Posts by mizpah

5

The GB you have when there isnt a GB

by refiners fire in

another of those classic wt articles from the golden 70s:

wt december 15, 1971: a governing body as different from a legal corporation

quote ..on friday morning, october 1, 1971, the legal corporation known as watch tower bible and tract society of pennsylvania held its annual corporation meeting, all seven members of the board of directors of said society attended and had a part in the program presented.

mizpah

No matter how hard the Watchtower tries to convince others that their "governing body" no longer is part of the corporation, it still remains the heart and head of the business end of the organization. True, committees are now in charge of running the day to day affairs. But the important decisions still have to have the approval of the head...which is the governing body.

However, it is interesting that more of the responsibility is being given to those who claim to be of the "other sheep." The Watchtower has even used Biblical terms to describe them such as "nethinim, temple slaves," etc. It plainly shows that there are subtle (and not so subtle) changes occurring in the Watchtower Society. The numbers of "annointed" ones at the headquarters are diminishing. So, the role of those not professing to be "annointed" will become even greater in the future. I suspect more articles will be published to justify these changes.

Perhaps, Rutherford was a little more honest in his approach about the spiritual and human aspects of the organization. Congregations were "companies." Members were "publishers." And the charts and graphs of progress that appeared on stage were called "monthly reports." Add to this the meticulous Publisher Record Cards that registered hours and placements of each individual and became the basis of one's standing in the congregaton, we have a very efficient business operation!

7

Trinity...an attempt of Gentiles to distance themselves from the Jews?

by mizpah in

i have often wondered whether the acceptance of the trinity doctrine in the church was an attempt of the gentile beleivers to distance themselves from the early jewish believers in the early church.

as the gentiles became the majority there does seem to be a concerted effort on the part of these members to eradicate any trace of the jewish origins of the church.

in fact, some of the early "church fathers" were very strong in their anti-jewish sentiments.

mizpah

La Capra:

You bring up some interesting points. I do know that Russell's views toward the Jews were entirely different from that of Rutherford. Russell's support of the Zionist movement was based upon his belief that the Jews would return to the "holy land" during the "end time" in fulfillment of the ancient prophecies. As I recall, he even wrote about this subject. Today, some Jewish organizations have honored Russell as being one of the few ministers that supported this effort.

I think Rutherford probably was an anti-Semite. Whatever his motive, it served his purpose to allegorize all those ancient prophecies and apply them exclusively to "spiritual Israel." And, of course, in Rutherford's theology only members of his organization qualified. The strong anti-Semitic sentiments of Rutherford can be seen in the "Declaration" that distributed in Germany during the Nazi regime. And even though his attempt to pacify the Nazis failed, he never changed his stance against the Jews. In light of this, I always find it ironic that Jehovah's Witnesses find a special place of mention in the holocaust memorials.

7

What happened to the New Covenant

by Blue in

good afternoon everyone,.

nobody ever mentions the new covenant anymore.

all we hear is doom and gloom, agony and despair.

mizpah

I don't believe in universal salvation. But I do believe that God will give everyone an equal opportunity to accept or reject Christ as the redeemer and savior of mankind. Millions of people living and dead have never had an opportunity to know Christ. Millions more have rejected the Christian faith because of the unchristian conduct of those professing Christianity. A just and loving God would have to provide this opportunity for all.

Did you know that Russell once taught that the "new covenant" did not apply to the "annointed class?" His reasoning was that since they were the "body of Christ" they were part of his sacrfice. He said the "new covenant" would only apply to Jews. As a result of this, many very prominent members left the organization including close friends and relatives of Russell. They termed themselves "the new covenanters." (See Penton's Apocalypse Delayed)

11

Watchtower Answers: "Will Sodom and Gomorrah Be Resurrected?"

by Yizuman in

the following answers are from the watchtower.... .

*** watchtower 1879 july 1 page8 ***.

(men of sodom and gomorrah will be resurrected).

mizpah

I guess the Watchtower will find it difficult to explain away this by their "tacking" illustration. It sounds more like being lost at sea and buffeted by "every wind of change." It better send out an S.O.S while it is still floating....

7

Trinity...an attempt of Gentiles to distance themselves from the Jews?

by mizpah in

i have often wondered whether the acceptance of the trinity doctrine in the church was an attempt of the gentile beleivers to distance themselves from the early jewish believers in the early church.

as the gentiles became the majority there does seem to be a concerted effort on the part of these members to eradicate any trace of the jewish origins of the church.

in fact, some of the early "church fathers" were very strong in their anti-jewish sentiments.

mizpah

I have often wondered whether the acceptance of the trinity doctrine in the church was an attempt of the Gentile beleivers to distance themselves from the early Jewish believers in the early church. As the Gentiles became the majority there does seem to be a concerted effort on the part of these members to eradicate any trace of the Jewish origins of the church. In fact, some of the early "church fathers" were very strong in their anti-Jewish sentiments. And some of the Jewish believers (Nazarenes, Ebionites, etc.) were eventually declared "apostate" and thrown out of the general association of Christians. What better way to do this than to declare belief in the trinity as a "central doctrine" in the Christian faith?

After the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews became objects of hatred of Rome. Christians were, at first, just considered another Jewish sect. Christians were also persecuted by Rome until the time of Constantine...and even thereafter. Could it be that Gentile christians did not want to carry the double stigma of both faiths?

It is just a thought...but I would enjoy any comments that you could share with me.

7

bible translations

by minstrel in

i would like the title of any available bible translations from the original greek/hebrew.

preferably from a scholarly authorship rather than personal 'sect' influences.

also, i would be interested if the translation can be incorporated in a 'parallel' version.. best wishes.

mizpah

I have in my library The NASB-NIV parallel New Testment in Greek and English with interlinear translation by Alfred Marshall. This has proven to be an interesting reference for the NT.

37

micheal the archangel

by trinity4life in

.

i have not found one jehovahs witness who could show me in the bible where jesus is refered to as micheal the archangel or that you could draw such a conclusion.

if anyone is willing to discuss this topic with me i would greatly appriciate it.

mizpah

Kenneson:

Jesus' words at Matthew 28 are spoken after his resurrection and at his descent to heaven. But while on earth, Jesus indicated that he did nothing by his own authority but only by that of his father who sent him.

Obviously, Michael does possess authority when he fights Satan and his angels and throws them out of heaven.

But, again, I'm not trying to justify the Watchtower's position that Michael is Christ. There is simply no scriptural evidence to link Michael with Christ. And while there are interesting parallels to be made between the two, it is wrong for the Watchtower to be dogmatic on something that is not explicit in scripture.

17

Are these the "crucial" years for the Watchtower ? Is time running out ?

by run dont walk in

or can they keep it going another 100 years.. maybe i'm being a little too hopeful, but i think the next 10 years are do or die for the watchtower.. is was different back in the 20's 30's 40's 50's and 60's, they could get away with changing doctrine and "new light" and new ideas.. but today, people are different and more independent, and question things a lot more.. the "annoited class" is almost gone, regardless of the bs figures they give, .

1914 is all but dead, .

literature is not available like it used to be, .

mizpah

Watchtower growth in the progressive countries has slowed and...in some cases, stopped. The largest increase is from "third world" countries. These people can least afford to give financial support to the Watchtower Society. The increase in these countries will burden the Watchtower instead of enriching it.

The next big issue for the Watchtower will probably revolve around its pivotal date of 1914. If it changes this in any way, it will cause many to question other teachings in the Watchtower Society. Probably, many will still support the organization because of their own personal commitment.

Penton thought it would come to a cross road. It would either have to come up with another date for the "end" as it did in 1975 or it would start to swing over to become just another denomination among denominations. Subtle changes are already evident in some of its teachings. But 1914 has been a major one for many years. The Watchtower Society will have to handle this one very carefully. And even at that, it will cause a falling away of significant numbers.

37

micheal the archangel

by trinity4life in

.

i have not found one jehovahs witness who could show me in the bible where jesus is refered to as micheal the archangel or that you could draw such a conclusion.

if anyone is willing to discuss this topic with me i would greatly appriciate it.

mizpah

Neonmadman:

I'm sure that we will not settle an issue that has been debated by Christians for 1700 years and will continued to be for years in the future. It only proves that Christians can read the same Bible and come to different conclusions. I am encouraged , though, that you don't consider the Trinity doctrine that important, Semantics aside, I think both trinitarians and unitarians can have faith in the Son.

I apologize to the others for diverging from the discussion on Michael the archangel. It's so easy to do when you read these interesting comments by others.

Yiz: An interesting point. But didn't Jesus indicate that he was doing everything by the authority of his father anyway? Isn't that a given? Why would this be any different?

37

micheal the archangel

by trinity4life in

.

i have not found one jehovahs witness who could show me in the bible where jesus is refered to as micheal the archangel or that you could draw such a conclusion.

if anyone is willing to discuss this topic with me i would greatly appriciate it.

mizpah

1 Cor. 15 does not speak of the Father but rather of God. It is clear that the Son subjects himself to God after all things are subjected to him. Obviously, it would be impossible if the Son was God.

Whatever is acheived later in life a son is always inferior to his father in the sense of time. The father is greater also in the sense that he becomes the source of life to his son. Undoubtedly, this is why we are to "honor" our fathers according to the commandment.

I don't think the early Christians were required to believe the complexities and mysteries of a Trinity. I'm sure they accepted the simple relationship of a father to a son. My main objection to orthodoxy is not in the belief in a Trinity. But it is in the tyranny of requiring a Christian to believe that this doctrine is the "central" one necessary for faith. The absence of it in the Bible makes it clear that it is not.