Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Pudgy]

That is what is called “ The Hook”.

Appealing to  man’s better nature …. sometimes for what turns out to be nefarious ends.

Sometimes ….

[Pudgy]

This is not new. 

But humans are not the ideal representations shown in the Society’s publications.  Infinite variety. 

… what makes this funny is that you will NEVER be able to “unsee” it.

*snorf !*

 

[Srecko Sostar]

What would Adam and Eve look like in WTJWorg literature if Russell and Rutherford were Chinese?

[Pudgy]

I think what SS was referring to, or alluding to was what  if Russell and Rutherford had been  Chinese …. so rourd the irrustrations in the Socrities pubrications.

[Pudgy]

suitable in what way?

[Juan Rivera]

On 10/20/2023 at 9:25 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

The Jewish religion was/is more permanent in time (duration) and without the appearance of "new lights". Its founder was YHVH. Jesus was a Jew. And as such he was supposed to continue the existing religion of "his fathers". He did not renounce his Jewish faith, he just wanted to cleanse it of the accumulated corruption.

WTJWorg has different religious roots in which it wanted to make changes by bringing religious beliefs closer to what they believed to be "truth" in the OT and NT. A century and a little more of the existence of that organization has shown the failure of the initial idea.

Dramatic changes that accompanied this organization throughout its history became more and more frequent. Today, they culminate in almost daily changes in doctrines and instructions and ways of acting.
It is clearly visible that they are getting more and more entangled in the web they have woven themselves. Maybe some new "Messiah" needs to come to shake the 8 million believers in their sleepiness.

@Srecko Sostar I'm really trying to understand where are you coming from and what is the point of all your post. Maybe @JW Insider or @Anna can help you on this topic because I'm speaking for myself in hopes that it might give you some help or insight.

As I see it, the gospels indicate that Jesus was intent upon choosing 12 followers in imitation of and continuity with the ethnic structure of the Hebrew nation. Hence, he is seen to be launching a new Israel. He is portrayed in the historical texts as investing these officers with his own divine power, commissioning them to teach in his name, and promising to send them divine help to carry out this task. Nowhere does he tell any of the twelve to write, nor does he write anything himself. In fact only 3 or 5 of the 12 actually do write anything (depending on scholarly debates). Instead the one and only earthly program he seems to have set in motion is the establishment of a Congregation. Following the divine teaching method of embedding revelation within a cohesive historical community (the sheltered environment of Hebrew society and culture), he reshapes ancient Israel. Instead of initiating a religion solely based on scriptures, he establishes a global community that allows divine messages to spread worldwide while preserving their essence. 

As I already mentioned to you, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. 

The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. (Restorationism) So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 

Here's an excerpt from a JW historian that traces the Watchtower roots, taken from his introductory chapter from Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization. I think @JW Insider disagrees with some minor points but generally agrees with the summary:

 

The Roots of Watch Tower Belief
I do not have space to fully examine the millenarian antecedents of Russell's belief system. So what follows doesn't even qualify as a survey; it is the briefest of 'tastes' - a short essay on millennial thought up to the Russell era. I will take you no further back than the 16th Century. I will focus on British and American millenarianism. There were similar systems in Europe, but Russell's acquaintance with them was slight. He came to German millenarianism through Seiss, whose references to it are few and indistinct. There were French, Swiss, Polish, Bohemian and Italian believers, but we think Russell knew next to nothing about them.

Before I proceed I should note that Russell's prophetic views are not the only part of his doctrinal set with roots in the colonial era. His rejection of the Trinity connects directly to the Colonial Era and early Republic Era belief of non-Trinitarian Congregational churches in New England and anti-Trinitarian agitation among British clergy. The latter was common enough that William Lyford [c. 1598-1653], a Puritan clergyman, wrote The Plain Man's Senses Exercised to Discern Both Good and Evil primarily to refute prevalent non-Trinitarian belief.

Anti-Trinitarian thought persisted despite attempts to quell it. Watchtower writers suggest that, among others, Thomas Emlyn stands in the history of their faith. Emlyn was republished in America. There is no proof that Russell read any of his work, though he may have come to Emlyn through reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall.  Samuel Clarke's Boyle lecture on the Trinity found a place in American libraries; Priestley's multivolume work on the Trinity was circulated in America and extracts from it and his catechism were summarized in tracts and the catechism was published entire in 1810. William Jones The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity, written to counter anti-Trinitarian agitation in Britain, was republished in 1816. In America, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, many of those influenced by it rejected Trinitarian doctrine, some becoming Socinian and others adopted Sabellianism or Arianism. New Light rejection of Trinitarianism was still an issue in the 1820s, and the issue persisted into the 1840s. Grew and Storrs both rejected the Trinity. We cannot suggest that Russell derived his Subordination doctrine [a non-Trinitarian belief system similar to Arianism] from Adventism. When some Adventists entered the discussion, they did so as part of a far larger trend.

The belief, characteristic of Watch Tower adherents, that Bible reading was obligatory and that it was meant to be understood by the average reader extends backward to 17 Century Separatist and Puritan England. So too does Russell-era Watch Tower belief that the proper form of church governance is congregationalism. Conditional Immortality doctrine, the belief that immortality is a gift from God not an inherent right, finds its origins in an ancient past, and, as it came Russell, in the reformation era. The belief that God directly intervenes in the life of Christians came to Russell, in America with the earliest European settlers. It was as strongly-held in Russell's as it was among the Jamestown colonists (1607), the Pilgrim Separatists (1620) and the Puritans who followed. We see it in Russell's supposition that his meeting with Wendell was only seemingly an accident. We see it in the pages of Zion's Watch Tower when new adherents believe Watch Tower tract or an issue of the paper falling into their hands was an act of divine providence.

Both in Britain and in the American colonies that 'marvels' portended divine messages was a strongly held belief. In the pre-scientific era, a strayed horse, a comet, a cloud's shape, were all messages from God. Tall tales of marvels were persuasive political and religious arguments. The Gospels say that Jesus predicted a proliferation of earthquakes as a peculiar sign of the last days. In the pre-scientific era this Biblical statement was combined with lack of knowledge, resulting in all earthquakes being seen as the impending apocalyptic judgment or as God's warning to a wayward people. Charles and John Wesley saw the London, Lisbon and Boston, Massachusetts, earthquakes of the 1750s in this light, writing hymns and preaching sermons to that effect. Rationalism started to prevail in the last third of the Seventeenth Century, but the belief in divine providence persisted and persists still. We see it in the pages of modern Watchtower publications when an adherent is convinced that God guided them into the light of truth. (And in fact, we cannot gainsay God's guidance or his answers to prayers without repudiating the New Testament.) In Russell's experience we see this in his narration of a fall on the snow which he attached to a moral lesson, and we see it in his belief that all Christians received guidance through divinely inspired dreams.

Colonial era almanacs were willing to credit astrology even while promoting religion. These found their counterpart in A. D. Jones and Russell's willingness to credit astrology even while - in Russell's case - seeing it as a tool of Satan. The tension between Separatist and Puritan seeking holiness and the Church of England's expectation that all submit to its ritual dedicated to Christ or not, spilled into the 19 Century. Puritan insistence that the church was for the holy only -committed, obedient Christians- is the background to Russell's criticism of morally compromised churches. Ultimately this derived from New Testament doctrine. Christians are to be holy as God is holy. (I Peter 1:16) There is, Paul writes, no room within Christian ecclesias for unrepentant, unregenerate sinners. This tension expressed itself in Watch Tower and Plymouth Brethren belief and in that of conservative American churches and non-conformist chapels in the United Kingdom. While Russell's connection to his Anglo-American heritage is largely ignored by writers, these connections are as important as the millennial heritage from which his belief system truly came.

Russell-era meeting format derives from colonial-era structure, sometimes modified to accommodate groups who lacked leadership. The Russellite Prayer, Praise and Testimony meetings come from non-conformist belief systems. Opportunities, sometimes rare and occasionally more frequent, to testify to one's faith and to an incident of Divine Providence, gave colonial-era believers a sense of unity, of belonging to the Body of Christ. Russell's persistent condemnation of creeds and sectarianism derives from the same source. It can be traced to the Reformation Era and its aftermath. Writers and surviving sermons from that era often condemn divisions and false teachings, frequently focusing on the identity of the prophetic Babylon the Great and identifying her daughters as sects infected with false belief and false practice. For instance Benjamin Keach [1687] identified Babylon the Great as the Catholic Church and her harlot daughters as in a "spiritual sense ... unclean Communities". In America after the French and Indian War [Seven Years' War], sectarian divisions were seen as harmful to the cause of Christ. This did not lead to unity or suspension of creedal belief but to a semblance of peace between denominations. Post-Revolution commentators continued this. The Catholic Church retained its status as mystic Babylon; denominational Protestant churches were Babylon's harlot-daughters.

Radical Pietists immigrated to America from Britain, Germany and Switzerland, settling in Pennsylvania, New England and South Carolina. They were distinguished by a rejection of sectarianism. In Britain the Village Itinerancy Society was founded in 1796 by laymen who believed that the Millennium impended and that "what the nation needed was an undenominational, and by implication, unordained army of itinerants charged with the awesome responsibility of bringing God's pure word, undefiled by party or sect to a 'perishing multitude." Closer to Russell's day Philip Schaff and John Williamson Nevin, then both instructors at the German Reformed seminary at Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, developed a 'manifesto that included "the evil of sectarianism, and the imperative of unity within the church." They saw "rationalism and sectarianism" as the greatest dangers to the church. Claude Welch suggested that the movement derived from Nevin and Schaff's manifesto died out after the Civil War. It did not, and we find it expressed in various ways. Russellite rejection of sectarianism with its dependence on creeds derives from this long heritage. This is true of other small fellowships who described themselves as nonsectarian and of those independent congregations who fellowshipped on the basis of faith alone and not on the basis of creedal doctrine."
 

[Srecko Sostar]

Quote from JWorg web:

What Is the Sign of “the Last Days,” or “End Times”?

The Bible’s answer

 The Bible describes events, conditions, and attitudes that would mark “the conclusion of the [current] system of things,” or “the end of the world.” (Matthew 24:3; King James Version) The Bible calls this time period “the last days” and the “time of the end,” or “end times.”—2 Timothy 3:1; Daniel 8:19; Easy-to-Read Version.

Are we living in “the last days”?

 Yes. World conditions as well as Bible chronology indicate that the last days began in 1914, the year World War I began. To see how world conditions indicate that we are living in the last days, watch the following video:

...........They are convinced that God’s Kingdom will soon take action to rid the world of its problems. ...........

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/last-days-sign-end-times-prophecies/

Qoute from JWorg web:

When will the world end?

 Jesus said: “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36, 42) He added that the timing of the end would be unexpected, “at an hour that you do not think to be it.”—Matthew 24:44.

Even though we cannot know the exact day and hour, Jesus did provide a composite “sign,” or group of events, that would identify the time period leading up to the end of the world. (Matthew 24:3, 7-14) The Bible refers to this period as “the time of the end,” “the end times,” and “the last days.”—Daniel 12:4; God’s Word Bible; 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/end-of-the-world/

 

Any longtime member of the JW religion knows that the "Armageddon alarm" has been announced many times in the WTJWorg. From period before 1914, about 1914 and years after, until today. We have the statement of Jesus that no one can know anything about it and that many will be deceived in the expectation and prediction of "the end". Despite this, GB still claims that the "end" will be "soon".
From this example that supports the title theme, we see that the GB members and their assistants do not only contradict each other in their statements, but are in direct conflict with the statements of Jesus.

44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

But GB and JWs doing contrary, they expect it ( "an hour") to come "soon". If Jesus is to be believed, then he will wait so long, long enough, that people (in this case members of the JW religion) stop expecting the end to come. When people stop expecting, then it will be a "sign" for Jesus to come.

GB counts many "signs" as proof that Jesus is coming, and on the other hand, Jesus is waiting for only one "sign", and that is, for people to finally stop "counting signs".

Or do you think otherwise?

 

[Pudgy]

…

 

[Srecko Sostar]

WTJWorg and theologians/scholars of other churches have similar views when interpreting some Bible records.
WTJWorg uses the terminology; initial fulfillment and greater fulfillment when they interprets the spoken words of some biblical characters because they considers them to be prophecies that should refer to our time.

Also WTJWorg has generally abandoned using the type and prototype rule in most interpretations.

More and more they come to the conclusion that "we don't know" becomes a more acceptable explanation than dogmatism. Because the structure of people who are (who remain to be, to stay, as JWs) and who become JW members is also changing. Certainly, this does not mean that they will give up exercising power and influence over members.

If the intention of Jesus is to keep the first followers in suspense/tension of waiting for something that will not actually come/come true in their life, then that would be ugly of him. But their "Armageddon" took place within 50 years of the spoken word.
Because of what happened as announced, none of them then had the need to further explain or clarify the failure of the "prophecy" with the "overlapping generations" nonsensical/absurd thesis.
This argument/fact alone completely demolishes the statements GB has made in the past and is making today.

So we constantly have conflicting statements governing people's lives.

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WTJWorg and theologians/scholars of other churches have similar views when interpreting some Bible records.
WTJWorg uses the terminology; initial fulfillment and greater fulfillment when they interprets the spoken words of some biblical characters because they considers them to be prophecies that should refer to our time.

Also WTJWorg has generally abandoned using the type and prototype rule in most interpretations.

More and more they come to the conclusion that "we don't know" becomes a more acceptable explanation than dogmatism. Because the structure of people who are (who remain to be, to stay, as JWs) and who become JW members is also changing. Certainly, this does not mean that they will give up exercising power and influence over members.

If the intention of Jesus is to keep the first followers in suspense/tension of waiting for something that will not actually come/come true in their life, then that would be ugly of him. But their "Armageddon" took place within 50 years of the spoken word.
Because of what happened as announced, none of them then had the need to further explain or clarify the failure of the "prophecy" with the "overlapping generations" nonsensical/absurd thesis.
This argument/fact alone completely demolishes the statements GB has made in the past and is making today.

So we constantly have conflicting statements governing people's lives.

@Srecko Sostar Before I resume these lengthy and increasingly intricate discussions you keep posting about everyday under different topics, I need to understand your motivation. Is your primary motive simply to understand these subtle aspects of JW theology, so that you can then go on to decide for yourself whether JWs are at least reasonable enough to accept? Or is your primary motive to keep probing for a difficulty that as Witness we are not able to resolve, in the hope that your viewpoint will thus be vindicated? A sincere answer is important to me. If your primary motive is the former, then we are companions on a path of inquiry, and we are conducting dialogue in that spirit. I would see that as potentially quite fruitful. But if your primary motive is the latter, however I do not believe the outcome would be fruitful and would not wish to engage further.

@Pudgy I agree that no Governing body member is immune to the temptation of the corruption of power, but the Congregation is the Body of Christ, not a mere human institution. It would therefore be improper and unfitting to treat the Congregation and her leadership as if she were a merely human institution or equivalent to such, and not also divine in the life and power and wisdom in which she lives and moves and has her being. This is why Christ’s words to Saul were, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?”

@Pudgy I also agree that if we have evidence from a person’s prior words or actions that he is more interested in power than in justice and benevolence, then when he exercises authority in such a way as to expand his power, we could be justified in assuming that he is doing so primarily to gain power. But, if we have no such evidence, or if we have evidence to the contrary, then such an assumption is contrary to love. And there is no evidence that the Governing body is more interested in power and control than in faithfully shepherding the flock entrusted to them by Christ. The evidence from their life and leadership indicates just the opposite, namely, that they are righteous and pious men, deeply devoted to serving Christ and His Congregation.

@Srecko Sostar No historical study has ever shown that all persons in authority, when exercising that authority, are more interested in exercising power than in upholding justice or truth.Your stance, it seems to me, is one of cynicism, which, if applied consistently, would undermine your own position. Your cynical stance used as an argument against Jehovah’s Witnesses is question-begging, because it presupposes that there is no individual or group of persons who are in fact exercising authority for the good of those over whom they have charge. But that is precisely what is in dispute between ExJw’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely, whether or not there is a divinely established Governing Body that faithfully shepherds Christ’s flock for the good of His sheep. So assuming that there is no such group of persons assumes precisely what is in question between us, and in that respect begs the question. In order to compare the frameworks, you need to attempt to approach the question without begging the question.

Such a stance would likewise entail that every judge, when rendering a verdict, is only doing so in order to maintain and exercise his own power, not in order to uphold justice. It would imply that every police officer, when arresting a criminal, is doing so only to exercise power, not to uphold and maintain justice. Such cynicism is common today, but it is unjustified, and is destructive to society as a whole. It is a reflection of the “Question Authority” motiff of the 1960s. If the Devil had a bumpersticker, that would be it. It would also have made you a cynic toward Jesus in the first century, and toward the Apostles. If Christ promised that the Congregation would be the pillar and ground of truth, then we exercise faith in Jehovah and Christ through trusting and obeying those whom He has established to speak and govern in His Name, until His return.

[Pudgy]

The way I look at it is this:

When Armageddon comes there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to avoid it, or hurry it up, or slow it down.

This is God’s War, not mine. Obviously the Creator of the Universe is going to win.

Just like the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace, if it occurs in my lifetime, I intend to just sit back and watch the show!

…. and perhaps eat popcorn, and microwaved big greasy hot dogs!

[Srecko Sostar]

22 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Your cynical stance used as an argument against Jehovah’s Witnesses is question-begging, because it presupposes that there is no individual or group of persons who are in fact exercising authority for the good of those over whom they have charge.

If it can be called cynicism at all, it is a consequence of the biblical statement that "man rules over man for his evil", Ecclesiastes 8:9. 

Finally, WTJWorg teaches in a similar vein, calling all authority that exists outside the JW Church today as "satanic", and thereby effectively asserting that people outside the JW community are incapable of imitating God in matters of righteousness or mercy and so on. 

Such a claim by GB should mean that the authority in WTJWorg is the only correct one and benefits everyone involved. At the same time, they justify some of their claims and actions with the mantra that they are imperfect and that Jesus did not promise that GB would distribute perfect food.

Well, that's pure cynicism and hypocrisy, not my philosophizing.