Does somebody have a list, even an incomplete one, of articles RF wrote? I know he contributed some to the Aid book and occasionally I come across an older article that reminds me of CoC or ISoCF. What about Ed Dunlap? (I don't know if he ever wrote anything.)
faithfulslavedriver
JoinedPosts by faithfulslavedriver
-
7
List of articles in WT Ray Franz wrote?
by faithfulslavedriver indoes somebody have a list, even an incomplete one, of articles rf wrote?
i know he contributed some to the aid book and occasionally i come across an older article that reminds me of coc or isocf.
what about ed dunlap?
-
-
-
4
Does WBTS failure to self-deprecate prove lack of God's spirit?
by Fernando in(luke 17:10) .
.so you, also, when you have done all the things assigned to you, say, we are good-for-nothing slaves.
what we have done is what we ought to have done.. (matthew 20:25-27) .
-
-
faithfulslavedriver
How the WB&TS reads "self-aggrandising backslapping" as the "sole channel or mediator between God and man" into these scriptures is a mystery.
Well said. I wonder how they read "The other sheep should never forget that their salvation depends on their active support of Christ’s anointed “brothers” still on earth," (The Watchtower, March 15, 2012, pg. 20) into (obviously all emphasis is mine):
‘I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot bear bad men, and that you put those to the test who say they are apostles' (Revelation 2:2)
However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed. As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8, 9)
-
8
Future "New Light" on "this Generation" posted here now!!!
by Witness 007 inthe governing body {karl klien} in the 1970's considered changing the generation to refer to those who saw "sputnik.
" this dumbass idea was not approved....however....2012?.
2012 new light = "this generation that knew the 1914 generation is.....the new "generation.
-
-
faithfulslavedriver
Clearly, Jesus spoke of this generation of tortoises born in 1914.
Don't you mean: "Evidently, Jesus spoke of 'this generation' of tortoises born in 1914."
-
39
Is it too much to ask the "CREATOR" in this technological, scientific age to give us a modern update for his intentions?
by smiddy inis this a fair question to put to jehovah / yahweh or whoever ?
in all sincerity i do not mean any disrespect to any beleivers in the god of the bible, but this is a truly remarkable age with communication advances incomparable with 2000 years ago , if the creator or jesus christ were truly interested in giving everybody the chance of everlasting life , wouldn`t they be giving people the opportunity to hear a more current up to date warning now ?
and not relying on messages in languages that are not in use today and are subject to so many different interpretations ?.
-
-
faithfulslavedriver
>>>>Is it too much to ask the "CREATOR" in this technological,scientific age to give us a modern update for his intentions ?
Why do you think he gave us "the faithful and discreet slave"?
-
39
Is it too much to ask the "CREATOR" in this technological, scientific age to give us a modern update for his intentions?
by smiddy inis this a fair question to put to jehovah / yahweh or whoever ?
in all sincerity i do not mean any disrespect to any beleivers in the god of the bible, but this is a truly remarkable age with communication advances incomparable with 2000 years ago , if the creator or jesus christ were truly interested in giving everybody the chance of everlasting life , wouldn`t they be giving people the opportunity to hear a more current up to date warning now ?
and not relying on messages in languages that are not in use today and are subject to so many different interpretations ?.
-
-
-
70
If the WT dumped 1914 tommorow ...?
by faithfulslavedriver inthis is my first post here.
i've been a lurker for awhile but had no particular desire to join until the other day.. anyways, do you think that if wt decided to face the fact that 607-1914 is an indefensible pile of crap that has been artificially kept steaming for way too long, would it really kick off a mass exodus or anything?
in the short term the fds/gb might lose some authority, but they are hemorrhaging people anyways keeping it around (607 started me on the road to this place).. if wt stopped talking about 1914 for awhile then later killed it, blaming it on "further research" or something, and acknowledged some uncertainty in 607/587, i really doubt that very many of the r&f would think much about it.
-
-
faithfulslavedriver
The easy way would be to just stop writing about it in the literature - like they did about the nonsense of the 7,000 year long creative days.
Agreed. Now why don't they implement it?
The problem is not one of doctrine. It's one of authority.
That is the root of the problem. How else do you set yourself as the go to for salvation?
I think that the org is already letting go of 1914 gradually. They greatly deemphasized it when they changed the generation understanding. How is that date even relevant anymore? The generations allow this time of the end to go on ----- forever? They can't just drop it, but doing so gradually will ensure that individuals old enough to remember how important the date was will become outnumbered by younger ones who always believed in overlapping generations.
How do you think that is true with the new 607 articles or the article "Trust in Jehovah The God of 'Times and Seasons'" in the May "study edition" (see par 7-9, pages 17, 18). I used to think that the younger generation realized they inherited a mess and over times they would try to jettison some of Russel's/Rutherford's/Franz's/etc.'s wackier ideas, but I don't think so anymore.
-
70
If the WT dumped 1914 tommorow ...?
by faithfulslavedriver inthis is my first post here.
i've been a lurker for awhile but had no particular desire to join until the other day.. anyways, do you think that if wt decided to face the fact that 607-1914 is an indefensible pile of crap that has been artificially kept steaming for way too long, would it really kick off a mass exodus or anything?
in the short term the fds/gb might lose some authority, but they are hemorrhaging people anyways keeping it around (607 started me on the road to this place).. if wt stopped talking about 1914 for awhile then later killed it, blaming it on "further research" or something, and acknowledged some uncertainty in 607/587, i really doubt that very many of the r&f would think much about it.
-
-
faithfulslavedriver
The easy way would be to just stop writing about it in the literature - like they did about the nonsense of the 7,000 year long creative days.
Agreed. Now why don't they implement it?
The problem is not one of doctrine. It's one of authority.
That is the root of the problem. How else do you set yourself
-
70
If the WT dumped 1914 tommorow ...?
by faithfulslavedriver inthis is my first post here.
i've been a lurker for awhile but had no particular desire to join until the other day.. anyways, do you think that if wt decided to face the fact that 607-1914 is an indefensible pile of crap that has been artificially kept steaming for way too long, would it really kick off a mass exodus or anything?
in the short term the fds/gb might lose some authority, but they are hemorrhaging people anyways keeping it around (607 started me on the road to this place).. if wt stopped talking about 1914 for awhile then later killed it, blaming it on "further research" or something, and acknowledged some uncertainty in 607/587, i really doubt that very many of the r&f would think much about it.
-
-
faithfulslavedriver
This is my first post here. I've been a lurker for awhile but had no particular desire to join until the other day.
Anyways, do you think that if WT decided to face the fact that 607-1914 is an indefensible pile of crap that has been artificially kept steaming for way too long, would it really kick off a mass exodus or anything? In the short term the FDS/GB might lose some authority, but they are hemorrhaging people anyways keeping it around (607 started me on the road to this place).
If WT stopped talking about 1914 for awhile then later killed it, blaming it on "further research" or something, and acknowledged some uncertainty in 607/587, I really doubt that very many of the R&F would think much about it. If I had to bet, I would also say that even the most diehard 1914 apologist must realize that it is ultimately false, or at least not as important as the WT says it is.