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?
waiting
Thanks for the reply, but it did not address my real question(s). I will be happy to discuss how all of this might be applied to the WTS—including their teachings on blood—but for now my question for discussion relates strictly to those first century followers of Christ.
Again, the question is, had Christ’s followers learned and taught any falsehoods in connection with their faith? If so, how does the text of Romans 16:17 apply in that case?
Any thoughts?
Friend
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?
waiting
That court record is an interesting exchange isn’t it.
I would like your view on a Bible text that I think has some bearing on a major criticism of that court record. The text is that found at Romans 16:17. It says,
"I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."—NIV (Italics added)
The question is, had Christ’s followers learned and taught any falsehoods in connection with their faith? If so, how does that scripture above apply in that case?
I am just looking for some friendly exchange of views here. I am not trying to teach anything nor I am trying to defend those courts records one way or another.
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 6 July 2000 22:49:47
this has been brought up from time to time in other posts relative to other arguments but i thought it deserved its own thread.. the first century christians formed congregations.
there is no debate about this.
that these congregations were not entities unto themsleves is attested to by the travels and subsequent letters of the apostle paul.
Frenchy
I know you do not wish to converse with me, nevertheless I wanted to respond to your genuine questions here with a few thoughts. Hopefully you will forgive the intrusion.
So what do we do today, those of us who truly want to worship God in an acceptable way? Do we meet as did those early Christians or do we strike out on our own and find our own personal, individual relationship with God? Is the answer personal salvation apart and separate from all others or is it to be found in an assembly of believers?If it's within a body of believers, where is this body now?
I believe Christians of the first century met and were encouraged to meet together for only two reasons. 1) They needed the mutual encouragement and 2) to see to the dissemination of the good news. I think those remain the only reasons for Christians gathering together today also.
Meeting together for mutual encouragement included continuing education into God’s Will, sharing strength of conviction, stimulation related to faith, and otherwise building one another up for whatever the need is.
Meeting together for dissemination of the good news served the object of Jesus’ command to witness in all the inhabited earth. Being aware of what fellow Christians are doing in relation to that work we can build upon it by acting in some semblance of a concerted effort. Remember that Jesus taught his followers to act as his agents in that work and as his agents we exist under a single congregation, his. So, naturally we would have that as a reason for meeting together.
As for our relationship with Jehovah through his son, that has always been a personal thing. While meeting with others of similar conviction can help that relationship it is nevertheless something nurtured only between the individual and God through his son, Jesus. Salvation is likewise an issue between each individual and God. Some persons have no choice but to go it alone. Certainly in that case they will not be automatically lost due to their inability to meet with other of similar conviction.
As for the body of Jesus’ followers, they are all around us. Persons doing their level best to follow Jesus are his true followers. We will see them quarreling amongst themselves over things ranging from petty to significant. We will see them making one mistake after another. We will see serious sins being committed in their number. We will see lack of love, false prophesying, et cetera. What will not see amongst Jesus’ followers, though, is them ceasing to confess Jesus as their leader and master or ceasing to place their future hope in God’s kingdom in Jesus’ hands. We will find these persons among those dissemination the good news of God’s kingdom, even if the most they can do is give out Bibles. Being among such people and trying to help them as they help us is a fine thing.
Friend
this is an issue that really bothers me.
the elders are supposed to be looking after the well being of the congregation.
they are supposed to be helping those in need.
Andyman
I have enjoyed this thread. Elders should be glad to hear such frank comments. Hearing them may not necessarily be pleasant, but good nonetheless. Persons willing to help others can do a far better job of it if they better know circumstances, perceptions, apprehensions, et cetera.
I can honestly say that I do not agree with each perception shared on this thread, but that is also part of the process of helping, that is the sharing of different views.
One area of particular interest is that of who is qualified to give advice. That really depends upon what sort of advice a person is looking for or needs.
Elders are not lawyers, psychoanalysts or physicians, at least not in their role as elders. There may be a few among us with such credentials, but when rendering assistance as elders they should only be offering only one type of advice, spiritual advice. If friends want or need a lawyer, psychoanalyst or physician then that is what they should seek out or be referred to. Since qualifications of an elder does not include qualifications in those aforementioned areas then elders cannot always determine when that is the needed area of advice. In that case, generally speaking, if an elder does offer advice in one of those areas then it should be taken for what it is, common. If an elder is capable in one of those areas then they should conscientiously and accordingly refer the person.
Elders are asked by the Society to perform various administrative duties, but primarily they are charged with being spiritual shepherds with the Bible as their guide. Since the Bible provides God’s thinking on important areas of life like marriage, divorce, honesty, human relations, et cetera, then elders will in turn relay portions of that advice when the need arises—at least that is what they should do. What else can a spiritual shepherd do but that?
Interestingly, the Bible does not mention any peculiar credentials for spiritual shepherds (overseers) except that corollary with Christianity and common sense. In a nutshell, elders should be experienced and good persons devoted to the interests of the Master, Jesus. While such persons may not have credentials in other learned areas, they certainly should be respected for being ardent followers of the Master and trying their best to help in spite of their personal limitations.
Friend
i'm searching for a site that compares various bible versions with our nwt?
the only one i've found compares 108 different versions including nwt.
if anyone knows of a site better than this one please provide the link.
SevenofNine
I think the link below will provide a fairly good sampling for your comparison.
[url= http://bible.gospelcom.net/]Bible Gateway[/url]
Friend
the views expressed here are my own and i state them as such.
perhaps some will agree with me, for a certainty others will not.
i invite comment and discussion regardless of your viewpoint.
Dubby
It sure is easy to make such negative assertions without supporting them, isn’t it Dubby?
Like so many, these days, you are willing to offer a negative opinion of another’s conclusions without dealing with details leading to that conclusion. That may be part of the price everyone pays for freedom of expression, but it doesn’t add anything to a discussion or resolve anything, that is with the exception of evidencing the capacity of the one doing it.
Some, like you apparently, feel that validity (or not) of any argument is based upon some kind of vote, as if the majority decides. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that is not how it works. In fact, such a notion is a fallacy in itself. Validity (or not) of an argument is more akin to resolving a math equation. Either premises support an argument or they do not. Either premises are evidenced as true or they are not. You have not taken the time to explain why my argument fails in those regards, and neither has anyone else on the subject at hand.
As for Frenchy, (s)he did counter premises that have no bearing whatsoever on our discussion here. Also, those premises had not been offered in support of the argument addressed. Such actions are the epitome of a red herring.
As for point number three (3); Frenchy did blow it off as being inapplicable. If you missed that then reading comprehension is the problem. Otherwise Frenchy’s assertion that the subject sentence applies only between Jehovah’s Witnesses has been thoroughly debunked.
I suggest you go and learn about what makes a sound argument. Perhaps thereafter you can shed the bad habit of speaking empty words.
Friend
RedhorseWoman
This is one of the things that has bothered me for some time.....the disparity of belief....the politically correct view vs the narrow view.We have all at one time or another been very adept at coordinating these disparate views. But should we?
I feel that our literature should more directly and more often address issues as we have been talking about on this thread. The apparent reluctance to do so leads some to conclude just as some here have, that the Society is saying contradictory things between the two sides of their mouth. While on our subject at hand I do not believe that is the case, I do believe their published comments can leave people with that suspicion, which is a legitimate one based upon my reasons stated here.
Perhaps some questions are just not too easy to explain when talking about massive killing, which in all probability would leave suspicion on occasion that political correctness might be at work though it is really not. Perhaps on subjects like this the quandary you describe is unavoidable.
Friend
the views expressed here are my own and i state them as such.
perhaps some will agree with me, for a certainty others will not.
i invite comment and discussion regardless of your viewpoint.
Ouch! I cannot believe some of the things asserted on this forum.
“Jesus was saying that we should not be judging one another…(Matt. 7:1-5)”No Witness applies [that statement above] to worldly people.
Well, here are three short references disputing that claim (all emphasis added):
Further, Jesus counseled his followers, not to complain about “the straw” of faults observed in our fellow humans, but to be well aware of the larger “rafter” of shortcomings that we ourselves have. (Matthew 7:1-5)—Is All Complaining Bad?, The Watchtower, 1997 21/1: 30
He tells us as disciples that if we, as imperfect, sinful creatures, do not want to be judged and condemned ourselves, then we should not take it upon ourselves arbitrarily to judge and condemn our neighbor. (Matt. 7:1-5; Luke 6:37; compare Romans 2:1-3.)—Wrong Desires Destructive, Commentary on James, 1979: 4
The way to life is that of abiding by Jesus’ teachings. But this is not easy to do. The Pharisees, for example, tend to judge others harshly, and likely many imitate them. So as Jesus continues his Sermon on the Mount, he gives this admonition: “Stop judging that you may not be judged; for with what judgment you are judging, you will be judged.”….This does not mean that Jesus’ disciples are to use no discernment in connection with other people,….—The Most Famous Sermon Ever Given, Greatest Man, 1991: Chapter 35
Busying ourselves trying to read between the lines is a bad habit until we first read what is actually on the lines.
Friend
SC
I am sure you see these two things meaning the same by what you have posted so far.
SC, go back and read what I actually have said and show me one sentence where I said the two “things” we have been discussing are meaning the same. All this time you have completely failed to grasp what I have been saying! It is no wonder that your responses and conclusions have so confused this discussion.
I see a major contradiction in what the WT is saying.
The thought never occurred to me.(?!)
Seriously, from an analytical perspective your conclusion is skewed by one thing. You presume that one teaching is genuine and that the other teaching is not genuine. With that initial prejudice you will never be able to reconcile the two, at least not logically. The problem with that prejudice is that, admittedly, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that others beside themselves will survive Armageddon. While that common belief has been yielded by both sides of this debate only one of our two explanations provides a reason for that commonality between people that tend to swallow what the Society says hook, line and sinker. So, the problem with your prejudice on this subject is that it actually goes contrary to what is typically held in common. On the other hand, as I have said repeatedly, my conclusion is in harmony with that commonality.
You—and others agreeing with your slant—must explain then away two things that are solid; written statements contrary to your conclusions and the common idea held by Jehovah’s Witnesses that others besides themselves will survive Armageddon.
As for me ignoring anything, I have not. I have kept to the issue at hand. I find it amusing that someone who from the beginning has so misunderstood essential elements of this discussion asserts that anyone else has ignored information.
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 12 June 2000 8:45:46
lately i have spent some time responding to various subjects on this forum.
at this time it seems a bit necessary that i address something about myself in the hopes that it will clear up some misunderstandings.
first of all, i am not a defender of the watch tower bible & tract society.
carmel
It may be possible through hypothetical polemic to accommodate them, but to do so is comparable to placing ones head firmly beneath the sand by ignoring the vast "common understanding" prevalent amongst the body of Witnesses. Again, the apologetics do not wash when the weight of evidence contradicts them.
If you will please note, I have offered no hypotheticals. If you feel otherwise then please evidence your assertion.
The issue you address is really quite simple; do those two different ideas oppose or accommodate each other. From evidence presented so far, those who accept both ideas as genuine expressions see the accommodation. Those who feel one idea is suspect see only contradiction, that is opposition.
The different between the two perspectives boils down to this. 1) Those seeing the accommodation are not giving any more or less credence to one idea than the other. They are not working off preconceived ideas as if one statement is believable and other unbelievable. 2) Conclusions from both camps admittedly are that the rank and file JWs believe that others besides Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive Armageddon. That latter point has been yielded already—which is one of your concerns raised, that is common understanding. (See quotes below) Well, they all got that conclusion from somewhere. Has anyone else offered any legitimate source of such a belief for a group of people so kowtowed to the Society? The only explanation on the table is the one I have offered.
Xandit said:
Just to throw an extraneous comment in here on the basic subject. I've made it a point to ask a considerable number of Witnesses if they thought only Witnesses would survive Armageddon, so far not one has said yes. It's certainly not a scientific survey but I've asked old, young, male, female, zealot, hangers on, pioneers, publishers, elders, etc. and gotten essentially the same answer from all of them. If that's what's being taught I don't think it's taking.
Frenchy agreed with Xandit’s informal poll:
You mentioned in another thread that of all the Witnesses that you had questioned on this subject told you they were not under that impression. I believe you completely in this regard. Most Witnesses do not believe this nonsense but the fact remains that this is what the Society teaches. Your C.O. knows about that article and he knows what the Society is, and has been, pushing for decades on the matter. Ask him.
Interestingly, in Frenchy’s confirmation he neglected to explain where those JWs learned what they believe, that others besides JWs would survive Armageddon. Though he agreed that that was a fairly common believe, without so much as a shred of evidence shrugs off that that belief could come from their impression of the Society’s teachings.
Friend
