dear question from readers .
i realize that watchtower is clear in avoiding fancy titles when it comes to people.
jesus said, "do not call anyone your father on earth".
And on a more sobering note, did early JW's ever use the term Father for their leader?
In searching the early Zion's Watch Tower, from 1879 through 1916, I found it interesting that Russell refers to William Miller (Millerite founder) several times. Fact is, he referred to him as "Father Miller" no less than 4 times in early ZWTs. You may remember him as the originator of the 1844 debacle. Check outthis link.
Len
dear question from readers .
i realize that watchtower is clear in avoiding fancy titles when it comes to people.
jesus said, "do not call anyone your father on earth".
Hey, CyberJ and MrsJ -- ya'll crack me up!!!!
Len
dear question from readers .
i realize that watchtower is clear in avoiding fancy titles when it comes to people.
jesus said, "do not call anyone your father on earth".
Hi Awen,
That link is interesting. "In Matthew 23 our Lord is forbidding us to call anyone rabbi, father or teacher if that title in any way diminishes our dependence on God". That illustrates to me that the Governing Body of JW's isn't the only group capable of applying spin on demand.
This is typical where the role of scriptural interpretation enters the picture. Some folks call it SPIN and religious leaders -- all I've ever heard -- are commonly known as spinmeisters. Once that spinning door is open there is no limit. It becomes a free-for-all.
I suggest that, if that's what Jesus meant to say then why didn't he say it. Didn't he know that without stating that condition, it would cause confusion in future generations? Was the original language not capable of making such a statement? Did he actually mean for followers to play Bible verse hopscotch in order to support a point? Without appearing disrespectful, didn't he know better?
Hi JV, I like the "this is my Old Man" one. I can hear Dad now -- and what he's saying doesn't sound good.
Len
dear question from readers .
i realize that watchtower is clear in avoiding fancy titles when it comes to people.
jesus said, "do not call anyone your father on earth".
Thanks, Dinah.
If the first name is good enough for The Heavenly Big Guy, why not for the earthly spawner?
There was one family in our congregation where the boys called their dad, Jim.
I never could get comfortable with that practice. My dad Wesley was never addressed by that name -- from me .
Len
dear question from readers .
i realize that watchtower is clear in avoiding fancy titles when it comes to people.
jesus said, "do not call anyone your father on earth".
Dear Question From Readers
I realize that Watchtower is clear in avoiding fancy titles when it comes to people. Jesus said, "do not call anyone YOUR father on earth". Yes, we certainly don't want to give undo attention to such lowly creatures. I can understand that "Honor your mother and your father" must certainly be old light.
As I don't want to offend Jehovah, how may I correctly introduce my male lifegiving parent to other people?
I mean, wouldn't the use of a synomym be just as bad? Like I know that we're not supposed to say nasty words that show disrespect to Jesus, such as Jesus synomyms -- Jeez, Cripes, and Cheezits.
So wouldn't synonyms like dad, daddy, papa, pops, pappy, sire, beginner, don, begetter, male parent be just as bad? I am confused and need your help. The PTA conference is tomorrow.
Len
i found this interesting, a 2009 kingdom ministry with reference to the branch office in guam.. .
*** km 2/09 p. 4 announcements ***.
the address for the guam branch office is watchtower bible and tract society, 143 jehovah street, barrigada, gu 96913.. it peaked my curiosity so i decided to see what this street looks like from satellite.
The pink "Jehovah Street" in the first post looks somewhat phallic to me.
I've heard about subliminal images and now I'm actually seeing one?
i just love this one - for years (over 30) it was one thought (any that would have questioned would have been bad) but then as this article states "it became clear that it had nothing to do with".. .
*** w07 5/1 p. 30 questions from readers ***from the late 1800's until 1931, the main thrust of the preaching work was the gathering of the remaining members of the body of christ.
in 1931 the bible students took the bible-based name jehovah's witnesses, and in the november 15, 1933, issue of the watchtower, the thought was expressed that this unique name was the "denarius" referred to in jesus' parable recorded at matthew 20:1-16. the 12 hours mentioned in the parable were thought to correspond to the 12 years from 1919 to 1931. for many years after that, it was believed that the call to the heavenly kingdom had ended in 1931 and that those called to be joint heirs with christ in 1930 and 1931 were "the last" called.
You got it, TheRevealer, that's the reference I found as well.
Len
i just love this one - for years (over 30) it was one thought (any that would have questioned would have been bad) but then as this article states "it became clear that it had nothing to do with".. .
*** w07 5/1 p. 30 questions from readers ***from the late 1800's until 1931, the main thrust of the preaching work was the gathering of the remaining members of the body of christ.
in 1931 the bible students took the bible-based name jehovah's witnesses, and in the november 15, 1933, issue of the watchtower, the thought was expressed that this unique name was the "denarius" referred to in jesus' parable recorded at matthew 20:1-16. the 12 hours mentioned in the parable were thought to correspond to the 12 years from 1919 to 1931. for many years after that, it was believed that the call to the heavenly kingdom had ended in 1931 and that those called to be joint heirs with christ in 1930 and 1931 were "the last" called.
I know now I didn't make myself clear. Here's what they said, "However, in 1966 an adjusted understanding of that parable was presented, and it became clear that it had nothing to do with the end of the calling of the anointed." The problem I see (or don't see) is in which WT publication of 1966 did they adjust their understanding? They usually, if not always, reference what they have said by quoting hard copy.
The mystery to me is that they don't here reference where, in 1966 that they said that. That forces me to make an assumption, that they were talking of the "parable of the vineyard", referenced in Watchtower the following year, 1967.
Was that year 1966 a typo? Did they really mean 1967 instead?
Len
i just love this one - for years (over 30) it was one thought (any that would have questioned would have been bad) but then as this article states "it became clear that it had nothing to do with".. .
*** w07 5/1 p. 30 questions from readers ***from the late 1800's until 1931, the main thrust of the preaching work was the gathering of the remaining members of the body of christ.
in 1931 the bible students took the bible-based name jehovah's witnesses, and in the november 15, 1933, issue of the watchtower, the thought was expressed that this unique name was the "denarius" referred to in jesus' parable recorded at matthew 20:1-16. the 12 hours mentioned in the parable were thought to correspond to the 12 years from 1919 to 1931. for many years after that, it was believed that the call to the heavenly kingdom had ended in 1931 and that those called to be joint heirs with christ in 1930 and 1931 were "the last" called.
Hmmm ... "However, in 1966 an adjusted understanding of that parable was presented, and it became clear that it had nothing to do with the end of the calling of the anointed.", appears confusing. Here is what they said the very next year, 1967:
*** w67 11/15 p. 694 par. 10 Orders for Worldwide Fishing, Apparently, by the years 1931-1935 all symbolic fish suitable for the kingdom of the heavens had been caught to complete the foreordained number of 144,000 joint heirs of Christ.
What have I overlooked? Len
i found this interesting, a 2009 kingdom ministry with reference to the branch office in guam.. .
*** km 2/09 p. 4 announcements ***.
the address for the guam branch office is watchtower bible and tract society, 143 jehovah street, barrigada, gu 96913.. it peaked my curiosity so i decided to see what this street looks like from satellite.
I wonder which came first, the naming of the street, or was it named thus because the dubbies had a Hall or some other building there already ?
The street looks to be no more than 100 yards long. It terminates at the entrance to the parking lot of the branch building. The building appears to be no larger than one of our local elementary schools.
Len
