Posts by OldGenerationDude

35

The End of Biblical Studies?

by slimboyfat in

a while ago i read a book called the end of biblical studies by evangelical turned sceptical academic hector avalos.

i thought it was really interesting perhaps because it mirrors some of the stages i went through as regards how i viewed the bible as i was leaving the witnesses.

at first i still believed the bible was inspired by god but learned to use different methods to interpret it than witness eisegesis.

Hi Sulla...It's hard for me to retrieve all the PMs. For some reason they appear some times and at others they don't. I've noticed I am not the only one who finds the PM system on here problematic. Just as well, I don't mind answering questions in front of everyone.

To answer your question about me, I didn't get to run with the big dogs at all in my 18 years with the Watchtower. They tried a few times--some of the members of the elders in my hall, and visiting overseers always asked me in those last years especially if I had a problem with a certain elder. I would always answer that I didn't.

It turned out that I was constantly approved for that type of service but one elder didn't like me. I know who it was now only because years later he approached me to confess all he had done in regards to me when he used to be an elder (he stepped down just before I made my exit). Being that I was educated and had some natural talents (don't know if that is what you would really call them, but he did) that he had always wanted, he always managed to bully the elders into keeping me from serving. I am glad I didn't as I spent those last several years wrestling how I should bow out. I just got up and left, went back to my family and the faith I was brought up in and was never bothered by anyone after that. I did catch up on some needed formal education too, with a background in etymology, Jewish studies, and theology.

Great post, Kepler. Yeah, I recall that Tolkien worked on the literary construction of Isaiah in the first Jerusalem Bible, but I don't recall if that was for the translation in the original French or if that was his handywork in the English translation (which was based on the French). The NJB, though based on the style of the previous version, still retains some of that "Tolkien" touch.

I can say one thing I learned about stories like Judith (and for that matter Job, Jonah and Tobit). It is not "non-canonical" outside of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Catholics refer to it as Deuterocanonical and Protestants as Apocrypha. The book of Judith was indeed canonized (but "canonization" is not what most people think it is--I will get to that in a moment) as it was part of the Alexandrian Septuagint used by the early Church. It has always been regarded as a work of fiction, a parable, or better yet a "novella" by both the Jews and the Catholics/Orthodox. Though as a Jew I have to admit that my people don't include it in the Tanakh, it isn't considered bad or worthless or unimportant as the Governing Body claims it to be. It is a very important fable which teaches valid truths about the way God saves his people--usually contrary to the logic of the smartest humans. Judith, Job, Esther, Tobit, and Jonah are considered novellas or parables. They are based on real people but instead of history their story is told wrapped up in the garb of legend (just like Americans say: "His acts of heroism became the stuff of legend" meaning a real person inspired "legends" to be told about their actual heroics).

As to Judith being "canonized"--Jehovah's Witnesses are not educated enough to teach their people that canonization is an act of the Roman Catholic Church. No other religious group has ever made such pronouncements regarding the books in the Bible or engages in "canonization" of any type. We Jews never canonized our texts and the Protestants don't believe in a general authority that can make such a pronouncement. What the other religions of Christendom have done is "accept" certain texts as "inspired" (and those they do not consider "inspired" then tend to call "spurious"--and that word has a different meaning outside of Protestant usage). The "Scripture canon" is a unique mark of Catholicism. Since their religion existed before the New Testament texts were composed, and since it was a heretical member from their ranks (Marcion of Sinope) who raised the issue, an official "canon" was created by the authority the Church makes claim to having due to its historical connection to the original apostolic college. Other religions don't have ecumenical colleges or bodies that claim to speak in the "name (or 'seat') of Peter," so Jews and Protestants don't use the term "canonization" in any official or definite sense.

And for those wondering, yes, Judith was indeed written originally in Hebrew. Except for the Wisdom of Solomon and the editions to Esther (which were both written originally in Greek), all the other Deuterocanonical/apocryphal books were discovered in Hebrew in texts dating before the time of Christ in either the Qumran scrolls, the texts of Masada, or some of the other texts discovered in the last half of the 20th century.

18

Is the Watchtower Society a Doomsday Cult?

by God_Delusion in

howdy guys and gals!.

do the jehovah's witnesses belong to a doomsday cult?

i wrote this article which asks the question.

OldGenerationDude

Yeppers, that's it.

"If I can't be certain that I have the one true religion, why practice religion at all?"

is a common view of one with AI (which does not stand for "artificial intelligence").

The reason many of us are here is because we likely don't have problems with AI--some among us might, but generally this is why many of us didn't fit in.

The ambiguity we might not tolerate now is how the hell the Governing Body got to the place it is now!

35

The End of Biblical Studies?

by slimboyfat in

a while ago i read a book called the end of biblical studies by evangelical turned sceptical academic hector avalos.

i thought it was really interesting perhaps because it mirrors some of the stages i went through as regards how i viewed the bible as i was leaving the witnesses.

at first i still believed the bible was inspired by god but learned to use different methods to interpret it than witness eisegesis.

OldGenerationDude

"Yes, I've heard those claims," a professional writer in Biblical studies told me, "but we don't believe in those things either."

While it's not a work that obviously should not be considered lightly, The End of Biblical Studies (I recommend it myself), unfortunately as learn the hard way (and very embarassingly too, I might add) it doesn’t apply to the Jewish, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and other Eastern Catholic traditions and their view of Scripture.

You bet that it applies to the Jehovah's Witnesses and their view of the Scriptures--and to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, or one of the many “Bible-believing” Fundies groups out there--but the actual view of those who believe in Scripture (I'm talking about mainstream religion and your professors and doctors of theology that teach you when go to college and take ancient literature and Biblical studies--two different courses in some places)...

Have you ever had to endure the disapproved look from a 100 year-old rabbi who was one of the first persons in the 20th centuries to read the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah (well, maybe he wasn't that old--he looked older...much, much older..."knew-Jesus-as-a-boy" older)? This Jew learned one lesson very quickly when studying the real stuff after leaving the Watchtower behind--nothing, I repeat, nothing that the Watchtower teaches about the Bible--even those that seem harmlessly in support of the texts--is accurate. They are so wrong because they are so uneducated. (Again, I see that rabbi and his evil-eye look at me in front of an auditorium of students and educators of all denominations--and a few mean looking nuns--when I said something along these lines argued against in the book under discussion that I learned from the pages of the Watchtower.)

While the Jehovah’s Witnesses and many Fundamentalist Christians repeat claims such as the Bible is the best preserved of any ancient book by far, etc. this is not the claim of the mainstream religions or scholarly academia.

As a Jew I know that my people couldn’t possibly care less how Tanakh compares to the writings of the Goyim. It is definitely not possible to argue that the centuries work of sopherim through the ages compares with something a heathen preserved in stone. Where do the Jews make the claim that the Bible is the best of all preserved ancient books? We don’t.

Catholics don’t either. While they make claim to preserving their New Testament, their religion is not dependent on being defined by Scripture. Like Judaism their religion existed in full form and liturgical function centuries before a collection of books written by adherents were raised to the status of inspired of God. Official canonization, though a list matching what is agreed upon today appeared in 367 CE, did not occur until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. No claim has ever been made by the Church regarding it being the best preserved of all ancient writings.

There are likewise no claims made by these faiths from which the Scriptures originated that state:

The Scriptures contain genuine history found nowhere else.
The gospels are historical accounts containing the transcribed words of Jesus Christ.
It is the most impressive of all literature.

You'll get this from real Bible scholars as to whether they believe such: "Nope," "uh-uh," and "Bite your tongue--Gone With the Wind is the most impressive of all literature!"

I side with Lord of the Rings myself.

Point is, despite being a good book, the book's arguments are unheard of in the real world of religion outside of the shadows of the Watchtower. You may not believe me, but it's true.

If you’ve never done so, I suggest you read a current modern translation of the Scriptures with study and translators’ notes (both). The recent release of the Roman Catholic translation New American Bible Revised Edition (especially the study edition., ISBN: 9780195297751) and the New Jerusalem Bible with original translators’ notes will show how practically nothing in the book The End of Biblical Studies would even apply or even be considered as accurately describing claims made of the Scriptures by actual scholars.

You eyes will bleed in unbelief as you wonder how, with such critical approaches, any of these non-JW folk come to believe in the Scriptures as inspired. Alas, they do.

In fact since both the NABRE and the NJB were created by scholars from various denominations, you may also want to compare it with the NRSV in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (ISBN-13: 978-0195289558). Modern mainstream scholarship makes none of these claims, and in fact holds to views quite opposite of the points raised in The End of Biblical Studies--which, by the way, was written by someone exposed to nothing but the Fundamentalist/Evangelical views...which (sadly) are synonyms at university for "uneducated" views.

I’m not saying that this isn’t a good book. It’s a great read. But again it’s views are based on the non-scholarly, never-studied-outside-of-one’s-comfort-zone Fundie-blinders-on experience...one which is practically identical with the JWs. It's arguments will work well on Jehovah’s Witnesses and other Fundies, but as I learned the hard way from experience, holding on to these type of claims about the Bible as if they are taken seriously by any accredited academic scholar of theology or ancient literature or as if officially ascribed to by any religion besides the JWs, —I wish I had a picture of that rabbi....Brrrr!

18

Is the Watchtower Society a Doomsday Cult?

by God_Delusion in

howdy guys and gals!.

do the jehovah's witnesses belong to a doomsday cult?

i wrote this article which asks the question.

OldGenerationDude

1. Are they a cult?

I would say “yes,” according to both of the strictest definition of the word. All types of religious systems and their associated rituals are cults (thus Roman Catholics often speak of their own “cult of worship”) and to a religious group that is generally regarded as unorthodox (and this is true of the Jehovah’s Witnesses).

Etymologically speaking, the English word “cult” comes from the theological use of the word “culture.” The “culture of worship” or “culture of religion” refers to the practices and beliefs of any type of religion. It became shortened to “cult,” and possibly due to Puritan views of Catholicism and Anglicism (and for that matter just about everyone else who was religious but not a Puritan) became applied to those who had “rituals” in their worship. The belief that all religious “rituals” were “paganism” stayed while the Puritan religion did not, and the word “cult” may have floated down to the vernacular to be applied to any group thought to have ‘strange rituals,’ like the generally unaccepted religious organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

2. Are they a "doomsday" cult

I think they are more than that and, in fact, it would be incorrect to limit them to just that one label.

I believe the religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has nothing to do with doctrine. I believe it is an enabling system for persons with ambiguity intolerance. Most fundamentalist religions, Eastern and Western, and even a few atheist or secular groups fall under such a paradigm.

While religion and secular/atheist views differ on much, they actually agree on one thing essential to both: life is filled with mystery. The facts are we don’t and won’t know everything. Both ideologies embrace mystery, but in different ways. The secular/atheist view uses science to do this, clearing away superstitions and irrational fears and views to deal with the facts of reality. Religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in their most fundamental forms teach that God is Reality, and that while this Reality can be known, humans are not capable to grasp fully all there is about this Reality (we can know and even learn about God, according to this system’s views, humans just cannot fully conceive or grasp the mystery that is God).

Jehovah’s Witnesses, like most fundamentalist groups, don’t believe in such ambiguity. To them God cannot be a mystery because, as they claim, the human mind cannot grasp such a concept as “mystery” or “having no definite answer “ as being reasonable. In other words they don’t allow their concept of God to be what they themselves cannot personally deal with, namely the ambiguous.

Their religion is not about knowing doctrines correctly or even being loyal to any creed. In fact their beliefs change drastically and often. Most (not all) people who are attracted to this religion want to make the world fit definitions that allow for their own understanding and sense of personal identity. Those with ambiguous intolerance see the world in black and white, compartmentalize everything into either “good” or “bad,” right or wrong. They feel a need to be so compartmentalized as well, a desire to have the “correct view” on everything, to be “right” about the choices they make (or why make a choice at all?). This means they need to be in the “right” religion, in effect turning religion into nothing more but a proof-text exercise instead of a worship of a divine person based on their love for that person. As they themselves proudly put it in their books and magazines: Why belong to a religion if you don’t think it’s the right one?

Being a religion is about self for this type of personality. It’s about being right about personal choice, not being right with God.

Their doomsday shouts can be replaced with anything tomorrow. The needs of the person with ambiguity intolerance is like that of an addict—they are often found with an enabler. For the person attracted to the “easy-answers-to-everything” system of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Governing Body is the enabler. They ambiguous intolerant will swallow whatever “Kool-Aid” the Governing Body feeds them because it comes with pat on the back they are looking for, the voice telling them that they’ve made the right choice in religion, that they themselves can step into the “good” compartment they have set up for their own personal view on the world.

We No Longer Serve "Live-Forever Book" and "Reasoning Book" Flavored Kool-Aid--But Drink our New Flavor!

Not convinced? Consider this. Let’s say I left the Witnesses of my own accord in 1985 because I didn’t agree with their doctrines regarding the 1914 generation, the closing of the heavenly calling in 1935, and their strict view of no blood at all in any form with regard to blood transfusions. Let’s also say that today I take that all back and now agree with what the Jehovah’s Witnesses were trying to teach me back in 1985. Let’s say that I even make it known publicly, all around the world, that these teachings are correct, are to be obeyed since they come from God, and that anything else is heresy—exactly what they wanted me to do back then in 1985. Would this qualify me as a Jehovah’s Witness today?

No. If a present-day Jehovah’s Witnesses adopted the beliefs of this religion that it had some 27 years ago, and the same Witness claimed that such was the Truth from God, they would be disfellowshipped. The religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer teaches what it did about these and many other subjects what it taught in 1985. If I agreed to “take it all back” and now believe all they used to teach in 1985 that wouldn’t be repentance in their eyes. It would if I were Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim. Their basic doctrines haven’t changed since 1985. But we’re not talking about loyalty to any actual doctrine or creed here, are we?

No, what we are talking about it loyalty to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. For me to get back in after leaving in 1985 I have to agree to the present beliefs of whatever the Governing Body says today. That is the only doctrine that never changes in the Witness system.

Even today, with the blatant release of the new brochure about the Governing Body, it is clear that this is the only unchangeable “truth” there is. That is all anyone there is really concerned about. And the so-called rank-and-file will defend this because most of them are intolerant of ambiguity. They need that voice telling them they are right beyond all doubt, regardless of what that voice tells them they have to believe. They don’t believe they deserve any better—or that anything better even exists (otherwise they would leave). Like the abused wife who does not leave her abusive husband, the people stay and take whatever the leadership tells them they have to. And any addict will do the same, taking whatever they must from their enabler, as long as the enabler gives them what they need, which in this case is that voice telling them that they are right and everyone else who doesn’t do the same is wrong.

One might even argue that the Governing Body might be slowly weaning its people off of “doomsday” preaching in exchange for something new. Perhaps they will suddenly claim the end is also “invisible” and that they are in the “New World” because they now have their new world in following the leadership of the Governing Body. Who knows what Kool-Aid they have in store?

They might be a “doomsday” cult today, but if tomorrow the Governing Body says that crying “the end is nigh” is “so yesterday,” then it won’t be a doomsday cult.

But they will still be a cult.

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

OldGenerationDude

Sorry for the late post, but I just got all my info in.

Checking with both rabbinical sources at my disposal as well as some dear fellows in religious academia, I do have a few more things to add that might be interesting.

“This generation” in Matthew 24 is likely difficult to interpret on purpose. Like many other prophecies of Holy Writ, the ambiguity should be worked into the exegete’s understanding on its own merits. In other words, instead of finding one meaning for the fulfillment during parousia, why not accept that one isn’t intended.

Kepler, I do have to humbly admit that you were on to something after seeing what my friends in theology had to offer for me. According to them you are correct in your calculations—but only if you are applying it to its first application, namely the destruction of the Temple. Respected American theologian, Albert Barnes (1798-1870) pointed out that a “generation” usually refers to the adult-span of human experience, namely 30 to 40 years. He noted that this span also fit the approximate 40 years from the time Jesus should have made the prophecy until the Temple fell at the hands of the Romans in the year 70. His understanding is still generally accepted or at least honored by Christian scholars and exegetes today.

Does it apply to the future understanding? Apparently not. The difficulty has to do with where the expression “this generation” is situated in the prophecy (something the Witnesses generally don’t care to discuss). Both Matthew and Mark follow the expression “this generation” with Jesus stating that ‘the day and hour’ cannot be calculated. (Matthew 24:34,36; Mark13:30,32) So whatever “generation” meant in years in regard to the Temple’s destruction has no meaning in the face of the coming of the Son of Man.

This is what makes the understanding of “generation” difficult to ascertain for scholars and exegetes, but only in reference to the parousia. If no one could know the time of the parousia, why mention a time-indicator like “generation”?

As for whether or not Jesus stated this or whether or not this was an invention unique to Matthew’s gospel is clear, however. It is not from the “M” source— the material unique to “Matthew” (the latest popular theory is that the gospel was originally written in Greek by disciples of the congregation founded by Matthew the Apostle, from his own recollections and interpretations of them which he passed on in the Hebrew/Aramaic tongue). The expression is captured almost word-for-word in Mark, and there are no academic accepted views or theories that Mark used Matthew as a source of any kind.

While Luke does mention “generation” in his version of this prophecy (Chapter 21), it is not linked to the parousia as adamantly as in Matthew or Mark. Being that Luke is a product later than Matthew (which followed Mark), the prophecy is reworked to fit it with Luke’s reason for writing his gospel. For Luke, the importance of meeting Christ at his return was not as important as the theme of the day-to-day following of Jesus. By Luke’s time the Christian community had come to terms that there was a “delay” to the expectation that the parousia was as immediate as the Temple’s destruction. Luke removes the apocalyptic setting to the sermon and separates the historical destruction of Jerusalem from the signs of the coming of the Son of Man by a period that he refers to as “the times of the Gentiles.”—Luke 21:24.

This is likely the key to comprehension regarding “generation.” After the discussion of the Temple and Gentile times, the prophecy of the Son of Man in Luke is clearly symbolic. It is within this context that “this generation” comes into play.

This means that by Luke’s time, the early Christians understood Jesus’ references to his parousia as symbolic, not literal. While Kepler and Barnes are seemingly correct in reference to the meaning of “generation” in reference to the Temple, an actual count of years has no place in a discussion of the “coming of the Son of Man.” As Mark and Matthew bring out, that coming cannot be calculated. Therefore it is very likely that the reason “this generation” is so ambiguous in reference to the parousia is that it is supposed to be. It is likely just as symbolic a reference as the “signs” in the heavenly bodies are meant to forebode.

Lastly, the rabbinical understanding of one of the reasons why Jesus fails to be the Messiah in their view is this prophecy. “This generation” does not work to explain why he did not come in a parousia (which meant “visit of a dignitary or of royalty to a city or state”) when the Temple fell in 70 CE. To the Jews, giving “this generation” a “second” fulfillment is grasping at straws. They see Luke’s “re-working” of it into the symbolic part of the prophecy as proof that the Christians were trying to cover things up or readjust the prophecy due to disappointment that their Lord did not appear when the Temple came down.

This is not the way the Christians see it, of course. But this does show that even the Jews acknowledge that “this generation” has been held by Christians since the time of Luke as no longer capable of having a literal explanation in years.

Whatever our current convictions, theist, atheist, Christian, or Jew, the end result is the same: Jehovah’s Witnesses obsession with “this generation” and their claim that it applies to a specific time is unfounded. It doesn’t represent what the text or the audience or the contemporaries of that ancient audience understood it to mean, something symbolic in reference to Jesus’ return.

(Kudos to Bobcat who obviously saw some of these things as well.)

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

OldGenerationDude

I do have to agree with Sulla about working through the "generation" prophecy in an attempt to find its application in literal years.

It just dawned on me when reading your information, Kepler, that you and the Watchtower are adamant about finding a literal amount of years or time for "generation." Both the Witnesses and mainstream theology agree that the prophecy has two meanings. As I mentioned above, mainstream theology agrees with the JWs that the parousia fulfillment is likely typified by what happened in 70 CE.

If this is true, then the Witnesses have made a crucial error beyond calculations. The 70 CE fulfillment already dealt with a literal generation that could be measured in years. As mentioned prior, it is suggested that the future fulfillment would transcend such literalism. The Witnesses always follow this rule themselves in their type/anti-type prophecy exegesis, but for some reason abandon it for the word "generation" here. Since we have already seen Matthew 24 fulfilled in a literal sense in regard to the Temple and that past generation, then the references to "generation" could not remain literal for the future since the rest of the information is also transcending a mundane meaning in the time of the end. It seems quite illogical to look for a repeat of what happened in 70 CE when the generation was literal.

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

OldGenerationDude

Bobcat, the theology I cited does not ascribe “generation” to the apostles or Christ's disciples. They ascribe “generation” to the contemporaries of the apostles.

You may have misread what I wrote when I mentioned that this theology states that the meaning was meant to be understood by Christ’s disciples. Matthew 24:15-16 is cited to prove the point, and that reads:

When you see the disgusting and destructive thing that Daniel talked about standing in the holy place (the reader should understand this), then those in Judea must escape to the mountains.

The “you” here is a message to Christ’s disciples as is the instruction that follows.

You may also have misunderstood what I cited from their exegesis regarding how this same text applies in eschatology. According to that view, the eschatological fulfillment at the time of the parousia would have a grander scale application:

The “generation” referred to the literal lifetime of contemporaries of the apostles Jesus was speaking to when the Temple was destroyed, but in the parousia the “generation” could refer to the Church (this could be a possible reference to 1 Peter 2:9: “You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation”).
The “generation” that saw Jesus walk the earth was a literal one that saw the Temple destroyed within that time span, but the “generation” of the parousia may not be literal and may not be limited to an actual time.

While I agree with your statements, they don’t apply to what I wrote. Also like my fellow Jews, I don’t necessarily ascribe to the above information. Most of my people don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and some of us don’t even believe in a personal Messiah.

The reason I wrote this was to show that the Governing Body seems to be leaning toward this view, and I never meant to imply or write that either I or the theology I was citing was suggesting that the "generation" was believed to be the same as Christ's disciples. But it is also possible I didn’t write as clearly as I wanted to.

And Sulla, I wish I had answers for you. I don’t know what the Governing Body is actually up to. I do know, as many of us who can attest to from reading Crisis of Conscience, that members of the Governing Body have wanted to either reconstruct or do away with the 1914 connection for decades.

36

What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler in

thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, i took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history.

thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

i can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in matthew 24:34.. "truly i say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.".

OldGenerationDude

I have a theory about what the Governing Body has been slowly trying to do over the past couple of decades regarding its “generation” teaching.

The mainstream teaching most accepted by Protestants , Catholics, and the Orthodox is that while the text is admittedly difficult to understand exactly how it is to be understood, it is most likely no different from other uses of the term by Christ in Matthew.

Matthew has Jesus use the same term for his unbelieving contemporaries at 11:16. These are either contrasted with a generation with believers (12:41-42) or compared with the faithless generation of Israel that did not get to enter the Promised Land after the Exodus (12:39, 45; 16:7; 17:17).

Again, while exegetes are quick to point out that no one is 100% sure, they tend to agree that the meaning is limited to those of Christ’s disciples who needed to obey this warning in time to leave Jerusalem before the Temple was destroyed. Discussion of the Temple was what sparked the conversation (24:1-2), and as far as Matthew was concerned discussion of the Temple is central to this prophecy’s understanding (24:15-22) primarily because it was written either before that destruction itself or (depending on when you date Matthew’s gospel) afterwards, and was the result of the text being a product of the oral tradition that came from Jesus and shaped this account.

When the text is thus applied to the parousia in the future, “generation” thus has reference to the Church or congregation of Christ. Jesus was thus indicating that the Church would still be in existence as a “faithful generation” (represented by the apostles who asked Jesus the question and were listening to his reply) in contrast to the “faithless generation” who history would record as losing their lives when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and leveled the Temple in the mundane fulfillment of the prophecy.

The previous change of the “generation” teaching before this one—the vague one that suggested it was any of Christ’s faithful alive to see the sign but without temporal indicators came close, but it was highly unpopular and un-motivating. While the current “new light” of “overlapping” generations helps with the “timing” issue so important to get the JW faithful to “do,” it still seems to linger around the mainstream understanding.

My theory is that someone had been reading mainstream theology on this matter and thus the Governing Body, in an aid to deal with a lot of other time-sensitive issues that could not be settled by its previous 1914 interpretations, has been trying to pull away from Russell-Franz teachings without having the disaster the World Wide Church of God encountered when it pulled away from Armstrong’s similar “unorthodox” views. From what I’ve recently heard from those closely associated, the members of the current Governing Body is preparing (and has been since Franz passed on) the way to fully do away with the Russell-Franz theology, and its problems with the Russell-Franz “generation” teaching is the very heavy and thick icing on an otherwise (and compared with the “1914 generation” teaching) easy to toss-away cake of unorthodoxy.

29

Besides "NEW LIGHT " what other excuses have you heard about WT failed prophecies ?????s

by wasblind in

just this mornin' i read that the wt prophecy went from.

" millions now living will never die ".

" millions will never die in jehovah's memory ".

OldGenerationDude

That's right, Gladiator...The only thing such a test would show is that people will remain loyal to an organization that never gets things right.

"But Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and do great works in your name, and stick to your only True organization even though you caused it to constantly teach wrong expectations in your name?"

So what if you pass the test of loyalty? Who wants to be proud of being loyal to an organization that claims:'What we said was true yesterday was wrong and needs to be corrected today'?

Loyalty to the truth in the face of change is one thing. Loyalty to change in the face of truth, well---

29

Besides "NEW LIGHT " what other excuses have you heard about WT failed prophecies ?????s

by wasblind in

just this mornin' i read that the wt prophecy went from.

" millions now living will never die ".

" millions will never die in jehovah's memory ".

OldGenerationDude

Ah, yes, the red herring fallacies of “never claimed to be inspired” and making mistakes “like the prophets and apostles.”

These are empty-headed arguments. They prove only one thing, that the person raising them is trying to take attention away from the real discussion at hand.

In reply to the Witnesses and all JW/Governing Body supporters , I write the following:

“Never Claimed to Be Inspired”

Which of the prophets or the apostles ever claimed to be inspired? The answer? None.

True, Paul writes that the Jewish Scriptures were “inspired by God,” but he does not have the Christian doctrine of Biblical inspiration in mind. The word “theopneustos” merely means that God instilled or [literally “breathed”] his message into the heart or mind of the composer. The Christian doctrine of Biblical inspiration refers to what texts show “proofs” that they make up the canon of Scripture. The Jews have no such teaching for all their instruction comes from God, written or oral. And the first-century Christians had no concept of creating a new library of books to add to the Hebrew texts.

At 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul was speaking of the Jewish view of inspiration which does not include canonization or validation as authentic and irreversible by Church authority. It merely means as one reads in 2 Peter 1:20-21, that the instruction is not the whim of “human will” but that the person was God’s channel of instruction when they either spoke or wrote. Because they were “moved by the Holy Spirit” to do so, their instruction should not be viewed as merely coming from mortals but should be obeyed as coming “from God.”

When the JWs use the excuse that they cannot be held accountable for their mistaken beliefs of yesterday by stating they “never claimed to be inspired,” what do they mean? What does the word “inspired” mean in this particular argument? That their teaching was never claimed to be “directly from Jehovah” as in receiving an unquestionable, validated message from the spirit realm.

Think about that for a moment. That doesn’t mean anything . Why? Simple, because Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe God speaks to people that way any longer. Anyone among them who would dare make such a claim would instantly be labeled either mentally ill, a liar, or under the influence of demons.

No, instead they claim to be God’s spirit-directed organization, the one channel of “Truth.” According to Jewish teaching, and what Paul and the author of 2 Peter had in mind, that’s the same thing as “inspiration.”

Paul once makes the claim that he believes he is teaching in accordance with God’s Spirit. This is the claim the Governing Body makes of all its teachings, that when they teach or instruct, they “have God’s Spirit” and that’s why their teaching should be followed. (1 Corinthians 7:40) If that’s not inspiration, then what is it?

And again, who cares what it is or isn’t. No one in the Bible claimed their prophecies, predictions, or words were “inspired” of God either. They may have claimed to speak for God, but that is no different from what the Witnesses did when they taught the end was coming in 1914, or when they taught that the generation was something else than what they claim now, or any of the other teachings about what Jehovah was supposed to do at such and such time. Did Jehovah’s Witnesses ever claim that they did not have God’s Holy Spirit at any time when they taught any of their doctrines? No. They always claim to speak under the direction of Jehovah’s Spirit.

So what does that “never claim to be inspired” line mean? Nothing really.

“Prophets and Apostles Made Mistakes”

A mistake is one thing. Having a wrong expectation is also something different. Claiming that they have the one and true understanding of something to the point of disfellowshipping (excommunicating) anyone who does not agree with their present understanding is totally different.

In my day many people were disfellowshipped because they believed that the Governing Body was wrong about its understanding regarding the generation of 1914 and the closing of the heavenly calling in 1935. Today if any of Jehovah’s Witnesses cling to the teaching that these people were told to accept under penalty of disfellowshipping, these present-day JWs would be expelled. Why? The Governing Body no longer teaches what it did about the generation of 1914 and the heavenly calling ending in 1935 as it once did.

Jehovah’s Witnesses easily label these past understandings as “mistakes”—you know, like ‘the prophets and apostles made.’ But if it was that simple, then why is the present understanding always to be accepted under penalty of being marked apostate? It’s not inspired of God? Today’s teaching from the Governing Body can easily be tomorrow’s “mistake,” right?

Are there any incidents in the Bible where people are expelled from God’s people due to rejecting an understanding which is not inspired? Did anyone get expelled from one of these “mistakes” or “wrong expectations” the prophets and apostles had?

“Well, OGD, these people who got expelled in your day were running ahead of God’s teaching authority,” you might argue.

But this “authority” wasn’t inspired, remember? It never claimed to be, or so you said.

Besides, the understanding the Witnesses had in the past regarding these things, these “mistakes” and “wrong expectations” that were uninspired—did they come from God or from man?

If they came from Jehovah God, then it was right that these people got expelled from the congregation. But if this came from Jehovah, why did the Governing Body dismiss it?

If it came from man, then why did these people get disfellowshipped? Isn’t it wrong to adhere to the traditions of man and claim they come from God?

Nope, this argument doesn’t mean anything either. It sounds good on the outside—because you know what, you’re right, Jehovah’s Witnesses. You never did claim to be inspired and you have made mistakes and have had wrong expectations.

Would you be part of a religion that claimed it required its followers to accept non-inspired messages under pain of excommunication? Would you join one that had a history of mistaken, wrong expectations? "New light," huh? What's wrong with the light you had yesterday? If the light you had yesterday came from Jehovah, why are you getting a "new" one to replace what comes from God?

Let that "test" your "faith"!