Posts by Pallbearer

385

NEW GENERATION DEFINED -- April 15, 2010 Watchtower

by Ultimate Reality in

from jw.org, here is the new definition of the generation from the april 15, 2010 watchtower.. .

article: holy spirits role in the outworking of jehovahs purpose.

13 third, holy spirit is at work in bringing bible.

Pallbearer

"The fulfillment of the various features of the sign clearly indicate that the tribulation must be near."

And there's your "bear" right there! The fact is that there has been no fulfillment of the sign that Jesus gave to his disciples, as described by him in Mathew 24:7. The Watchtower Society (WTS) has long believed (and at one time also had me believing) that the first world war fulfilled Jesus' words with reference to "nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom". World War I certainly was NOT what Jesus had in mind. How do I know that?

To begin with, LIKE the WTS I am convinced that the war that will fulfill Jesus' prophecy is a war that will cause the "death-stroke" which Revelation 13 speaks about. I'm also convinced that it is the 7th head of the beast that is to be smitten with the death-stroke, just LIKE the WTS has concluded. But quite UNLIKE the WTS, I'm convinced that each and every one of the 10 horns are placed upon the beast's 7th head. Of course the WTS believes that the 10 horns are DISTRIBUTED amongst all of the 7 heads, rather than them being in a CLUSTER upon the 7th head. Yes, anyone familiar with what the WTS teaches knows that it is taught that the 7th head possesses 2 of the 10 horns, and that the WTS interprets them as being the United States and Great Britain. The WTS believes that World War I proved to be the "sword" that gave the 7th head its "death-stroke". And so the WTS says that the United States and Great Britain suffered that "death-stroke" as a result of World War I. However, that simply can NOT be true because those 2 nations came out on the winning side!

So it's back to the drawing board for the WTS. But how do I know that World War I was not what Jesus had in mind? It's because that war simply didn't produce the right results. World War I did NOT cause a "death-stroke"! No matter how a person might interpret the 7th head--whether it has 2 horns or all 10 of them--it simply didn't die as a result of World War I.

But as I mentioned previously, I'm sure that it's the 7th head that sports all 10 horns and it is this head that will be dealt a death-stroke. But where I differ with most is that I believe that the number 10 is not literally ten. I believe that the 10 horns represent the aggregate sum of all existing governments. That being the case, then a death-stroke upon the 7th head would mean that governments the world over will be brought to their knees as the result of the war that Jesus foretold. Yes, all the world's governments will collapse during that time. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet. And THAT is how I know that World War I was not what Jesus had in mind. And that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. I shared these thoughts of mine with the Watchtower's Writing Department, quite a number of years ago as a matter of fact, but to no avail. Who knows, they might wake up yet one of these days.

60

A Sphere is Not a Circle

by AK - Jeff in

this thread was inspired by the poster here with that moniker.

that name, for the first time in my life, caused me to think deeply about the scriptural real meaning of the phrase used in isaiah, often used by biblical defenders to show it's inspiration by god.. i googled the phrase, and among other hits, found this little blogspace with comments that echoed my thought on the matter.. http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2008/12/what-you-really-think-a-sphere-is-a-circle-you-really-think-that/.

found it interesting.. jeff.

Pallbearer

.

mrsjones5 said: I felt we needed a visual

Whoa ... what a huge drumstick! They sho had sum awfly big chickuns bak in those daze, eh? Hay, this guy is one telgent-lookin spekiman, eh? LOL He defnutly ruminz me of me brudder-n-law, 'cept his legs ain't reversed like this hear guy's is. Any buddy else hear chek out those legs and toes like me did?

25

Sent anonymous letters to the society?

by Truthexplorer in

just wondered if many of you have sent any anonymous letter to the society expressing your view points and unhappiness with the way things are.. i am in the process of doing this, but wish to keep it personal and not show it on this forum as there is too much in the letter that might give me away.

the letter will be very sincere and honest.

it will be about 10 pages long and i will be sending copies to the governing body and to the writing department at brooklyn.

Pallbearer

Turthexplorer,

I have written letters to the Writing Department, but used my real name. I always mailed them with a "Return Receipt Requested" form attached, so that I would know that my mailpiece got there safely. I say go for it! The Writers need all the help they can get, and enough feedback is one way to cause them to think. I figure that they forwarded a copy of what I wrote to my local congregation, but I didn't let that bother me.

10

I have a question that I need your help with.

by Pallbearer in

hi folks,.

i have a real serious question that i hope you will be able to help me with.. in the 4-1-1986 watchtower, pages 30-31 it talks about "approved association".

what i'm seeking your opinion about is this: if a baptized jw is deemed to not be an 'approved associate' at some point (due to his having developed a divergent view regarding one or more of the watchtower's unique teachings) does his 'not being an approved associate' mean that the watchtower society no longer considers him to be a jw?

Pallbearer

VoidEater,

Thank you ever so much for your comments and especially your opinions.

You said:

-- I would say that if you don't believe what the WTS teaches, you are not a JW.
-- The WTS would not consider such a person a JW. Clean and simple, the article says that flat out. And really, the article is telling you to believe "or else". You should not consider yourself a JW if you don't swallow it hook, line and sinker.
-- The WTS would not view you as a JW. Whether they make that official is something else. It is sometimes easier to not press the issue, in the hopes you come around eventually, or if you have a degree of political power yourself, since it might upset others if they kick you out.

That's what I was really driving at. Thanks again!

10

I have a question that I need your help with.

by Pallbearer in

hi folks,.

i have a real serious question that i hope you will be able to help me with.. in the 4-1-1986 watchtower, pages 30-31 it talks about "approved association".

what i'm seeking your opinion about is this: if a baptized jw is deemed to not be an 'approved associate' at some point (due to his having developed a divergent view regarding one or more of the watchtower's unique teachings) does his 'not being an approved associate' mean that the watchtower society no longer considers him to be a jw?

Pallbearer

BluesBrother,

It seems that you have correctly understood what I am really getting at, and your comment was:

"Such a person may be d/f'd for apostasy....IF the cong elders decide to make a case out of it.
In my case I had some discussions perhaps 10 years ago with the elders of the cong we were then attached to. They ignored my divergent views and allowed me to fade away. I have heard of many on this board who have been d/f'd for saying such things to elders. It is within their mandate to do so if they chose to."

I had asked, "Does his 'not being an approved associate' mean that the Watchtower Society [itself] no longer considers him to be a JW?"

So what I understand you to be saying is that the elders themselves don't know the answer to this very question. Apparently the Watchtower Society hasn't ever said whether such a person should be viewed as still being a JW or not. Well now that really helps a lot! I suppose the elders are supposed to just use their own imaginations, and do as they please.

Thank you very much for your comments everyone. And if you have any additional thoughts please express them. BTW, where is Blondie at these days? I always look forward to what she has to say with regards to things like this.

P.S. ~ For some reason my computer is really slow when I'm typing up comments on this forum. Is it just my old operating system (Windows 98) or does it have something to do with this website? Anyone else experiencing the same problem?

10

I have a question that I need your help with.

by Pallbearer in

hi folks,.

i have a real serious question that i hope you will be able to help me with.. in the 4-1-1986 watchtower, pages 30-31 it talks about "approved association".

what i'm seeking your opinion about is this: if a baptized jw is deemed to not be an 'approved associate' at some point (due to his having developed a divergent view regarding one or more of the watchtower's unique teachings) does his 'not being an approved associate' mean that the watchtower society no longer considers him to be a jw?

Pallbearer

Hi folks,

I have a real serious question that I hope you will be able to help me with.

In the 4-1-1986 Watchtower, pages 30-31 it talks about "approved association". What I'm seeking your opinion about is this: If a baptized JW is deemed to NOT be an 'approved associate' at some point (due to his having developed a divergent view regarding one or more of the Watchtower's unique teachings) does his 'not being an approved associate' mean that the Watchtower Society no longer considers him to be a JW? That's my question that I would like to find an answer to.

To help you get a clear picture of what I'm dealing with I'll quote what that particular Watchtower said (emphasis added):

Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Approved association with Jehovah's Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a"faithful and discreet slave" upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present "great crowd" of Jesus’ "other sheep."—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4.
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 [wrecking] 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.

So what would you say? Is the person who has developed this divergent view merely considered to be a person that others in the congregation would be wise to not have close association with? Or, is the person just flat out not considered to be a JW any longer? Keep in mind that I'm describing a person who isn't trying to "wreck the faith" of others. He's a person who has been inactive for a long time, and he's content to keep his mouth shut, having no desire to cause anyone any trouble. The fact that he does have such divergent views has become known as a result of the elders inquiry as to why he has become inactive. Also, the person has made it quite clear to the elders that there is no chance that he will ever be convinced that his viewpoint is wrong. I might add that the person has never been disfellowshipped, nor has he ever disassociated himself, nor has he reneged on his baptismal vows. He's still just as serious as he was when he was first baptized. He's simply a person who has become irremovably convinced that certain teachings that he once thought were true are not actually true. So does the Watchtower Society view this person as still being a JW or not?

I would appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the scenario as I have presented it.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

30

ADAM GROWS OLD

by Titus in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:hyphenationzone>21</w:hyphenationzone> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:latentstyles> </xml><!

[endif][if !mso]> <object classid="clsid:38481807-ca0e-42d2-bf39-b33af135cc4d" id=ieooui> </object> <mce:style><!

Pallbearer

Hello Titus,

What I have to say to you has no relevance to the question you asked in the opening post, but it's something that I feel you should be more concerned about because it's far more important. I once believed in the 1914 doctrine, but quit believing it in 1974. I have solid grounds for being able to say very dogmatically that I know for an absolute certainty that the date 1914 did not see the beginning of what Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24. Just as sure as Satan caused a light to shine in the sky (referred to today as the "Star of Bethlehem") as a scheme to have Jesus killed when just a child, he also caused World War I to happen so as to deceive the Watchtower Society into believing that the year 1914 began to see Bible prophecy fulfilled. As you no doubt are aware of, our dear Brother Russell pointed to 1914 as the year that was to see the end of man's system. But of course we know now that that wasn't to be. We also know that if World War I had not happened in that year then the Watchtower Society would have abandoned the 1914 minus 607 = 2,520 years theory. Knowing as I do, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24 has yet to be fulfilled, there can be only one explanation as to why the year 1914 just happened to see a World War take place, something that could easily fool Jesus' disciples of today into thinking that the 1914 date had been confirmed, and which would obviously cause us to retain a tight grip on a date that, in truth, means absolutely nothing. As long as Satan can keep Jesus' disciples into believing a falsehood it is to his advantage, and to our disadvantage. You see, Satan has us busy wasting time preaching something false. I have sent documents to the Writing Department urging them to consider the reasons why World War I could not be what Jesus had in mind at Matthew 24:7. The reason I chose the screen-name "Pallbearer" here is because I hope to help carry the 1914 doctrine to its proper burial site, the garbage dump. If you don't believe me when I say that the 1914 doctrine is garbage, then just wait and see, I guarantee that you WILL sooner or later.

.

21

Does the Watchtower Society teach that people who die at Armageddon will not be resurrected?

by Pallbearer in

question: does the watchtower society teach that people who die at armageddon will not be resurrected?.

please give a "yes" or "no" answer to start with.

then, if your answer is "yes" please document that it is taught with references or quotes from the wts's publications or public talks that have been given.. thank you for any assistance that you can provide..

Pallbearer

Thanks everybody, you were of tremendous help!

21

Does the Watchtower Society teach that people who die at Armageddon will not be resurrected?

by Pallbearer in

question: does the watchtower society teach that people who die at armageddon will not be resurrected?.

please give a "yes" or "no" answer to start with.

then, if your answer is "yes" please document that it is taught with references or quotes from the wts's publications or public talks that have been given.. thank you for any assistance that you can provide..

Pallbearer

Question: Does the Watchtower Society teach that people who die at Armageddon will not be resurrected?

Please give a "yes" or "no" answer to start with. Then, if your answer is "yes" please document that it is taught with references or quotes from the WTS's publications or public talks that have been given.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide.

10

Noting discrepancies in Watchtower publications.

by Pallbearer in

here is a link that shows two pages out of the may 1, 1999 watchtower, pages 17 and 18.. http://www.geocities.com/thewatchtowerstudy/wt050199p17-18.htm.

in looking at what is supposed to be the same wild beast, do you see a difference between the one shown on page 17 in comparison to the one shown on the following page?.

the difference i see is that the heads of the beast in the first image are all lion's heads, whereas the heads in the second image are all leopard's heads (notice the spots).. be reminded that these images are in the same magazine.. something like this might seem to be of little significance to many people.

Pallbearer

"Does the bible specify what animal the heads are supposed to look like?"

Excellent question!