ancient church. As LDS author Hugh Nibley noted: “One of the first questions that Clement, the ardent investigator, puts to Peter is, ‘shall those be wholly deprived of the kingdom of heaven who died before Christ's coming?’ To this the apostle gives a most significant answer: he assures Clement that the people in question are not damned and never will be, and explains that provision has been made for their salvation, but this, he says, is ‘as far as we are allowed to declare these things,’ excusing himself from telling more: ‘you compel me, O Clement, to touch upon things which we are forbidden to discuss.’”

They share many similar [traits] in indoctrination, thought blocking, and control techniques.

Complete and utter nonsense. Please cite your references. Mormons are free to visit other churches, read the religious materials of other churches, have friends who aren’t Mormons; we aren’t shunned and we can question doctrines and visit websites like this.

They differ somewhat when it comes down to core beliefs such as [Mormonism] teaches a [physical] conception initiated between God and Mary, Jesus and Satan are brothers, 3 different heavens-Celestial (which has a higher and lower level), [Terrestrial], and [Telestial], Doctrine and Covenants section 132 (polygamy doctrine)....

We believe that Jesus is physically and literally the Son of God, but we have no doctrine on how it happened. For example, I don’t know anyone in the church who believes there was physical copulation between God and Mary, though there may be some. Still, it’s not a church doctrine nor should it be. We believe that Mary received the Father’s seed through the instrumentation of the Holy Spirit, as stated by scripture.

As for Satan and Jesus being brothers, spiritually, yes, we believe all men are brothers and all women are sisters. In the premortal world, all of us attended a council in Heaven. Lucifer was an extremely brilliant, articulate and competent entity, and one of great power. Jesus, however, was “more intelligent that they all,” and He sustained the Father in His plan for the human race. Lucifer, however, sought to do an end run around the plan by negating free agency and thus saving all mankind through compulsion, so he urged, “Give me thy glory” (power). The Father, unwilling and unable to use force, “chose the first.” Our scriptures state that the latter was wroth and led away many. So yes, in that sense we all are brothers and sisters of those who rebelled, including Lucifer. But we’re also told that the one known as both “Jehovah” and “Jesus” was the firstborn of all spirits and of superior power and intelligence.

As for plural marriage, yep, guilty as charged. As to why, one must understand that God gave the patriarchs their wives, and the only sins they committed were taking foreign wives out of the Covenant. As Justin Martyr noted “the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all mysteries might be accomplished by them.”

Peter spoke about the “restoration of all things,” which God would bring about in the latter times (Acts 3:18). Since the LDS faith declares that it is the beginning of that fulfillment, plural marriage was one of the sacred principles restored. Another is blood sacrifices, which must again be conducted in the future Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Malachi wrote: “and [the Lord] shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.” (Malachi 3:3-4) In our day, we have no need to do blood sacrifices; nevertheless, such has to come about to fulfill scripture as part of the restoration of all things.

...as well as they will become [gods] themselves, etc. They both believe in works based salvation and that one must belong to their religion to have any chance of salvation.

That man can become as God is an ancient doctrine that also is held by the Orthodox faith. “Jesus became what we are so we can become as He is,” is a familiar refrain. The early church fathers also debated this doctrine, known as Theosis. You can read about it here.

Regarding salvation, we believe exactly as the ancient church did. We believe in salvation by grace, but that works such as baptism are requisite to obtain it. Jesus said, “He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved....” Why didn’t He just say, “He who believeth shall be saved”? It thus becomes the Christian paradox: “One cannot be saved by works, but one cannot be saved without them.”

The final fallacy is that one must be a member of our religion to be saved. Complete nonsense. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to explain further. Suffice it to say that we don’t believe in a never-ending hell of fire, but that hell is remedial in nature and many will experience it. But not because they’re not “Mormons,” but because they live in wickedness. The scriptures say that eventually “every knee shall bend and every tongue confess Christ.” So if you’re a Jew or a Muslim or an atheist or whatever, you will eventually subject yourselves willingly to Christ.

25

What happens when you argue with JW's?

by Terry in

i can't claim 100% recall, certainly.

jw: "they are imperfect.

jw: "i don't know of any other place to go that has something better.".

Cold Steel

If Jehovah chose the GB, why wouldn't its members be held to the same standards as the ancient apostles? And that's recognizing that the apostles and prophets were men and the products of their own cultures and predispositions. Paul stated some of his opinions regarding women and celibacy that were more than a little over the top. And he admitted that some of what he preached were his own views. Solomon, who wrote Ecclessiastes, was at the end of his life. He was spiritually spent, having married heathen women who had talked him into doing some crappy things like building altars and shrines to strange gods. His attitudes in Ecclessiastes were dark and clouded. Nothing made sense. Nothing man did was lasting or deserving of praise. It wasn't an eschatological book; it was a philosophical book. Yet the JWs use that book to prove that man has no spirit and "sleeps" at death.

The only way "light" can be received is through revelation. If the GB prays about something, receives light and knowledge that a doctrine is true, guess what?? They had revelation! If I were a JW and came to the [correct] conclusion that man has an immortal spirit that survives his body, what would the elders say? What would the overseers and GB say if I put my arguments on paper and sent it to them? Why they'd shun me...or give me a stiff talking to! But would they change their views or allow me to continue believing it? Nay, they would deprive me of membership in God's organization due to a difference of opinion! And boy would they be embarrassed when they died and found they were still conscious! I'd be disfellowshiped...excommunicated for you Catholics...and they'd be saying, "Well, what do you know, that idiot we cut off was right!"

Then someone would come by and caution them that no one there was on a first-name basis with God. "So ix-nay on the ehovah-jay!"

But seriously, if there are two points of view (or more), why should anyone believe the GB over their own interpretations? After all, they said they don't have any divine inspiration, revelation, angelic ministrations or insight (after all, insight would be a form of revelation). But the state of the dead is only one of the issues that can be argued both ways; there's also the formation of the state of Israel and the myriad of prophecies pointing to Jerusalem that the GB has hijacked to point to themselves. Check out Revelation 11:

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

John here sees that in the last days there will be a temple built by the Jews. It must be built before the Gentiles "tread [Jerusalem] under foot forty and two months." At the time he wrote this, the Jerusalem temple of Herod had been leveled. So this is a temple to be built in the latter days. Ezekiel also measured this temple (chapters 40-47) and today's Jews can use Ezekiel's measurements to build the new temple.

And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

These are two prophets who will be raised to minister to the Jews in the last days. They are not symbolic, as they were represented by the two olive trees and two candlesticks written by the prophet Zechariah. To say they are organizations within the church is absurd.

And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

Clearly these prophets will wield powers that were had by the ancient prophets. Some have said they might be Elijah and either Moses or Enoch. (There are some traditions that Moses was caught up in the same way Elijah and Enoch were.)

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Again, how do we know this prophecy is not symbolic? Because it speaks of their "dead bodies" laying on the street of the "great city...where also our Lord was crucified." This is undeniably Jerusalem. Yet ask any elder or GB member who these two witnesses are and you'll get a convoluted story about them being symbolic of people or organizations. Charles T. Russell stated: "Today those remaining of this anointed remnant are known worldwide as Jehovah's Witnesses. They were also his witnesses back there in 1918. They are the ones designated in Revelation 11:3 as 'my two witnesses'." These interpretations are laughable and I've NEVER found a JW who will debate this issue. The two witnesses were represented by two candlesticks, and Jerusalam is represented by Sodom and Egypt. So now the witnesses are spiritually an anointed remnant and Jerusalem is the world.

One commentator writes:

The witnesses are called “men” in verse 6 and “these two prophets” in verse 10. The Greek word for witness is martus, from which we get the English word martyr. It is used 10 times in the New Testament, and every time it refers to a person. The same is true of the Greek prophetuo, referring to the witnesses who “prophesied.” The word “prophesy” and its variations appear 165 times in scripture and every time except once describe the act of a person, according to W.A. Criswell. Further, these witnesses are dressed in sackcloth; then they die, are resurrected and carried into heaven in a cloud – actions that best describe human beings.

And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

It's fascinating to see how one can take scripture that is amazingly easy to understand, and obfuscate it to the point that it becomes unrecognizable. Again, ask an elder to explain Revelation 11. J. Rutherford identified Russell as the faithful and wise servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ. Those who opposed him thus opposed Christ. He confirmed the notion that Russell was one of the witnesses of Revelation 11. As far as I know, Russell was not killed in Jerusalem or resurrected there.

This is but one horrendous error that all the JWs who have visited my home have been at a loss to explain. I even took their Bible study thinking we might actually study the Bible. Not so. It was merely a series of questions designed to elicit explicit answers. If you don't answer a question in the way the book suggests, the JWs continue to reword the question until it's answered in the way they wish. All I can say is that it's difficult to argue with them. I do, however, think one can undermine the beliefs of individuals if they push back, and I see a lot of it reflected on this website.

30

Has the GB ever explained how they receive "new light" from Jehovah?

by cobaltcupcake in

i remember a long time ago the explanation was that various anointed ones would write to the gb with the same new understanding of a teaching, the gb would investigate it, and if it was acceptable, they'd pass it on to the r&f.

of course, now we have the new light that new light occurs only to the gb, not the anointed at large.

so, if any anointed ones get new ideas, they're just apostates, right?.

Cold Steel

In the first century, Christians had miraculous operations of Jehovah’s holy spirit in some matters of judgment, such as in the judgment of Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor. 12:4-11) After miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased with the death of the apostles, Christians have not expected direct miraculous indications from heaven as to how a matter should be decided.
"Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration. But they do have the inspired Holy Scriptures, which contain revelations of God's thinking and will." Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom (1993) p.708

"....they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall
into the ditch." (Matthew 15)

---------------------------------

The ancient church had one thing that the Jehovah's Witnesses don't have, and that is apostolic authority. Jesus imbued His church with this authority anciently and He personally laid His hands on each apostle and ordained them with the authority and keys to effectively act in His name. This authority included that to cast out devils, baptize by water, confer the gift of the Holy Spirit, bind in Heaven and Earth and to ordain church officers. It also gave them the right to speak and act in God's name without taking upon themselves that honor and being self appointed.

God has never had a church on Earth without the gift of revelation and authority being conferred from On High. The General Body has never had a revelation (as noted above), has never been given authority, does not have the authority to bind on Heaven or Earth, does not have authority to establish congregations or call and ordain others. And they have not the Spirit of God or they would know they needed that authority.

Jesus talked about "blind guides leading the blind." One cannot see without the spirit of revelation. Man doesn't print a placard, start a church, graduate from Divinity School and build a bunch of churches without authority. And finally, the ancient church had an open canon of scripture. That means that as God revealed "new light" to His apostles and prophets, they could write it down and add it to their existing canon. The Christian world of today has only the 66 books of the Bible; however, the ancient church had quite a bit more that we don't have today.