after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .
i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.
so please feel free to post your experiences.
DJeggnog, it's revealing that you totally ignore posts which categorically prove your statements wrong.
So I'll repeat, in light of the facts that have been presented to you, are you going to correct your false claim that Russell taught Christ's 'invisible presence' as beginning in 1914?
Are you capable of admitting that you are wrong?
after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .
i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.
so please feel free to post your experiences.
DJ, in light of the above, you might find it educational to review this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/180001/1/First-reference-to-Christs-return-in-1914
after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .
i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.
so please feel free to post your experiences.
DJEggnog said: "The prevailing belief among Adventists that Jesus' presence had begun in 1874 was believed and being taught in those days until Russell, who had survived the deaths of all but Barbour, came to realize that he, Barbour and the Adventists were in error.
Although Barbour decided in 1883 to abandon his teaching in an invisible presence and began to teach the Adventists' view of a visible presence in 1896, Russell made an adjustment in his viewpoint, believing 1914 to be the year of Jesus' invisible presence, so your quoting older publications that say that Russell believed otherwise only suggests that the man's beliefs were not static, but were progressive."
You should really research the things you presume to teach others about. Russell never changed his view that Jesus invisible presence began in 1874.
He said in Studies in the Scriptures:
"Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present , since October 1874, A. D. according to the testimony of the prophets, to those who have ears to hear it" - The Battle of Armageddon, (SS-4), 1912 ed., p. 621
And the Society continued to teach that Jesus had returned invisiblly and was present from 1874 for at least 15 years after Russell's death!
"The Scriptures show that the second presence [of the Lord] was due in 1874 . . . . This proof shows that the Lord has been present since 1874" --The Watch Tower, 1 March 1923, page 67
"Surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of God that the Lord Jesus is present and has been since 1874". --The Watch Tower, 1 January 1924, page 5
"The Scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 AD. This proof is specifically set out in the booklet entitled Our Lord's Return.- Prophecy, 1929, p. 65, 66.
What Russell predicted was Armageddon in 1914 - the very visible destruction of the world by Christ - never the beginning of his invisible presence, which he consistently claimed began in 1874, as did the Society for many years after him. According to Fred Franz, 1874 was Society doctrine until as late as 1943!
"It is true that the editor and publisher of Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Second Presence calculated that the "presence" or parousia of the heavenly bridegroom began in the year 1874 C.E .
[…]
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book "The Truth Shall Make You Free." In its chapter 11, entitled "The Count of Time" it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man's existence into the decade of the 1970's. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia." -
God's Kingdom Of A Thousand Years Has Approached. 1973. pp. 206, 209
So would you care to correct your false statements? Are you even capable of admitting that you are wrong?
for many years as a witness, i could not understand how born-again christians could reject the notion of an organization in favor of spirit directed individuals.
however, a simple look at what jesus taught shows that he did not predict the sort of "organization" that the watchtower claims to be.. first, the society accepts that the parable of the sheep and goats refers to events at the end and not before.
however, they fail to accept what that really means!
You're quite right Metatron. There can be no true 'visible organization' according to those Scriptures. There are just true Christians, among the 'weeds', in the 'field' of the world. They would not be separated until the 'End', which totally undermines the idea of a single visible organization now or since the death of the Apostles.
for many years as a witness, i could not understand how born-again christians could reject the notion of an organization in favor of spirit directed individuals.
however, a simple look at what jesus taught shows that he did not predict the sort of "organization" that the watchtower claims to be.. first, the society accepts that the parable of the sheep and goats refers to events at the end and not before.
however, they fail to accept what that really means!
Matt 16: 18, 19. In no way implies an Organization and certainly not in the sense that the WTBTS is an Organization or the Catholic Church is an Organization.
Neither of these bears even the remotest similarity to the 1st C. Congregation, which by it's record shows exactly what Jesus actually meant by these words. In fact, Peter's 'Organizational' role was minimal, despite his being the focus of these verses. Peter was a preacher and by doing this he brought members into the Body of Christ - thus "building the Church". This verse does not in any way support "Organization". Neither does Matt 13:33.
"He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
Plus, the verses about the wheat and the weeds and the foretold apostasy were to show what would happen between the time after the death of the Apostles and the 'End', so this needs to be taken into account.
someone is pressing me about blood fractions on an unrelated thread, so i just moved the topic to an appropriate location.. "the point for me in every thread you touch is your sickening dishonesty and nauseating apologies for the old men in brooklyn who tell you what to do.. they have told you that products made from blood don't use blood, and you are so corrupt and gullible you just accept it.".
i accept any bible-based religion that adheres to the bible as its authority.. the purpose of this magazine, the watchtower, is to honor jehovah god, the supreme ruler of the universe.
just as watchtowers in ancient times enabled a person to observe developments from afar, so this magazine shows us the significance of world events in the light of bible prophecies.
Alice, you said " If you systematically break down any aspect of human composition, you eventually get to the same elements found in the earth beneath us. This is the reasoning as to why the use of blood fractions can be acceptable."
This is similar to saying that if you put a human in an acid bath, then " you eventually get to the same elements found in the earth beneath us".
So would it not be murder as long as you reduce the victim to basic elements?
To get to the elements, in both cases, requires actions the Society insist are inherently wrong and say Christians should have no part in!
It's hypocrisy.
No blood or blood products whatsoever would be understandable - wrong, but understandable - but the present stance is hypocritical and makes no real sense.
last night i was delighted to meet up with an old friend from my jw past .. she has been df'd for over 12 yrs and moved faraway from this area most of that time .
her jw parents took the hard line with her ,and have had little or no contact this whole time .. she was df'd as a teenager ,now she is a successful career professional .
she did not like living with this df label hanging over her head .
I hope she goes back in with a carefully crafted plan, slowly manages to help her parents see the error and deception of the Society, then leaves again but this time with her parents by her side.
That's the only good reason I could see for reinstatement.
as i troll through the minefield of cadishness in the dreary dating world i am endeavouring to somewhat understand.
the words that spill out of a man's mouth -- the real meaning versus the words.. .
words: i like you and i like your friendship.
It all depends on the man. There isn't one meaning for certain statements.
For some men saying what you quoted could mean "piss off". For others it might men they are signaling that they view you as an equal and that their attraction to you goes way deeper than merely physical. It could actually be a very positive sign, rather than a negative one.
You'll have to let the context be the guide. There isn't an easy answer.
this was brought up just in passing on another thread.
but i wanted to see if there are any bethelites or ex bethelites that remember some of the crazy rules we had to follow when we were there..
I heard - it is hearsay so perhaps others could confirm/deny - but I head years ago that the Brothers in Bethel (London) were told that when they washed their hards they should roll up their sleeves and wash to the elbow. This was said in a talk and the speaker was saying that if certain rules, such as for cleanliness, were applied in Bethel they 'should' be applied by all JW's in their homes, because Bethel does things 'God's way'.
Why this always stuck in my mind was because I thought this was a rule of the Pharisees, to wash to the elbow, because they had to go further than everyone else to appear more righteous. That's why I was so shocked at this comment, because I was thinking "Don't you know what you are saying? That's what the Pharisees did!"
i've had some people in the congregation lately try to give me pep talks to encourage me not to give up.. when i mention (not to everyone of course) some of the things that bother me about the org, many times they can't come up with a legitimate answer so they make up an excuse.. for example, i mention the double standards that i saw at bethel as well as the lack of love in certain brothers.
i get a blank stare and then an, "oh, that's because jehovah allows imperfect in the org.
but he'll clear things up when it's time.".
They have a core belief and they are defending it by making excuses. They will continue to defend it and make endless excuses until that core belief is destroyed.
Usually the core belief is "This is God's Organization" (therefore every thing else is excused). This belief can be destroyed fairly easily because it has no foundation and rests on some claims which are easily disproven. But sometimes the core belief is simply "My choice was right and I'll never admit otherwise". In which case, there is nothing can be done until they pull their head out of their ***.
