Herelam I saw that yesterday on Redit,sone say that this is the same outline as the 2019 one, but I was in then I didn't hear them going on about born again.Is that a new thing?
raymond frantz
JoinedPosts by raymond frantz
-
16
Will They Change the Memorial Talk This Year?
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/o5almnehew4?si=kdgrjgbiutjkvcxe.
i’m hoping the memorial talk will be different.
change the talk!
-
-
-
16
Will They Change the Memorial Talk This Year?
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/o5almnehew4?si=kdgrjgbiutjkvcxe.
i’m hoping the memorial talk will be different.
change the talk!
-
-
raymond frantz
https://youtu.be/o5almNEhew4?si=KDGrjgBiUtJkVCXe
It’s March 2025, and that means it’s Memorial season. You know, when Jehovah’s Witnesses put on nice clothes, hand out invites, and talk about Jesus dying for us. But this year, I think something might change. I’m hoping the Memorial talk will be different. Will they mix it up, or will it be the same boring stuff?
Now, if you’ve been watching lately—and I know some of you ex-Witnesses and curious people have—the past year has been crazy for the Watchtower. After their big meeting, the Annual Meeting, in November 2024, they messed up their own rules. The 144,000? Not special anymore. The Great Crowd? Not a big deal now. It’s like the leaders woke up one day and said, ‘Let’s throw out the two main pillars of our theology and see what happens.’ And of course it's like the old Chinese proverbial these days with this impasilic governing body, they burn down every part of their the theology because are idiots, as the proverbial says: "The stupid man will burn down his kingdom to rule over its ashes"
"Let’s start with the 144,000. For years, this was the super important group. The chosen ones. The special people who’d go to heaven with Jesus while everyone else stayed on earth,
Being Jesus best friends in heaven. You had to be born at the right time, like around 1914, or feel extra special to be one of them. But now? Nope. After 2024, they say, ‘Doesn’t matter when you were born. Anyone can be in the 144,000!’ It’s not rare or fancy anymore. It’s like they’re giving away heaven spots for free."
"LAnd look at this—the new leaders in the Governing Body? They’re young! Like, born in the 1970s or 1980s young. Before, you’d expect them to be super old, talking about 1914 like it was their favorite memory. But now? The old rules don’t count. The Watchtower can't admit openly yet that they got that generation thing wrong, but they implied it with these recent changes.’ And I’m sitting here thinking, ‘Wait, all that confusing stuff about overlapping generations was pointless?’
Then there’s the Great Crowd. Oh, poor Great Crowd. You used to be the backup team—surviving the end of the world, living forever on earth, maybe growing perfect carrots or something. But now? They made you less important. They say you can join the Witnesses right up until the great Tribulation begins. Like, the world’s falling apart, and some guy’s still at your door saying, ‘Want to join us?’ What’s the point of being in the Great Crowd if anyone can jump in at the last minute? It’s like waiting all day for a sale, then finding out everyone gets in anyway."
"Really, what makes it special? The Great Crowd used to feel like a good second place—not in heaven, but still okay. Now it’s just, ‘Come whenever, we don’t care.’ It’s a total mess, and I’m here for it. But here’s the big question: if the 144,000 and the Great Crowd don’t mean much anymore, what happens to the Memorial talk?
Now, If you’ve been to a Memorial—and good for you if you sat through it—you know it has two parts. Part one: Jesus dying for us. They explain how he saved everyone, paid the price, all that. That’s fine, it’s the main thing. But part two? That’s where they show off their ideas. It’s about the two groups—the 144,000 who eat the bread and drink the wine, and the Great Crowd who just watch. Like they’re too shy to join in. ‘No thanks, I’ll just look at the wine from here.’"
"But now that the 144,000 isn’t a set number and the Great Crowd is open to anyone, what’s left to say? Will they admit, ‘Yeah, we made that up,’ and move on? Because if they don’t change it, it’ll sound weird. Imagine the speaker saying, ‘Uh, the 144,000 are still here… kind of… and the Great Crowd, well, anyone can join, so… great?’ It’s like selling a bike with no wheels—nobody’s buying it!"
So the big question is, will they fix the Memorial talk? They should but judging from the past they won't do it immediately maybe gradually. But here is the point, the main appeal of the Memorial was in the past how they made people feeling special by dividing the Witnesses into two special groups, one gets heaven the other panda bear world.With that removed and the fact that unlike every other Christian on the planet refusing to partake from the emblems there is nothing special left, nothing special to distinguish them from Christendom.All wheels have fallen off the chariot , the appeal of the Memorial I think is forever lost.
So they’ve got all these new idea to work with.This is their chance to look smart. Change the talk! Stop focusing on two groups and say something new—like how Jesus’ death helps everyone the same, no special ones, no leftovers, just one big team. That’d be exciting. That’d be different. That’d be… not the Watchtower.Will they do it i highly doubt it!
Truth is, they don’t like big changes. They’ve been doing the same thing forever—guessing when the world ends, changing the dates, blaming everyone else when it’s wrong. I bet they’ll keep the talk the same. They’ll mumble through the old stuff, hoping people don’t notice it doesn’t make sense. ‘Don’t look too hard, okay?’ The Witnesses have been quiet and agreeing for years—taking every new rule like it’s no problem—so why would the leaders bother fixing it now?" -
10
Why GB Distorts the Story of Job
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/lpwusxk8ckc?si=d4nb1ciwccql8dox.
a man, like new gb member jody jodele, dripping in wealth—$20,000 rolex, freemasonry ring, cushy life in upstate new york—pontificating about job’s suffering.
it’s a fair jab to question how someone so detached from hardship might approach a story of utter loss.
-
-
raymond frantz
Journeyman, 💯
Job's error that needed correcting was over-defending himself NOT "criticising" Jehovah.
-
10
Why GB Distorts the Story of Job
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/lpwusxk8ckc?si=d4nb1ciwccql8dox.
a man, like new gb member jody jodele, dripping in wealth—$20,000 rolex, freemasonry ring, cushy life in upstate new york—pontificating about job’s suffering.
it’s a fair jab to question how someone so detached from hardship might approach a story of utter loss.
-
-
raymond frantz
Can I prove my great grandmother was a real person? No photographs no records ...therefore she is mythological. See how that works? In any case see below:
The challenge here is that direct evidence for Job as an individual is sparse—unlike figures like King David or Hezekiah, who left tangible traces like the Tel Dan Stele or royal seals.
First, the biblical text itself places Job in a patriarchal-like setting, reminiscent of the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—roughly 2000 BCE or earlier, based on traditional biblical chronology. Job’s wealth is measured in livestock (Job 1:3), he acts as his own priest (Job 1:5), and there’s no mention of the Mosaic Law or Israelite institutions, suggesting a pre-Exodus timeframe. The text also names Uz as his homeland (Job 1:1), which some link to a region in Edom or northern Arabia, areas inhabited during the early 2nd millennium BCE. This fits a broad Bronze Age context, but it’s circumstantial—Uz isn’t precisely mapped, and the lifestyle could span centuries.
Archaeologically, there’s no smoking gun—no inscription saying “Job lived here” or a tomb with his name. This isn’t surprising, though. Most individuals from antiquity, especially non-rulers, left no physical trace. The absence of evidence doesn’t disprove Job’s existence; it just highlights the limits of what archaeology can confirm for a private figure from such an early period. However, the cultural backdrop of Job’s story—nomadic wealth, family-based religion—matches what we know of pastoral societies in the Middle East around 2000 BCE. Excavations at sites like Mari and Nuzi, dating to the early 2nd millennium BCE, reveal similar customs: patriarchal households, animal-based economies, and personal priestly roles. These parallels don’t prove Job was real, but they show his story fits a plausible historical setting.
Historically, external texts offer some intriguing comparisons. The Sumerian tale *Ludlul bēl nēmeqi* (circa 1300 BCE), often dubbed the “Babylonian Job,” describes a righteous man suffering unjustly, pleading with his god, and eventually being restored. Found in cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia, it predates most estimates of when Job was written (scholars debate 1200–400 BCE for its composition). Another text, the *Dialogue Between a Man and His God* (circa 2000 BCE), also from Mesopotamia, echoes Job’s themes of suffering and divine questioning. These don’t mention Job by name, but they suggest his story reflects a real cultural phenomenon—people grappling with suffering in a way that transcends myth. Scholars like Samuel Noah Kramer have noted these parallels, arguing they root Job in a historical tradition of existential struggle, not just a fictional trope.
The Bible itself provides internal evidence for Job’s historicity. Ezekiel 14:14 and 20 list Job alongside Noah and Daniel as righteous men, implying he was seen as a real figure by the prophet’s audience around 600 BCE. James 5:11 in the New Testament also treats Job’s endurance as factual. .
-
10
Why GB Distorts the Story of Job
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/lpwusxk8ckc?si=d4nb1ciwccql8dox.
a man, like new gb member jody jodele, dripping in wealth—$20,000 rolex, freemasonry ring, cushy life in upstate new york—pontificating about job’s suffering.
it’s a fair jab to question how someone so detached from hardship might approach a story of utter loss.
-
-
raymond frantz
https://youtu.be/LpwUSXk8CKc?si=D4nb1CIWCCqL8doX
A man, like new GB member Jody Jodele, dripping in wealth—$20,000 Rolex, Freemasonry ring, cushy life in upstate New York—pontificating about Job’s suffering. It’s a fair jab to question how someone so detached from hardship might approach a story of utter loss.
For Job, the cultural and theological framework of his time likely pointed to a direct cause-and-effect relationship between righteousness and blessing, or sin and suffering. This is why his friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar—are so insistent that he must have sinned to deserve such calamity (e.g., Job 4:7-8). Job, however, maintains his integrity, refusing to accept their logic (Job 27:5-6), yet he still assumes God is the sole orchestrator of his misery (Job 9:16-17). He can’t fathom an alternative explanation—like an adversarial figure like Satan—because that piece of the puzzle hasn’t been revealed to him or his contemporaries. The prologue (Job 1-2) shows us, the readers, Satan challenging Job’s righteousness and God permitting the test, but Job never gets that memo. His cries of “Why?” (Job 3:11-12, 10:18) reflect a man wrestling with a partial picture, unable to consider that his suffering might stem from a cosmic wager rather than divine punishment.
This is precisely the narrative genius of Job: it pulls back the curtain for us, revealing Satan as the adversary, while Job himself remains a case study in faithfulness under ignorance. The book’s purpose isn’t just to showcase Job’s endurance but to introduce this unseen reality—Satan’s role as the accuser—setting the stage for later biblical theology.
The idea that Jodele portrays God as a “nasty, vindictive, exacting” deity, akin to the “JW [Jehovah’s Witness] version” or the false comforters’ view, eagerly waiting to test Job or any righteous man, is one ,one can not ignore.
In Job 1:6-12, Satan, not God, initiates the challenge. God’s response—“Have you considered my servant Job?”—isn’t a gleeful setup for a torture session but a recognition of Job’s existing faithfulness (Job 1:8). God isn’t itching to test someone; He’s responding to Satan’s accusation that Job’s righteousness is merely a byproduct of his prosperity (Job 1:9-10). God’s permission for the test (Job 1:12, 2:6) comes with limits—first sparing Job’s life, then his body (initially)—showing restraint, not relish. The idea that God “couldn’t wait until Moses” to test someone misreads the narrative’s flow. Job’s story isn’t about God’s impatience; it’s about Satan’s provocation meeting God’s confidence in Job’s integrity.
-
11
King of the North / South predictions
by Gorb induring my jw.org lifetime since 1970 (2008 we faded out of it all) i read and heared a lot of the king of the north and the south.. but about an aliance between the two kings, that was not a jw.org scenario, wasn't it?.
g..
-
-
raymond frantz
I don't believe that either king of the North or king of the South are the ones to worry about but a third king in Daniel 11:40 who is being attacked by both king of the North and king of the South, this king i believe is the Antichrist. If this is the case then an alignment between the king of the north and the king of the south is anticipated ,similar to the one we see today? But the verses are not that specific so I can not be dogmatic about any interpretation. Replace HIM with Antichrist below and the verse will make more sense:
Daniel 11:40
“In the time of the end the king of the south will engage with HIM in a pushing, and against HIM the king of the north will storm with chariots and horsemen and many ships; and HE will enter into the lands and sweep through like a flood.
-
3121
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)
by Simon inuh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.
-
-
raymond frantz
Neither her Facebook or Instagram account seem to suggest she is in a relationship with anyone at the moment. If she is best of wishes to her.I spoke to her a couple times when she was in Wilmslow and me being from the same neck of the woods she always gave me good vibes, a jw woman that wanted a family and an elder husband. Poor thing she was dazzled from the whole living in Wilmslow in a big house. Little did she know about the vomit that the Evans family is. The kind of trauma she endured from that vermin publicly and privately I think it will take a lifetime to recover.
-
21
Is Jesus a Created Being? Debate with a Pastor
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/ro6q_osgkns?si=hyxualluhruwvjnb.
—colossians 1:15 from the nwt says it plain as day: “he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation.” that’s not vague; it’s got a punch.
“firstborn” and “creation” sit side by side, and in greek, that second word is “ktisis,” which means the physical stuff—trees, stars, you name it.
-
-
raymond frantz
https://youtu.be/ro6q_OSgKNs?si=hyXUALLUhRUwVjNB
—Colossians 1:15 from the NWT says it plain as day: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” That’s not vague; it’s got a punch. “Firstborn” and “creation” sit side by side, and in Greek, that second word is “ktisis,” which means the physical stuff—trees, stars, you name it. The Witnesses are onto something: Jesus being “firstborn of all creation” ties Him right into that group. It’s like saying someone’s first in the queue—without “queue,” “first” is just a floating word. You can’t define “first” unless you know what it’s first of, and here, it’s “creation.” The pastor, though? He’s doing Olympic-level gymnastics to dodge that. He wants “firstborn” to mean “most important” or “top boss,” not “first one made.” He’s basically divorcing “firstborn” from “creation” like they’re in a bad marriage, pretending “ktisis” doesn’t mean what it means. Newsflash, pastor: words don’t bend that far without breaking.
Let’s run with that queue example. If I say, “I’m first in the queue,” you don’t think, “Oh, he’s the king of queues!” No, you get that I’m part of the line, just at the front. “First” only makes sense because of “queue”—I’m in the group, not above it. Same deal here: “firstborn of all creation” puts Jesus in the set called “creation,” not hovering over it like some cosmic VIP. The pastor’s trick is to snip that connection, toss “ktisis” into the metaphor blender, and serve up a Trinitarian smoothie. He’s banking on you not noticing that “ktisis” is about tangible, made stuff—sorry, no poetic license gets you out of that. Sure, “firstborn” can carry rank in some contexts, like a prince in a family, but when it’s tied to “all creation,” you can’t just wave it off as a title. The text isn’t playing that game.
And can we talk about the pastor’s smug vibe? He’s out here acting like he’s got the golden ticket to truth, while the Witnesses are just lost sheep. That “borderline heresy” jab at the end? Classic move. Trinitarians love to slap labels on anyone who doesn’t buy their three-in-one deal—sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The Watchtower does the same thing, calling dissenters apostates or worse. Pot, meet kettle. Both sides are so busy name-calling they forget to wrestle with the actual words. The pastor’s tactic mirrors the Witnesses’ own playbook: dodge the hard stuff, lean on your doctrine, and dunk on the other guy. He’s not debating; he’s preaching with a side of sass. Meanwhile, Sarah and Mike are at least trying to stick to the verse, even if their lens is tinted too. Point is, “firstborn of all creation” isn’t a riddle—it’s a statement. The pastor’s the one muddying it up to prop up his Trinity tower.
So, what’s the takeaway? The pastor’s got charisma, but his argument’s a house of cards. Splitting “firstborn” from “creation” is a stretch that’d make a yoga instructor wince. “Ktisis” isn’t some abstract vibe—it’s the nuts and bolts of the universe. Jesus as “firstborn of all creation” fits Him into that story, not above it. The queue analogy holds: you don’t get “first” without the group it’s tied to. The pastor can smirk and sling “heresy” all he wants, but he’s the one playing fast and loose with the text. Next time, maybe skip the theatrics and just read what’s there, right?
Also just because I'm an exjw doesn't mean I can't see patronising cult behaviour from other Christian sects who like name calling when things don't go their way.
-
4
The Pella Deception: Watchtower May 2025
by raymond frantz inhttps://youtu.be/4otnshkqdbi?si=5ilzez_lxqscp1ww.
so, in the latest may 2025 study watchtower, the writers of this magazine, they have another go at revising church history for their own ends.
they take a well-documented historical event—the flight of christians from jerusalem before its destruction in 70 ad - and twisting it into a convenient narrative to reinforce blind obedience to organizational leadership.
-
-
raymond frantz
https://youtu.be/4OTNShKQDBI?si=5iLzez_lXQsCp1ww
So, in the latest May 2025 Study Watchtower, the writers of this
Magazine, they have another go at revising Church history for their own ends. They take a well-documented historical event—the flight of Christians from Jerusalem before its destruction in 70 AD - and twisting it into a convenient narrative to reinforce blind obedience to organizational leadership. By cherry-picking sources, omitting key historical facts, and subtly reinterpreting scripture, the Watchtower seeks to create a precedent for Jehovah’s Witnesses today: obey the “faithful and discreet slave” without question, or risk divine disapproval.
In the past, the Watchtower has written about the account of Christians fleeing Jerusalem before the destruction of the city in 70 AD by the Romans under divine directions BUT now for the first time they introduce a new narrative that has never been published in the Watchtower, as far as i am aware. Let's see what paragraph 8 of Study Article 21 in the May 2025 edition has to say:
"A few years after receiving Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, Christians saw the Roman armies surrounding the city of Jerusalem. That signalled the time for them to flee; the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed. (Matt. 24:3; Luke 21:20, 24) But where would their flight lead them? Jesus had simply said: “Let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.” (Luke 21:21). There were many mountains in the region. So, in what direction would they flee?"
One of the biggest issues with the Watchtower’s narrative is the implication that early Christians were confused about where to flee, that's the first time I'm hearing this, and needed centralized leadership to guide them. The text suggests, they now say, that because Jesus merely instructed them to flee “to the mountains” , Christians would have been uncertain about which specific mountains to choose. But this argument is simply unfounded. Is this even a justified argument?No, on the contrary, the Gospel accounts do not indicate any confusion about where to flee. Nowhere in Matthew 24 or Luke 21 do we see Christians frantically debating which mountain range to choose. The decision to flee was a straightforward one: get out of Jerusalem and into safer territory. Historical records indicate that many Christians fled to Pella, a city in the region of Perea. But contrary to the Watchtower’s implications, Pella was not an arbitrary or divinely chosen location—it was a logical destination because it was a known, established Christian community in a Gentile region, neutral to the Jewish-Roman conflict.
Let's read Paragraph 9, where they further make their case:
"Consider some of the mountains to which Christians could have fled: the mountains of Samaria, the mountains in Galilee, Mount Hermon and the mountains of Lebanon, and the mountains across the Jordan. (See map.) Some of the cities in those mountainous areas may have appeared to be safe havens. The city of Gamla, for example, was situated on the rough ridge of a high mountain and was extremely difficult to reach. Some Jews viewed that city as an ideal place of refuge. However, Gamla became the site of a vicious battle between the Jews and the Romans, and many of its inhabitants died."
The Watchtower presents the flight to Pella as though it were the result of last minute divine revelation given specifically to “those taking the lead” in the congregation, for that they quoted Eusebius’ account of Christians receiving a revelation to flee. Eusebius was a 3rd century Father of the Church who wrote the first Ecclesiastical History of the Church and which the Watchtower quotes further in paragraph 10. Let's see:
"It appears that Jehovah guided the Christians by means of those who were taking the lead in the congregation. Historian Eusebius later wrote:
“The people of the congregation in Jerusalem, by divine providence, received a revelation given to approved men; they were commanded . . . to migrate from the city before the war and to settle in a certain city of Perea called Pella.” Pella seems to have been an ideal choice. It was not far from Jerusalem, making it relatively easy to reach. It was primarily a Gentile city and, for the most part, unaffected by the fanatical Jewish freedom fighters and their battles with the Romans."What the Watchtower fails to acknowledge here is a crucial fact: Pella was already home to an established Christian community.
Pella was part of the Decapolis, a group of ten Greco-Roman cities that had little to no involvement in the Jewish revolt. This made it a natural place of refuge for Jewish Christians who wanted to escape Roman reprisals without becoming embroiled in the conflict. The Watchtower, however, omits this important context, preferring instead to frame the event as a divine directive that came through appointed leaders. Why? It reinforces their modern teaching that Jehovah provides guidance only through organizational hierarchy.
Another glaring flaw in the Watchtower’s argument is its claim that early Christians might have mistakenly sought refuge in Gamla. The paragraph will have you believe that the city was a safe haven that later turned a stronghold of Jewish rebels. In fact history proves the exact opposite is true.What the Watchtower fails to mention is that Gamla was already deeply involved in the Jewish rebellion against Rome, and any Christian with basic awareness of the political situation would have known that fleeing there was not an option.Gamla was already a hot target for the Romans and it didn't miraculously become one after the rebellion of 66 A.D. broke out.
Josephus, the first century historian, suggests that Gamla was already a Zealot stronghold and that the city had long opposed Roman rule.Gamla was part of the kingdom of Herod Agrippa II, who was pro-Roman However, Josephus indicates that the people of Gamla revolted against him, an event that likely occurred before 66 AD. We read:
“Gamla revolted from King Agrippa, though he had put a garrison into it, and relied upon the fidelity of the inhabitants; those that were the authors of the revolt had seized upon it.(The Jewish War, 4.1.1)
This passage indicates that before the general uprising of 66 AD, Gamla had already turned against Agrippa II’s rule, suggesting anti-Roman resistance.
Also,Josephus describes how Gamla's rebellious leaders took control and fortified the city before the Romans attacked, implying that the city had become a center of anti-Roman resistance earlier.We read:"They compelled the people to join with them in the revolt, and erected walls for their security, and when they expected that the king would come against them, they prepared to fight him.”
(The Jewish War, 4.1.2)
So, it is obvious that this part of the Watchtower’s narrative is particularly disingenuous. It tries to paint early Christians as incapable of making rational decisions on their own, needing authoritative guidance to avoid disaster. But history does not support this claim. Early Christians were intelligent and resourceful. They did not require organizational oversight to recognize that Gamla was a dangerous destination. By creating a straw-man argument that Christians were in danger of choosing the wrong place to flee, the Watchtower falsely justifies the need for centralized leadership.
Even more troubling is the Watchtower’s claim that Jehovah provided direction through congregation leaders, citing Hebrews 13:7, 17 as proof that Christians should obey those “taking the lead.” This is a deliberate distortion of the biblical record.
We further read in paragraph 11:
"The Christians who fled to the mountains applied Paul’s counsel to “be obedient to those who are taking the lead” in the congregation. (Read Hebrews 13:7, 17.) As a result, God’s people survived. History confirms that God did not abandon those “awaiting the city having real foundations”—God’s Kingdom.—Heb. 11:10"
If only there was another example in the first century Christian history that shows that the so-called governing body in Jerusalem was the one that always took they lead like the Watchtower will have you believe! Hold on there is, in Acts 11:27-30 we read about a famine that threatened the Christian community in the area around 45-46 AD, and a divine intervention and a forwarning by God was important! Let's read the account :
"In those days, prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them named Agʹa·bus stood up and foretold through the spirit that a great famine was about to come on the entire inhabited earth, which, in fact, did take place in the time of Claudius. 29 So the disciples determined, each according to what he could afford, to send relief to the brothers living in Ju·deʹa; 30 and this they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barʹna·bas and Saul."
Did in this recorded occasion divine guidance come through prominent figures like Peter, James, or Paul? No. It came through a relatively unknown Christian named Agabus, who was not a member of the governing body in Jerusalem! So much for the Watchtower’s claim that the governing body in New York will be the only recipients of divine direction during the Great Tribulation.
This completely undermines the Watchtower’s premise that Jehovah always works through centralized leadership. In times of crisis, God’s direction has often come through unexpected sources—not exclusively through organizational hierarchy.
Why does the Watchtower go to such lengths to craft this particular narrative? The answer is clear: control. If they can convince Jehovah’s Witnesses that survival—both physical and spiritual—depends on unquestioning obedience to the organization, then they solidify their authority. The subtle message is that just as early Christians were saved by following the directives of “those taking the lead,” modern Jehovah’s Witnesses will only survive the “Great Tribulation” by adhering to Watchtower leadership.
This analogy is not only flawed but dangerous. It conditions Jehovah’s Witnesses to ignore personal discernment, historical facts, and even scriptural precedent in favour of whatever the Governing Body dictates. The organization wants its followers to believe that independent thinking is akin to rebellion and that questioning leadership equates to defying God. This is classic authoritarianism wrapped in religious rhetoric.
What the Watchtower fails to mention is often just as revealing as what it chooses to include.So to recap, why I think this article is disgenuous. Here are the 3 main omissions I refer to earlier:
The Christian community in Pella was already established. This undermines the claim that Christians needed special direction to go there.
Secondly, Gamla was an obvious no-go.The idea that Christians might have mistakenly fled to a war zone insults their intelligence.
Thirdly, Agabus, not church leaders, provided famine guidance in Acts. A direct contradiction to the Watchtower’s argument that Jehovah always speaks through hierarchy.
By selectively presenting history and scripture, Watchtower manufactures a self-serving narrative that reinforces their claim to exclusive divine guidance.
The Watchtower’s retelling of the Christian flight from Jerusalem is more than just bad history—it’s a calculated attempt to establish an unbiblical precedent for blind obedience. By portraying early Christians as confused and in need of centralized direction, the organization subtly conditions modern Jehovah’s Witnesses to think the same way. The historical reality, however, is much different. Christians fled because they heeded Jesus’ words and used common sense—not because they waited for official instructions from a centralized authority.
Jehovah’s Witnesses today should take note: history does not support the idea that survival hinges on unquestioning obedience to an organization. In fact, scripture itself contradicts this notion. Instead of promoting critical thinking and spiritual discernment, the Watchtower continues its long tradition of manufacturing crises to justify its own power. The question Jehovah’s Witnesses should be asking themselves is not “Where should we flee?” but rather, “Why does the organization want us to think we can’t decide for ourselves? -
80
Flee to the Mountains......What Mountains?
by liam inmay 2025 study article 21 seek the city that will remain.
what i remember was, when you see the romans, flee to the mountains.
now the wt is saying that's not enough.
-
-
raymond frantz
No Earnest, I dismiss all those who try to say whether they have a PHD or not ,that they know better from the historians that lived nearer at the time of the event. All these experts sprang up the past 100-150 years and surprisingly they have the same agenda , to dismiss historical events and their validity ,the things that Christians have believed in the past 2000 years. Yes there has been an orchestrated effort to take over the academic community and "experts " that discredit Christianity and its history to be promoted over others who don't push this agenda. Surprisingly this kind of agenda benefits only the traditional haters of Christianity who believe that Jesus is currently in hell eating excrement