Moman,
I have tried to explain the issue as clearly as I can and respectfully I am not missing the point. Look to the your original post where you present an argument that cannot be sustained under present WTS doctrinal policy.
It does not matter what else the WTS calls itself, it no longer alludes to itself as being a 'prophet'.
Best regards -- HS
Sorry Eddie,Our messages crossed.
My point iz, WHAT ARE THEM SAYING THEY ARE & by WHOSE AUTHORITY do they say they teach? This reminds me so much of the Catholic church & how the Pope waz supposed to be INFALLABLE & now they have toned that down because the followers wouldn't buy it anymore.
I agree with you exactly, and actually used the Papal illustration myself above.
They claim to interpret scripture under the power of God's Spirit, but not to utter prophecy.
For example, You Know interprets scripture, which he has every right to do. He reaches certain conclusions from Biblical prophecies and publishes them. When questioned as to how he knows these are correct interpretations, he may defend them by saying that being annointed by God gives him special insight on the matter.
Is he prophesying? No, he is not, he is intepreting and this is the very issue. Even when he claims the system will implode next Saturday afternoon at 4.00pm due to an interpretation of some aspect of Amos prophecy, this is an intepretation of that prophecy.
But, if he were to suddenly utter a statement to the effect that God has revealed to him that in sixteen months time, China will declare was on Palestine and that at that very moment everybody born in the month of April will be taken to heaven, then that is a prophecy, and one which I suggest that you test!
Best regards - HS
Hi Waiting,
Does the WTBTS suggest that "prophet-like" is different than "interpreter"?
Yes, as Moman's quote above shows, they did used to feel confident wearing the prophets mantle. Again public criticism and humiliation at having got most everything wrong demanded a review of their own position, which they did many years ago.
The 'interpreter' as opposed to 'Prophet', issue is vigorously defended in higher circles, even among one member of the GB whom I questioned about this issue some while ago. It was very clear that he percieved the FDS slave as being 'interpreters' and not 'prophets', and this is the line that you will get if your write to Brooklyn on the subject.
In the past they used Peter's words in Acts 2:16,17 that says in part:
'"And in the last days," God says. "I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh and your sons and your daughters will prophesy....and they will prophesy"'to justify that they were 'prophet-like', in the past. Now they conclude that in speaking the words of the prophets they in a sense carrying out a prophetic work, but are not prophets and that the FDS only intepret scripture as the Spirit allows, much like the Pope's claims. They have successfully confused the issue, which is a much practiced tactic that has worked remarkably well in the past.
Sunscapes alluded to the game of 'semantics' played by the WTS. It is just semantics but does cloud the issue enough to sustain their hold on the rank & file and prevent legal problems. The argument may be simple to XJW's but these are not the ones that need convincing!
As I have frequently stated, the WTS has cunning to burn.
Best regards waiting - HS
Hi Eddie,
A Biblical Prophet requires the intervention of an external force, God, whereas an interpreter merely translates the prophecy.
For example the 'disgusting thing than causes desolation' is the prophecy given to Daniel. Christ's admonition to use discernment in understanding the prophecy is an instruction to the interpreters. These days the WTS define themselves as the 'interpreters' not the 'prophets'.
Biblical Prophets claim to be 'borne along by Holy Spirit', so that their prophecies in Scripture cannot be flawed, an interpreter would suggest that his view of a prophetic application was the correct one.
Of course, we all know that the ‘disgusting thing that causes desolation is Rod Stewart’, at least that is my interpretation of the prophecy!
Best regards - HS
YK,
I actually sympathise with some of your sentiments on this issue, however the WTS has themselves in recent years distanced itself from its historical stance of 'prophesying', or being 'prophet like', and taken the role of 'interpreters' which is the accurate one.
HS
Moman,
Of course I am aware of all the quotations regarding the 'prophet-like' status of the WTS in the past. The quotation that you posted is from a '64 W/Tower. You will be hard put to find a quotation within the past 20 years that is similar in content to the one you quoted.
They now view themselves as 'interpreters' of scriptures not prophets.
There are many more, any questions?Well, only one. Why did you not read my post with greater care? Please note what I actually wrote.
Of course, the latest WTS view of themselves is that they never were 'prophets' in the Biblical sense of the word, they are 'interpreters' of Biblical prophecy..I am speaking of the WTS present view of themselves and their role.
As they have changed their understanding about their role in the area of 'prophesying' your argument may have been valid in 1964 but will not survive now.
Best regards -- HS
Moman,
Question #1) Did they PROPHESY? Answer: Yes
Of course, the latest WTS view of themselves is that they never were 'prophets' in the Biblical sense of the word, they are 'interpreters' of Biblical prophecy, and as such would probably prefer the term 'false interpreters'!
HS
mere christianity: excerpt.
chapter one.
every one has heard people quarrelling.
lol - Actually Six, when you read 'Method' you can understand his reasoning, especially against a C16th backdrop, but he was in fact centuries ahead of his time in his philosophical thinking.
Let me explain:
I Rex therefore I am.....no that's not it.
I think therefore I Rex....no, that's not it either.
I think that Rex am.....nope
I think therefore I Descartes....Ahh! There we have it.
Just teasing Rex, read in context C.S.Lewis has some valuable viewpoints on some challenging issues. -- HS
one day, you have a religious movement calling for.
total sacrifice, that every man should fight to the.
death in god's service.. a few days later, the leadership is negotiating a. surrender in disgrace.. could this portend the future of the watchtower?.
Hello,
The WTS will survive where the Taliban failed to in that it will change to survive. The Taliban was inflexible in its modus-operandi and subsequently paid the price. This is a price that the WTS will not pay.
While it is true that their exists no will at GB level to change, when change is thrust upon the WTS by outside forces within society it does change and adapt. This guarantees its survival.
Of course these changes are fed to its adherents as changes from Heaven, but many are beginning to know better.
Rather reminds me of the Mormon church whose leader had a vision from God allowing African Americans to hold office in their churches. This happened just days before a judicial case was to be presented before the Supreme Court on the grounds of racial discrimination.
No doubt the GB at that time sneered at the Mormons, I suspect they sneer less frequently these days.
HS
.
mere christianity: excerpt.
chapter one.
every one has heard people quarrelling.
Seeker,
I think that David may have been alluding to the similar conclusion emoted by Rene Descartes, 'I think therefore I am'. At least that is how I understood his statement.
Then, examining closely what I was, and seeing that I could imagine that I had no body and that there was no world or place where I was, I could not imagine that I did not exist at all. On the contrary, precisely because I doubted the existence of other things it followed quite obviously and certainly that I did exist. If, on the other hand, I had only ceased to think while everything else that I had imagined remained true, I would have had no reason to believe that I existed; therefore I realized that I was a substance whose essence, or nature, is nothing but thought, and which, in order to exist, needs no place to exist nor any other material thing. So this self, that is to say the soul, through which I am what I am, is entirely separate from the body, and is even more easily known than the latter, so that even if I did not have a body, my soul would continue to be all that it is.Descartes, 'Discourse On Method'.His argument was that reasoned consciousness itself is a conclusive certainty of the existence of man and using the same 'method', that the formulation of inertial law a certainty of God.
HS
