i have been to many different sites in the last four years regarding religion.
i find it amusing that when a leader or founder of a movement takes upon the role of someone who speaks for god, and then what the founder said as "supposed" truth from god fails, they back peddle and try to give new meaning to what was really meant to begin with.. i myself look at charles taze russell (bible students), joseph smith (lds), ellen g. white (adventists), and others that took upon themselves as spokesmen for god, as false prophets according to deutoronomy 18:20-22.. of course those that follow such movements will at times say that what was said by the leaders actually happened in a way different than what was actually intended, when actually it was a clear failure as to what was supposed to take place according to the founder or leader of the movement.
i would be interested in opinions as to what anyone believes what a false prophet is to them.. just because someone does not come out and say: i am a prophet for god, does not excuse them (imo) from the failures they spoke and mislead people with.. what are your opinions.
All consecrated Christians are prophets, in that they are God's mouthpiece to the world, they areministers of God and as such speak for God about the things in His Word.
Russell NEVER claimed to be inspired, or to be a prophet, he did claim to be a mouthpiece of God, which is true of ALL Christians.
I'm not trying to defend the man or the Society. I think often times we apply a meaning to a word that is not there.
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
i've recently had a discussion with a witness friend in which she said that jehovah had to have an organization.
if not jehovah's witnesses, then who else could possibly have his approval?.
what i would like to know is if jehovah has always had an organization, who were they?
All in a nutshell? The Witnesses believe that they, and they alone are True Christians, they have taught to gain salvation, one must be a baptized Jehovah's Witness in good standing, that all other religions are of the devil, that there is only two sides, satan's and Jehovah, and if your not on Jehovah's side [a witness] then you are on satan's side and will perish at armageddon, because ONLY Jehovah's Witnesses will survive and be delivered. They view the Society as God's visible organization on earth and that it is the spiritual ark, one must be in to gain salvation.
Actually the scriptures teach that Jesus is the ark in which to gain salvation.
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
after all these lo so many years, i just thought of something.
why this logic didn't occur sooner, i have no idea.
let me try this on you and see what you think.. all those folks who never heard the truth will be resurrected, right.
Larc
It seems to me that in this case ignorance is bliss and it is life saving as well and the JWs could cut their quota to zero and everything would be fine.
You're right, and you know what? C.T. Russell agrees with you, or rather you agree with C.T. Russell:
"Many Christians, unwilling to believe that so many millions of ignorant infants and heathen will be eternally lost (which they have been taught means to be sent to a place of eternal and hopeless torment), insist, notwithstanding these Bible statements, that God will not condemn the ignorant. We admire their liberality of heart and their appreciation of God's goodness, but urge them not to be too hasty about discarding or ignoring Bible statements. God has a blessing for all, in a better way than through ignorance."But do these act in accordance with their stated belief? No: though they profess to believe that the ignorant will be saved on account of their ignorance, they continue to send missionaries to the heathen at the cost of thousands of valuable lives and millions of money. If they all, or even half of them, would be saved through ignorance, it is doing them a positive injury to send missionaries to teach them of Christ; for only about one in a thousand believes, when the missionaries do go to them. If this idea be correct, it would be much better to let them remain in ignorance; for then a much larger proportion would be saved. Continuing the same line of argument, might we not reason that if God had left all men in ignorance, all would have been saved? If so, the coming and death of Jesus were useless, the preaching and suffering of apostles and saints were vain, and the so-called gospel, instead of being good news, is very bad news. The sending of missionaries to the heathen by those who believe the Calvinistic or fatalistic view of election, that the eternal destiny of each individual was unalterably fixed before he had an existence, is even more absurd and unreasonable."
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
i have been to many different sites in the last four years regarding religion.
i find it amusing that when a leader or founder of a movement takes upon the role of someone who speaks for god, and then what the founder said as "supposed" truth from god fails, they back peddle and try to give new meaning to what was really meant to begin with.. i myself look at charles taze russell (bible students), joseph smith (lds), ellen g. white (adventists), and others that took upon themselves as spokesmen for god, as false prophets according to deutoronomy 18:20-22.. of course those that follow such movements will at times say that what was said by the leaders actually happened in a way different than what was actually intended, when actually it was a clear failure as to what was supposed to take place according to the founder or leader of the movement.
i would be interested in opinions as to what anyone believes what a false prophet is to them.. just because someone does not come out and say: i am a prophet for god, does not excuse them (imo) from the failures they spoke and mislead people with.. what are your opinions.
True, but a prophet is one who speaks for God, thus when the Society [or others] claim to speak or prophecy they do so not under the banner of inspiration, because ONLY the original books that make up the scriptures were inspired, no, they do so under the banner of interpretation. Thus they can only prophecy or speak about things that are to come based on what the scriptures say.
Daniel prophecied and interpretated under direct inspiration, Jehovah revealed to him the "writing on the wall."
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
i have been to many different sites in the last four years regarding religion.
i find it amusing that when a leader or founder of a movement takes upon the role of someone who speaks for god, and then what the founder said as "supposed" truth from god fails, they back peddle and try to give new meaning to what was really meant to begin with.. i myself look at charles taze russell (bible students), joseph smith (lds), ellen g. white (adventists), and others that took upon themselves as spokesmen for god, as false prophets according to deutoronomy 18:20-22.. of course those that follow such movements will at times say that what was said by the leaders actually happened in a way different than what was actually intended, when actually it was a clear failure as to what was supposed to take place according to the founder or leader of the movement.
i would be interested in opinions as to what anyone believes what a false prophet is to them.. just because someone does not come out and say: i am a prophet for god, does not excuse them (imo) from the failures they spoke and mislead people with.. what are your opinions.
Personally, having studied this subject out, I don't see it as a false prophecy ... these people are not giving you any new information, they are not telling you anything that is not already in scripture ... the prophecies are already in the scriptures, what they are endeavoring to do is interpret the prophecies, thus their interpretations, their expectations were wrong, the prophecies will still come to pass.
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
Edited by - RR on 28 December 2000 18:40:0
i've recently had a discussion with a witness friend in which she said that jehovah had to have an organization.
if not jehovah's witnesses, then who else could possibly have his approval?.
what i would like to know is if jehovah has always had an organization, who were they?
Greetings,
Jehovah has NEVER dealth with an organization, he HAS, however dealt with individuals.
If by chance these individuals get organized for any given purpose, it is simply for that ... a purpose, NOT, however for claiming for themselves things not given to them.
It is myself that Jehovah has had faithful servant[s] on the earth, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets, Although he did deal with Israel as a nation, it was only because of a promise he made to Jacob and his forefathers, a promise he cannot rescind. Today the highest order is within the congregation, still, God deals with the individuals of these congregations AS individuals and not collectively.
One must always keep in mind that no matter how braggy the Society is, or all the claims they make, no matter how many hours you do in service, literature placed, studies conducted, meetings attended, converts made, the Society can NOT give you everlasting life. That is only by Jesus.
Tus association with the Society is NOT a means of everlasting life ... it is through Christ Jesus , through our personal relationship with HJim that we gain salvation, not through manmade organizations.
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
ok folks...i'm actually gonna stop lurking and post.... i am currently being 'studied' with to rectify my doubts (i'm baptized but considered inactive) i brought up the 607/1914 thing and the sister said she'd research it and get back to me... she didn't know about the 587 date (surprise surprise).
anyway she came back to me saying something about just having to count back 70 years or something and voila!
it was that simple... she also said the society had prophesied about 1914 being the end of the gentile times.... now i know that ain't so...there was prophecy yes, but it but it wasn't until after 1914 that the horn blowing started about the correctness of the date... 1874 immediately sprang to mind.
Hi Moody,
This subject was touched upon on another thread. Let me just say that what the Society teaches NOW is NOT what they taught THEN in regards to 1914.
In Fact, the term "gentile times" has a totally different meaning. When C.T. Russell used the term, it was always in regards to the nation of Israel and their role in God's plan. The Society later redefined "Israel" to mean ... the Society.
Originally, the thought was that Jesus returned in 1874, this was taught well into the 1930s, and that the presence would span forty years to 1914 with the ending of the gentiles and the battle of armageddon ending it all. Russell believed the dates were correct, but was not so adamant of the end result. Later the Society under Rutherford moved EVERYTHING to 1914, and reinterpretated everything to reflect a replacement theology, that they were the Jews.
One thing you should know ... everything the Society believes and teaches is ALL hinged on 1914, destroy the date and you destroy the Society.
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
just want to say hello, am so glad to find others like myself, no longer a jw, but still lovin god in spite of being killed in armageddon, and having family shun me.
when i was a party girl and had no spiritual desires, there was always a chance that i'd "see the light" and go back to jdub land, but since i have become a (dare i say it???)......
a plain old gospel reading christain...i am lower than dirt..apostate scum...buzzard snack(when jehovah kills me during the trib).
But of course, actually the Bible Students are not actually organized each congregation studies what they want, how they want and when they want. We're not all on the same page on any given day of the week. And the studies are pretty much a free for all, which is what i like.
For instance, how many of you during ... say the Watchtower study or the bookstudy wanted to examine more a thought or sentence, instead of rushing through 25 paragraphs in 45 minutes?
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
Edited by - RR on 28 December 2000 14:17:18
could someone turn to revelation 9:11. i am always hearing of only two angels being named in the bible, but now i am seeing this one.
the text reads from mine:.
rev 9:11 - they have over them a king, the angel of the abyss.
I think the NWT is very biased and reflects their theology.
But I would agree, every translation has a tint of biased, which is why there are many translations, everyone thinks they can translate better, however in doing so they add their own biased thoughts.
I personally used several translations in my studies, and favor the New King James Bible although I have personal notes in mind telling me about biased verses and spurious passages.
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
anyone read darek barefoot's "jehovah's witnesses and the hour of darkness"?
i was intrigued my the many references to satanic symbols the he supposedly found in the wts illustrations.
i've not heard much about this on the net.
I do have the book and do remember seeing the face on a women's skirt.
Personally, I think, if one wants to see something, they will see it. I don't think there is anything to it ... at least not satanic.
I know from insiders at bethel, that at times especially during the third shift, the guys at the press like to have fun, like make a book and change the faces or add subtitles like a comic book.
I think it was just bethelites having fun.
"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
