the society literature has given mixed messages, but older literature tended to lay the basis closer to the bible that those 'anointed' are not chosen according to position, age, or experience, but according to god's will.
as the decades of the 40s and 50s passed, the subsequent decades brought in the view that those chosen to be 'anointed' would be chronologically older, many years as very active jws, likely serving in some position such as pioneer for sisters and elder for men.. the reason for the changed view: given that the society stated that the "general' call to heaven ended in 1935, then only a few replacements would be needed to fill vacancies by 'anointed' who died unfaithful to jehovah.
to the society it stood to reason that jehovah would only call 'mature' individuals with much experience as very faithful jws ... but ... they never made this a hard and fast rule, so at times, some jws would feel they wanted to go to heaven, and managed somehow to overcome the cultural fear of being different by making such a profession of faith.. nevertheless, as jws of the other sheep aged in the 1980s and 1990s, the view toward younger, newer 'anointed' became more and more jaundiced.
Also, ...... to dispell this notion created by the Society that newer 'anointed' JWs must be nut cases ... because I find that even many ex-JWs carry this view with them for some reason.
Au contraire, it seems that you proved the Society to be right, after all. Reading your post, it would seem that events played out to show you were never of the anointed in the first place.
i have a sign in my front yard on a main highway.
it reads, "no child molesters, www.silentlambs.org".. last night evidently, someone took the sign.
now i live one mile from the kingdom hall, do you think it could have been jw's?
Why do you ass-u-me that it was one of Jehovah's Witnesses who took your sign, unless that would be some sort of silly vindication for you?
Jehovah's Witnesses are not the ones in the news now focusing on pedophilia. The perpetrator may just as well have been an irate Catholic.
Or anyone. Pedophiles do not all belong to one religion.
`due to the abundance of dynamic power'.
question; does this translation sound right?
"Sound right" according to what? English translation? Hebrew original?
in the april 1, 2002 issue of the watchtower, an article appears entitled "keep on serving jehovah with a steadfast heart".
paragraph 14 of this article states: "if jehovah's organization knowingly endorsed false teachings, advice to read the bible would never be given to jehovah's witnesses and those to whom they preach.".
i am withholding comment on this statement, because i'd like to hear from any who would like to post a response.
I think the operative word here is knowingly. This is an admission that false (incorrect) teachings may have been "endorsed" in the past due to lack of knowledge at the time.
back in the 1517 the catholic priest martin luther posted his "95 theses" on the door of a church in wittenberg and began the protestant reformation.
martin luther did not mean to start a revolution, though he attacked certain legalistic doctrines of the church and questioned the authority of the pope.
called to recant, he replied, "unless i am convinced of error by the testimony of scripture or by clear reason, i cannot and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience.".
Seems like we posted at the same time :-)
Pre-publication orders were filled first. Other orders seem to be sent late. A lot of people who ordered the book haven't received it yet.
Someone did point out that the name "Elihu Books" may have given an advance indication of what was coming. In the Bible, Elihu is the young man who reproves the old man Job, and was commended for doing so. Even though Job was called an "upright man," he erred in his thinking. Elihu had to set him straight.
back in the 1517 the catholic priest martin luther posted his "95 theses" on the door of a church in wittenberg and began the protestant reformation.
martin luther did not mean to start a revolution, though he attacked certain legalistic doctrines of the church and questioned the authority of the pope.
called to recant, he replied, "unless i am convinced of error by the testimony of scripture or by clear reason, i cannot and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience.".
Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses is available from ElihuBooks.
[url]www.elihubooks.com[/url]
Current price is $14.95
back in the 1517 the catholic priest martin luther posted his "95 theses" on the door of a church in wittenberg and began the protestant reformation.
martin luther did not mean to start a revolution, though he attacked certain legalistic doctrines of the church and questioned the authority of the pope.
called to recant, he replied, "unless i am convinced of error by the testimony of scripture or by clear reason, i cannot and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience.".
P.S. The title should have been "Three Dissertations" - The Witness Reformation?
back in the 1517 the catholic priest martin luther posted his "95 theses" on the door of a church in wittenberg and began the protestant reformation.
martin luther did not mean to start a revolution, though he attacked certain legalistic doctrines of the church and questioned the authority of the pope.
called to recant, he replied, "unless i am convinced of error by the testimony of scripture or by clear reason, i cannot and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience.".
Back in the 1517 the Catholic priest Martin Luther posted his "95 Theses" on the door of a church in Wittenberg and began the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther did not mean to start a revolution, though he attacked certain legalistic doctrines of the church and questioned the authority of the pope. Called to recant, he replied, "Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture or by clear reason, I cannot and will not recant anything, for it is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience."
In his "Three Dissertations," Witness apologist Greg Stafford similarly questions certain legalistic doctrines of his "church" and questions the doctrinal authority of his "popes." He defends his position as being honest and conscientious.
Are we at the beginning of the Witness Reformation? Already young Staffordites are rushing to defend their mentor against charges of disrespect for authority. Martin Luther did not intend to break with his church, nor does Stafford with his. But if the rank and file of Jehovah's Witnesses feel as oppressed by legalism as the rank and file of Europe's 16th century Catholics felt oppressed by church dogmatism, who knows what can occur?
today i received greg stafford's new book three dissertations on the teachings of jehovah's witnesses.
for those who don't know, stafford has been a staunch defender of the watchtower society's teachings for at least six years, on the net and in print.
his previous book, jehovah's witnesses defended (1998, 2000), is a milestone in pro-jw literature.. the new book is a radical departure from stafford's previous book in that he strongly questions the society's doctrines about blood transfusions, the basis for the claim of spiritual authority by jw leaders, the necessity for christians to believe the society's 1914 doctrine, and issues of "legalism" including the propriety of requiring "time" in the field ministry to be reported, and even the supposed scriptural basis for the society's ban on celebrating birthdays and christmas.
So you think someone with a Divinity Degree would make mincemeat of Mr. Stafford?
Don't you know that even scholars with Doctorial degrees have differences of opinions on Greek and Hebrew grammar?
A degree does not necessarily make anyone more competent to deal with the Biblical text.
today i received greg stafford's new book three dissertations on the teachings of jehovah's witnesses.
for those who don't know, stafford has been a staunch defender of the watchtower society's teachings for at least six years, on the net and in print.
his previous book, jehovah's witnesses defended (1998, 2000), is a milestone in pro-jw literature.. the new book is a radical departure from stafford's previous book in that he strongly questions the society's doctrines about blood transfusions, the basis for the claim of spiritual authority by jw leaders, the necessity for christians to believe the society's 1914 doctrine, and issues of "legalism" including the propriety of requiring "time" in the field ministry to be reported, and even the supposed scriptural basis for the society's ban on celebrating birthdays and christmas.
Is Greg Stafford saying anything different from what Ray Franz said (originally)?
Hopefully, the times have changed and the passing years have brought in a dose of humility to the organization, and Mr. Stafford will not have to suffer the fate of Mr. Franz.
