Posts by Friend

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Friend

SolidSender

You said:

waiting hi. you're right, the questions from readers are a total sham. i can get the proof if you'd like to see it but essentially the scenario is as you describe - a complete farce - they sit there and write and answer them themselves. the purpose of which most of the time is to bolster a regulation.

I’d love to see that, proof of your claim that is. On the subject I don’t think evidence amounting to proof is available to you. We will see.

BitterTruth

A FALSE PROPHET under Deut 18 (Mosiac Law) received...Death in Sheol...a later resurrection possible.
A FALSE PROPHET under the "Law of Christ -- New Covenant-breaker" receives....death in Gehenna...no resurrection possible... -- Hebrews 10:26
that's the difference...and the ONLY difference.

No, that is not the only difference, assuming the difference you suggest is true. Whether God will resurrect those whom he condemned in the first place is debatable, but that is really neither here nor there for our discussion here. Regardless, a fundamental difference that apparently escaped your notice is this: Deuteronomy 18:20-22 provided no alternative to condemnation of the false prophet whereas actions attributed to Jesus demonstrate that false prophets among Christians are not necessarily condemned; they could change and remain as Christians; Jesus allowed them time for just that. How could you miss such a basic point?

Please keep in mind that Jesus certainly was not condoning false prophecy, he was merely approaching the problem differently and with more mercy for the offender or those supporting them. If such an offender refused to change then as far as we can tell, yes, they would eventually—we don’t know how soon—be denounced and condemned.

Hebrews 10:28, 29… Of how much more SEVERE A PUNISHMENT, do you think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God….

Who do you think is the better judge of persons that may or may not be trampling on the Son of God, you or the Son of God? If it is the Son of God then perhaps you should more carefully consider his allowance of time that false prophets among Christians are allowed some time for change.

Friend

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Friend

Zep

Re: Question From Readers articles and what they imply, you said,

It says to me they are a pack of hypocrites for continuing to blatantly say both implicitly and explicitly to potential converts and their members that they have great authority and virtual infallibility!

I see you gave up on your tactic of dismissing outright denials of infallibility. I see you have also somewhat given up on your fallacious anecdotal evidence. Ahhh, but we have not forgotten how to use that circular argument, have we, Zep.

When you say, "It says to me…" just what does that do to evidence anything other than an opinion? All that represents is a very tight circle that says, "It must be this way because that is the way I see it." Even if you had numerous similar opinions at your disposal that would still be no more than anecdotal evidence, which is easily dismissed with contrary opinions. As is your pleading boils down to, "This is how I see it so it must be so." In this setting such a plea might get you somewhere, which makes it an argumentum ad populum. In circles that require sound reasoning your plea would be immediately dismissed—not that all participants here are seduced by unsound reason.

CULT101 Friend!, thats the WT!

Non causa pro causa

propaganda= telling people what to think, contains extreme bias, deals in simplistic black and answers, sophistry, advertising, stereotyping, empty rhetoric is constantly being thrown at the reader like a mantra proclaiming how great things are!.

Zep, please, anyone having the slightest bit of sense understands that propaganda is not inherently evil or bad. Propaganda can be a compilation of very factual and informative data. You will have to do better than that.

If the WT wasn't so deceptive and was more like normal intellectuals they would actually try and directly rebut GTR and the rest!

You will get no argument from me against the Society’s need to answer the fine work of Carl Olof Jonnson’s Gentile Times Reconsidered. That is one piece of fine work. Carl has amassed practically an invincible amount of evidence countering the Society’s 1914 chronology. On the other hand, the Society has never attributed to itself the normal characteristics of intellectuals. In fact they take pride in scoffing at the notion. In that case their more slippery disposition is somewhat understandable.

Another question Friend, does everyone smile as much at KH as they appear to do in the WT, I mean all those fake plastic smiles that everyone has in the Awake and WT magazines, that’s not a true indication as too how happy people are at KH is it? Are JW's really the "happiest people alive"?

I don’t know about JWs being the happiest people alive, but I can tell you that mainstream JWs do very much enjoy their community and the association that it brings. They also enjoy having a pretty clear hope for the future other than eventual and eternal nonexistence. I guess those two things combined would tend to allow for a good measure of joy in living.

"Fake plastic smiles." There you go again with another fallacy, this time of presupposition.

Really, Zep, you seem genuine enough. If you want to offer criticisms toward Watchtower theology then why don’t you spend some time analyzing your methods in order to create better and sound criticisms via sound argument. I am sure you can find some good web sites that can assist toward that end. Please don’t get mad at this messenger. I am just calling them as they are. I am not intending to hurl any insults your way nor am I intending to be condescending. Like you, I am just another human being on the path of life. We should be helping one another to learn and assisting to that end, that is my intent.

BitterTruth

Therefore, we have before us, the all-important prerequisite to become a bona fide, genuine "false prophet," in the eyes of Jehovah God.

I have already said that the WTS has uttered false prophecy.

The passage at Deut. 18….

Consider the thread titled [url= http://discussion.witnesses.net/Forum2/HTML/000591.html]"The Changes in our beliefs"[/url] on witnesses.net’s Bible Research Discussion Forum. You will see that the text of Deuteronomy 18:20-22 has no real application toward Christians when it comes to judgment.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 11 July 2000 9:23:33

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Friend

Pathofthorns

Why is our history not included in the study one undergoes before he is baptized?

The question is, need it be included. Why didn’t each Christian Bible writer mention the selfish history of the 11 faithful apostles—each wanted to be the greatest in Jesus’ kingdom? Why didn’t each Christian Bible writer elaborate on the preposterous and erroneous belief that the Apostle John would never suffer death? Why? We could eat ourselves to death with that question. Again, the real question should be is it needed?

The problem with answering that question is that there is no categorical answer, meaning that some will see it one way and others a different way. Even among potential baptismal candidates many will say that they are just no interested in the history as much as what we are doing today. On the other hand, I am not aware that the Society overtly hides facts of its history. Quite a few congregations have Society publications going back more than a century. The information is there for those interested.

I feel that understanding that history is rather critical, though many I have tried sharing it with could have cared less. So, should that history be included as mandatory reading prior to baptism. I guess that question can only be answered authoritatively by yielding to what the scriptures indicate is necessary. Scripture indicates that Christians are only authorized to baptize disciples of Jesus. Therefore of necessity the only studying needed is that germane to the question of discipleship. Though sometimes in error on various subjects, I think that Jehovah’s Witnesses honestly try to make disciples of Jesus, rather then the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. In that case the history of the WTS is not necessarily corollary to baptism. Of course, as stated, others will have different views on that matter.

…so there is no need to question what is printed in a Watchtower.

Implicitly and explicitly the Society’s published comments are contrary to that notion. When Watchtower readers see Question From Readers articles where various teachings of the Society are questioned and subsequently altered, what message do you think that sends?

Friend

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Friend

Pathofthorns

But people have the right also to live for what they believe in, and to make choices based on complete facts, not half-facts and an incomplete picture. People deserve full access to information without repercussion so they can make an informed personal conscience decision on matters not specifically commented on in scripture.

Yes, and those are rights that each should exercise. Typically it is by neglecting to exercise those privileges that people find themselves in ideologically less than desirable circumstances. This is one area where I hold a very different view from the Society when it comes to youths being baptized. The problem with baptizing people too young is that they have not yet developed the ability to utilize their right to choose. Too often young people default to the views of others, whether that is their inexperienced or incompetent peers, parents or someone else. Those who influence such a person are accountable. The problem with the Society has to do with whether they provide adequate training to ensure that youths are exercising their own informed choice.

Sometimes people conclude that the Society tries to hide its past, what you might call the complete picture. With a degree of humor I will most often see those same persons use the Society’s own publications to demonstrate the supposed hiding of information. What they don’t get is that the very fact that the Society publishes that stuff is also evidence contrary to their claim. In fact the Society’s decision in recent years to put many years of their publications onto a searchable CD does much to counter claims that the Society wants that its past be hidden.

The Society probably has no rival when it comes to the sheer number of published pieces of literature. The fact that the Society is such a prolific publisher actually evidences that they want their views known to as many as can read or hear them. For that and other reasons I cannot conclude that the Society wants to hide its history or real views.

Do you know of a hidden agenda held by the Society? If so I’d like to hear it along with evidence of it.

Friend

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Friend

waiting

Well, I am conscientiously hindered from encouraging anyone from studying with JWs. And, to my way of thinking, that goes hand-in-hand with "spreading the good news."

According to the Bible Jesus expects that we should love God and neighbor. Spreading the good news is a manifestation of both and can be as simple as encouraging persons to read the Bible. Whether we encourage that anyone study with Jehovah’s Witnesses up to our own conscience. Certainly the Society has problems, some of which are major. Nevertheless, depending upon our individual experience with them/it we may or may not see redeeming features that make association acceptable and maybe fine. You seem like a good person and one with experience in life. I am sure you will work through whatever hindrances are presently before you. As you have already done, just remember to keep on giving yourself plenty of time to make considered and conscientious choices.

Zep

Of course they insist infallibility, those little bitty disclaimers they use mean nothing in the context of everything else they publish .You don’t need to blatantly state your divinely inspired to have people take on that belief. People take the view that they are unquestionable and divine because the WT so blatantly imply it with all the empty Rhetoric they use proclaiming everything as "TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE" and all those nice pretty pictures etc ...WT literature is riddled with it.... The average person is left in no doubt to claim, whether they decide to take the belief on or not. They hammer you over the head with "the Truth" and how great it is, leaving the individual to make the unambiguous conclusion that they are Almost Godly and infallible!. WT literature is a classic study in propaganda and deception.

Actually those “disclaimers”—as you call them—are not so itty-bitty. Many of them are quite candid. Otherwise the Society’s publications are laced with the notion that though its representations are felt to be accurate they may in fact not be so accurate.

Otherwise your argument above is based upon the manner in which people react to what they read. People’s perceptions vary to such an extent that forming a conclusion based upon that is unreliable. In fact, if we followed that argument to its end then we would have to yield that the Society’s disposition is fine just the way it is because so far the majority of those who have associated themselves with it as publishers have remained with it. I feel—and think I can successfully evidence—that the Society’s present disposition is not entirely fine and therefore do not accept the end result of your argument.

You also thread into your argument that the Society is somehow deceiving people with propaganda. While that is always a fine thing to warn people about it is nevertheless a bad basis for an argument because it becomes circular. Basically that argument boils down to, “I believe the stuff they say is deceptive so it must be deceptive”, which is quite circular. One problem with your claim of deception is people have different levels of comprehension. Additionally, some people may have made choices differently than you because they were more informed. For those and other reasons evidencing the conclusion of deception based upon Orwellian propaganda becomes precarious at best.

As for Orwell, I think he was a fine writer. Some of his works provide stern warnings to be on guard against beguiling ideas, systems or people. As I said before, that is always a fine thing to warn people against. Along those lines what he was really trying to convey is that people should think. Only when we hand over our thinking processes to another human does beguiling words or actions jeopardize us.

Pathofthorns

I hold that the Society’s tolerance for divergent thought is less than adequate but more than often represented or understood. On that subject my only intent is to evidence more precisely the true level tolerance. For all I know some may feel that level of tolerance is just fine. Others will decide as I have, that is not adequate. The key is presenting things as they actually are rather than embellishing them, whether that embellishment stems from our own prejudices, lack of information, or lack of critical or logical thinking. Afterward persons can better decide their own course because they have better information.

As for your example, some things are worth dying for and some not. Who can or should best decide when that choice has been made properly? Would you want someone else making that choice for you? Is one person’s understanding of preaching as Jesus did worth dying for? Those questions are really what your scenario boils down to. Because you or I might choose differently than someone else, that does not make that other person necessarily wrong. They may have a little different standard of morality or sensitivity related to their conscience. Again, the main thing is educating people with the most accurate information available. Afterward, for the most part what they choose to do should rightly be left up to them.

Friend

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Friend

Pathofthorns

While the Society does not insist that they are infallible or divinely inspired the reality is that a large number of Witnesses behave like they are. The expression "The Society says..." while discouraged for appearances sake, still is used as if to lend weight to a matter when an individual is enforcing a "rule" or looking for some authority to what he has to say.

And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? We are talking about how the Society represents itself, not how others view it/them. As you know views range from the quite sensible to the bizarre almost without regard for the subject. I am glad, though, that you realize the Society does not insist that their/its biblical interpretations are infallible.

The Society also fails to put any disclaimer….

You will find a lot of explicit comments in the Society’s publications that admit as much as you did above.

People continue to be disfellowshipped for holding to a different viewpoint on certain matters which are not directly commented on by the scriptures.

I know of not one single case where a person was disfellowshipped over holding a divergent viewpoint, not even one. Yes, several persons have held divergent views and were disfellowshipped, but not because of holding such a view. They were disfellowshipped for the manner in which they shared that view; it sowed discord. That individual Witnesses hold divergent views is admitted by the Society. Must I continuously reproduce admissions that are there for all to see?

We both agree that the Society needs to make monumental changes.

waiting

…Jesus has patience with false prophets, we don't know for how long. It might be safe to assume his days are viewed like Jehovah views days, however. A year, a decade, a century, a millennium - it's Jesus' choice.

That is the point, we don’t know. All we know is that Jesus did allow some time, at least that is the record. If we then follow Jesus’ lead as recorded in the Bible then we must also not fall into the trap of immediately vilifying someone over an act of falsely prophesying. It could be that their hearts are genuine but that they just made a well-intentioned mistake. Also, the same point means that we must not vilify persons because they choose to believe that enough time has elapsed or not; that they go or stay, with Jehovah’s Witnesses that is. In cases where false prophecy is known to exist Jesus certainly will not condemn a person for want to allow some time or to cease close association. As long as both realize that Jesus allows some time for those sorts of things to work themselves out, then they can go on with spreading the good news with a clean conscience while Jesus works out anything that must be done so.

I believe my question stands. In view of the many false prophets, and not knowing how long Jesus will allow them time to turn around, how do we determine who to follow?

That is simple, besides not being unduly critical of those who may have misapplied yet genuine intentions, we go on doing our best to serve God through his son, Jesus. Neither expects more than our genuine love.

SolidSender

[url= http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=527&page=2&site=3]Get a life.[/url]

Friend

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Friend

waiting

It is true the Bible indicates that Jesus allows some time that a false prophet leave off or correct their false prophesying, yet, as you imply, nothing suggests that Jesus would tolerate false prophesying for an indefinite time.

As for the difference between the Society and the Catholic Church, one has uttered falsities for a few decades and the other for more than a millennia. Compounding that error is that the Catholic Church has insisted on the same error(s) while the Society has for the most part shifted from one error to another. At least one of them has demonstrated a willingness to change when error is obvious. Do you think that at all provides a redeeming feature?

Zep

If you feel that normally the Society claims divine power to predict the future with absolute certainty then I must insist upon a reference to that end. I think the Society always has asserted that it—the faithful slave—prophesies in the manner of interpreting God’s already expressed will. I do not know of any instances where they have claimed as you assert.

You cited several references in an attempt to evidence the correctness of your conclusions. The problem is that you can read those same citations and also conclude as I have; they can be understood either way. In that case, we must then look for explicit—unambiguous—comments in order to determine what manner of prophesying they claim, as you say or as I say. Below I will quote one such reference. To my knowledge the ideology contained therein regarding the dispensation of Bible knowledge has never been overturned.

To our understanding this would not imply that "that servant" or steward, used as a channel for the circulation of the "meat in due season," would be the originator of the meat, nor inspired, nor infallible. Quite to the contrary, we may be sure that whoever the Lord will so use, as a truth-distributing agent, will be very humble and unassuming, as well as very zealous for the Master’s glory; so that he would not think of claiming authorship or ownership of the truth, but would merely dispense it zealously, as his Master’s gift, t the Master’s "servants" and "Household""—Studies IN THE Scriptures series IV, 1905.

As for Osarsif’s web site, yes, I have read it. Some of it I agree with and some of it is pure nonsense.

Friend

28

Douglas Walsh Trial Testimony

by waiting in

the douglas walsh triah took place in 1954. the vice president of the wtbts, fred franz, and the wtbts legal counsel, haydon covington, each gave testimony before the british court.. fred franz and haydon covington were testifying that some of its members were ordained ministers.. the man asking the questions is attorney for the ministry of labour and national service, part of which follows:.

q. is it not vital to speak the truth on religious matters?

q. is there in your view room in a religion for a change of interpretation of holy writ from time to time?

Friend

SolidSender

WOW! Do you really expect anyone to take you serious, SolidSender. Apparently unnoticed by you is that the New International Version made the exact same past tense usage of learned as did I. Do you think those translators did not know proper usage of learned as a past tense of learn. If that is not enough, you turn around and introduce the following pitiful comment:

Friend, you've obviously learnt a thing or two from the WTBTS about hiding negative facts, the following is from the Merriam-Webster as quoted from by yourself:
Main Entry: learnt
Pronunciation: 'l&rnt
chiefly past participle of LEARN

And with that representation you introduce a straw man besides again embarrassing yourself. Between us did either claim that learnt is not a proper past tense usage for learn? I don’t believe either of us questioned that as a proper usage. In that case your representation above answers nothing whatsoever and is no more that a straw man. Perhaps you were hoping I would not notice your cheap dodge of the embarrassing criticism you offered earlier on, your embarrassment that is.

The question you raised had to do strictly with my use of learned, not learnt, and whether that was proper usage. Do you deny that at least one authoritative dictionary indicates that my usage is proper? Would you really deny that the NIV makes the exact same past tense usage as my own, namely learned? Would you really deny either? If so then I don’t know how you have enough intelligence to find your key board, let alone type an entry!

As for other dictionaries and their reference for learned as a past tense of learn, you can hardly find it missing in any legitimate dictionary. I suggest that you graduate from your favored pocket dictionary to something a little more analytical, at least before you embarrass yourself again on such an elementary point. Below I’ve done you the favor of providing links to a few excellent lexical resources. Perhaps consulting them will help you out, maybe.

[url= http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm]Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary[/url]

[url= http://www.dictionary.com/]Dictionary.com[/url]

[url= http://www.yourdictionary.com/]Your Dictionary.com[/url]

[url= http://www.uwstout.edu/lib/reference/dicthesa.htm]University of Wisconsin-Stout Library Learning Center[/url]

I will add that it takes a small mind to nit-pick an issue of grammar when the setting is entirely casual and with the subject as the main item. You also apparently fail to realize that many of us do not use English as our first language. (That’s right, English should be spelled with an upper case E. I guess your pocket dictionary never taught you that one.) Maybe you should check with that non-English immigrant down the street before again offering English usage criticism.

Since you brought up the subject and question of education, SolidSender, I suggest that you go and get one! When you grow up we can perhaps discuss issues.

Pathofthorns

I'm not exactly sure of what you are asking. If you mean do I think its better to hold to a false teaching because introducing what is truth could create more problems, I would have to say no.

I think it depends upon the nature of the teaching. Some issues are more important than others. If a teaching is not adversely impacting a persons faith in Jesus and overall spirituality then creating a stir in that setting may be unnecessary, thus creating a division would be worse. Of course, some issue are essential and therefore are worth creating a stir over. I think that the Apostolic Counsel described at Acts chapter 15 represents just such an occasion.

From reading some of your previous posts I think we probably agree on this point. My only reason for introducing the question of Romans 16 is because that text provides some scriptural merit to the idea of shunning persons who may cause division over a non-essential fact, that is all. I certainly do not here defend actions of the WTS. In some instances teachings needing redress were/are rather essential, but not all. The problem is that what is essential to one may not be considered essential to another. That too contributes to arguing the legitimacy (or not) of the court record waiting posted.

waiting

Thanks for your reply.

This scripture urges us to watch out for divisions which are contrary - to Biblical teachings.

I’m not sure what you mean by biblical teachings. I think you probably are making a distinction between true biblical teachings versus things that Christians taught or believed that were false. However, without distinction, the subject text only refers to teaching that those Christians had learned. Some things those Christians learned were inaccurate, thus my question about Romans 16. With that in mind you can reconsider your comments if you wish.

Friend, you mentioned the fact of Witnesses writing the Society about divergent opinions and research being sent to the Society and numerous follow-ups till the matter is cleared up. But you did not include any documentation to this strange fact.

First of all, I do not claim that an issue is always cleared up, at least not to everyone’s satisfaction. Also, the suggestions to the Society I have in mind are those of doctrinal significance rather than personal issues needing resolution. Your experience of writing the Society, I believe, had to do with a personal matter that needed resolution. Without all the facts I cannot offer any meaningful reply to your experience or writing the Society. But, again, that is not the type correspondence I had in mind.

As for documenting what I have offered, the Society speaks of this themselves by saying that it is legitimate and that they will respond. I believe it was you and I that went around and around on that subject on another thread, I think on this forum. I forget which one it was. If you need it I can again scrounge up those references and post them.

Aside from what the Society has published I have my own experience and that of countless other that convinces me of what I have portrayed here. Of course, I can hardly reproduce that on a forum like this to anyone’s satisfaction and I will not for the sake of protecting my identity.

Please keep in mind, waiting, that I am not a defender of the Society. They are big enough to take care of themselves and should do so if it is necessary—which it is.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 9 July 2000 23:9:24

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Friend

waiting

Please do not mistake this as rudeness, but I have yet to understand the predilection toward offense on this forum. How can anyone here possibly take umbrage at words written without prior and real knowledge of the individual’s character and motives? I just cannot see it.

If persons find what I say offensive then, please, explain what is wrong with what I say. Just saying it is offensive without explaining where I am wrong makes no sense to me. If I say, "So-and-so is missing the point" can that possibly be my offense if it is true? If it is true and So-and-so is offended, is that my fault? If participants abhor candid dialogue then I have no problem with that. None of us must communicate. We do it only if we wish it.

I cannot see any significant difference either.

I have offered a distinction between 1) a prophet that tells what they believe the will of God is and 2) a prophet claiming divine inspiration of prediction. The former (1) prophesies in the manner of interpreting God’s already expressed will. The latter (2) prophesies in the manner of having (or claiming to have) divine power to predict the future with absolute certainty.

For a fact most sayings of prophets in the Bible were repeating something God had already said; they were applying those words to a current situation. That is one manner of prophesying, that is, telling God’s already expressed will—at least what you believe that to be. I believe that that is the manner of prophesying claimed by the WTS for Jehovah’s Witnesses.

As for Rev 2:18-29, that text indicates Jesus’ awareness of and forbearance regarding a false prophet in the midst of one if his congregations. Also the text indicates that that congregation had at least provided tacit support for that false prophet by harboring them. Jesus’ words in verse 21 indicate that Jesus allowed time that that situation would be rectified, that those involved would turn around and cease the false prophesying or toleration of it. The key point is that Jesus allowed time rather than applying the absolute judgment of Deuteronomy 18-20-22. That action attributed to Jesus indicates quite strongly that the judgment of Deuteronomy 18:20-22 is not the one Jesus applies toward his followers. In that case we should not apply that standard either.

As for Zep, I afford to him/her the same regard as I do for anyone else, that they have their views and are able to defend them if they so wish. I also have affection for Zep just as I do for you, waiting, and all my other fellow humans. Nothing I say should be interpreted as anything less.

Friend

52

JW prophets or not!!

by Zep in

well they use to claim they were...of course now they dont, at least not in so many words.their very name itself however, implies that they speak for jehovah.but if its the case as they claim, that they are not his prophets & do not neccessarily speak for him then they have no right to the name "jehovah witnesses"....furthermore, if they are not prophets then how can they claim that rev11:3-4 is referring to them....pg164 of revelation..grand climax book.here it says that "my 2 witnesses shall prophesy".....but since they are not prophets then how can they prophesy....how can god cause them to prophesy?.

its all games obviously...an attempt to avoid the label "false prophet" but in the process of doing so they just end up looking even more stupid!....

Friend

Zep

Honestly, i fail to see any major difference between:
Believing your telling the will of God
and
Believing your divinely inspired by God

Honestly that is not the differentiation I suggested either. Please, no word games.

The rest of your comments reflect an inadequate understanding of the Bible’s depiction of prophets and their actions as such. Do you think the Bible describes only one manner of legitimate prophesying?

Friend