[Watchtower study for the week of March 10, 2014 – w14 1/15 p.12]
Par. 2 – “Jehovah has already become King in our day!...And yet, Jehovah’s becoming King is not the same as the coming of God’s Kingdom for which Jesus taught us to pray.”
Before going further, a little perspective is called for. Jehovah is spoken of as the King of eternity in two places in the Christian Greek Scriptures. In two more places, he is spoken of as starting to rule as King, presumably over the Kingdom of God. So in reference to our study theme, there are two places in the Christian Greek Scriptures that focus on the kingship as Jehovah’s.[1] However, a simple word-search in the WTLib program will reveal almost 50 places where the focus is on Jesus as the King.
So it would appear that we are missing the point that Jehovah is trying to get across. He’s telling us to focus on the Christ as his appointed King, but we choose to ignore him. Imagine a father throwing a celebration for his firstborn son who has just been appointed to an exalted position and instead of spending our time and efforts honoring the son as the father wishes, we spend all our time giving scant lip service to the son while focusing almost exclusively on the father. Would that make him happy?
Par. 3 – “Toward the end of the 19th century, light began to shine on a 2,500-year-old prophecy…” Actually, it was early in the 19th century that this happened. William Miller, founder of the Millerite Adventist movement used it to promote the belief that 1844 was the year the world would end. Prior to him, John Aquila Brown published The Even-Tide in 1823 which equated the Seven Times with 2,520 actual years.[2]
“The Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant. Many people at that time were optimistic. As one writer states: “The world of 1914 was full of hope and promise.” With the outbreak of World War I later that year, however, Bible prophecy came true.”
I am absolutely sure that come this weekend, the comments will fly praising God for revealing to Russell that the presence of Christ began in 1914 right on schedule. All will be led to believe that prophecy did indeed come true. What very few will be aware of and what the publishers of this article are carefully concealing is the fact that like Miller before him, Russell believed that the 2,500-year-old prophecy would mark the start of the great tribulation, not Christ’s alleged invisible presence. He had already stated that April, 1878 was when Jesus assumed his kingly power invisibly in the heavens. This date as the start of Christ’s presence was not dropped until 1929.[3] One can only assume that had a world war occurred in 1844, Millerites would still be around today in force, having avoided the disconfirmation of their prophetic interpretation by redefining it as the start of Christ’s invisible presence. Alas, no such luck for them.
It is a flagrant bit of revisionist history for us to claim that “Bible prophecy came true” when what we were expecting to get in 1914 was the start of the great tribulation. It wasn’t even until 1969 that we finally admitted that the great tribulation didn’t start in 1914.
“The subsequent famines, earthquakes, and pestilences…proved conclusively that Jesus Christ had begun to rule in heaven…in 1914.”
Far from being conclusive proof of Christ’s alleged invisible presence, there is sound reason for believing Jesus was warning us not to be deceived into believing he’d arrived before his time by wars and natural catastrophes.[4]
Par. 4 – “The first mission of God’s newly installed King was to wage war against his Father’s chief Adversary, Satan. Jesus and his angels cast the Devil and his demons out of heaven.”
First of all, the Bible says that it was Michael waging war and doing the casting out. There’s no proof that Michael and Jesus are one and the same. Quite the contrary, Michael is referred to as “one of the foremost princes”.[5] Jesus’ prehuman role was unique both as the Word of God and the firstborn/only begotten Son of God. There is no allowance in all that for him to be merely one of any group. For him to be merely one of the foremost princes means there were other princes equal to him. Such a thought is inconsistent with all we know of him.
Could it be that Michael is used to oust Satan because Jesus wasn’t there? Some interesting thoughts along those lines have been expressed in several comments on this site.[6] What if we consider the 12th chapter of Revelation as beginning to occur at the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection? Once Jesus had died, integrity intact, there was nothing more to prove. Why keep Satan around any longer? 1 Peter 3:19 speaks of Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison. If Michael had already confined the Devil and his demons to the vicinity of the earth following Jesus death, then the demons were imprisoned and this preaching work of Jesus would be in the sense of his presenting himself to them as proof that Satan’s challenge had been defeated. This could be what Jesus was referring to at Luke 10:18.
With his failure to subvert Jesus, he had truly failed and all that was left for him was to go after the remainder of the seed. He had a short time remaining; not from our limited human perspective but for a being who had been around since, what?...the founding of the universe?...It would indeed be a short time.
Would that fit with the whole “woe to the earth and the sea” warning? There is no record of a dark ages prior to Jesus. No pre-Christian record of worldwide pandemics like the black plague that reduced Europe’s population by as much as 60%. No B.C.E. era record of wars raging for decades like the 30-years war and the 100-years war. In Israelite times, there was no period of a six-or-seven-century-long span of oppression, scientific regression and ignorance like the Dark Ages. Mankind had made great strides in science, architecture, and social reform by the time of Christ. It took well over a millennia to get back on track after the first century ended. Indeed, it wasn’t until the Renaissance that light began to shine again.
If we stick to the official doctrine that Satan was cast down after the October, 1914 enthronement of Christ, we’re stuck with the inconsistency that his supposed first act of anger—his first woe—was the First World War which began at least two months (August) before he was chucked out of heaven. Additionally, if he is really so angry because all he has left is 100 years or so, why have 70 of those 100 years been the longest period of peace, prosperity and freedom in the history of the western world?
The facts don’t support what our publication would have us believe.
Par. 5 – “Jehovah directed Jesus to inspect and refine the spiritual condition of his followers on earth. The prophet Malachi described this as a spiritual cleansing. (Mal. 3:1-3) History shows that this took place between 1914 and the early part of 1919. To be part of Jehovah’s universal family, we must be clean, or holy…We must keep free from any contamination by false religion or the politics of this world.”
Again, the readers are expected to simply believe these assertions—that Jesus started a prophesied cleansing of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1914 and ended it in 1919, selecting the organization under Rutherford as his chosen people. There is nothing to link Malachi’s prophecy with that year by the way, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this inspection did indeed take place then. If so, wouldn’t Jesus reject any religion which was contaminated by false worship? We say so in our fifth paragraph.
Okay, what about a religion that prominently displayed the pagan symbol of the cross as we did on every cover of Zion’s Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence? What about a religion that based its scriptural date calculations on the measurements of the Pyramids designed by pagan Egyptians? Would that make us free of “contamination by false religion”? What about a religion that, by our own admission, had failed to maintain Christian neutrality during the First World War? Could we lay claim to being “free from any contamination by…the politics of this world”? If we didn’t correct the understanding that led to this alleged political compromising until well past the supposed 1919 end of Christ’s inspection, why would Jesus chose us?
Par. 6 – “Jesus then [in 1919] used his kingly authority to appoint a “faithful and discreet slave.” The slave is there to feed the domestics. In 1918, Rutherford—the alleged 1919 slave appointee—was teaching that there would be a resurrection of the ancient men of faith in 1925 followed by the end of the great tribulation with the war of Armageddon. That hubris cost many to lose faith when the prophecy failed to come true. Would Jesus appoint a slave to feed us poisonous food? [7]
Par. 9 – “In the first century, the King-Designate…” Jesus is never referred to as “King-Designate”. Colossians 1:13 was fulfilled in the first century. Christ was the king to whom all authority had been given.[8] That he chose not to exercise his authority to the fullest extent at that time was the King’s prerogative, not because he wasn’t yet King.
Par. 12 – “In 1938, democratic elections of responsible men in the congregations were replaced by theocratic appointments.” Sounds good, but what does it mean? Since “theocratic” means “rule by God”, one thinks that the current arrangement is the way God appoints servants. This is simply not the case. The democratic election of the congregation was replaced by the democratic recommendation of the body of elders. What Rutherford did in 1938 was to take the control away from the local congregations and put it into the hands of the central authority. There is no way for the brothers in the branch to know a local brother well enough to properly apply the Bible’s criteria for servants as found in Timothy and Titus. True theocratic appointments would mean that Jehovah directs the brothers at the branch office or even locally to make the right decision. If that were the case, there would never be any appointments of individuals who truly didn’t qualify, but that is often the case as anyone who has ever served as an elder can tell you. Whether our current process is the best or not is not in dispute. That we should call it theocratic is however very much in dispute. It lays the blame for faulty appointments at the feet of God.
Par. 17 – “The thrilling events of 100 years of Kingdom rule assure us that Jehovah is in control…”
First of all, this statement unseats Jesus. Jehovah has commissioned his Son to take control of the kingdom, whether it came in 1914 or is yet to come. Why are we so intent on overlooking the King Jehovah himself has commissioned?
That aside, the entire statement is an appalling gloss-over of historic realities we’d like to forget. I do not think I am overstating things. The embarrassing failure of the “millions now living will never die” campaign and the debacle of the 1925 resurrection of the ancient worthies which saw our attendance numbers drop by over 80% from 90,000 in 1925 to 17,000 in 1928 debacle. Then there was the disheartening multiple reinterpretations of “this generation”, combined with the antics surrounding the year 1975. These and many more humiliating prophetic and procedural fiascos are all to be laid at the feet of Jehovah? He was in control?? These are the thrilling events that clutter our path over the past century like so many theological potholes.
The Graph Spanning Pages 14 and 15
To the untrained eye, the growth depicted in this graph seems impressive. In fact, what is shown is a slowing of growth. Take the 40-year period from 1920 to 1960. Going from 17,000 to 850,000 is a 50-fold period of growth. That’s 49 members in 1960 for every 1 in 1920. Now look at the next 40 years with its impressive upward slant on our graph. 850,000 becomes 6,000,000. That’s only a 7-fold growth or 6 new members for every 1 in 1960. Not so impressive when viewed this way, is it? If the 1920-1960 growth rate had held up, we would have had 42,500,000 witnesses by the end of the century. So we are slowing down and the downward trend continues into 2014.
For some interesting graphs and statistical analysis, click here. [9]
In Summary
This promises to be a particularly difficult Watchtower to sit through while restraining oneself from jumping up every other paragraph and letting loose an indignant cry of “Hold on just a minute there!”
I seriously don’t know how I’m going to manage.
[1] 1 Timothy 1:17; Revelation 15:3; 11:17; 19:6,7
[2] A tip of the hat to Bobcat for this information.
[3] From Studies in the Scriptures IV: A “generation” might be reckoned as equivalent to a century (practically the present limit) or one hundred and twenty years, Moses’ lifetime and the Scripture limit. (Gen. 6:3.) Reckoning a hundred years from 1780, the date of the first sign, the limit would reach to 1880; and to our understanding every item predicted had begun to be fulfilled at that date; the harvest of gathering time beginning October 1874; the organization of the Kingdom and the taking by our Lord of his great power as the King in April 1878, and the time of trouble or “day of wrath” which began October 1874, and will cease about 1915; and the sprouting of the fig tree. Those who choose might without inconsistency say that the century or generation might as properly reckon from the last sign, the falling of the stars, as from the first, the darkening of the sun and moon: and a century beginning 1833 would be still far from run out. Many are living who witnessed the star-falling sign. Those who are walking with us in the light of present truth are not looking for things to come which are already here, but are waiting for the consummation of matters already in progress. Or, since the Master said, “When ye shall see all these things,” and since “the sign of the Son of Man in heaven,” and the budding fig tree, and the gathering of “the elect” are counted among the signs, it would not be inconsistent to reckon the “generation” from 1878 to 1914–36 1/2 years– about the average of human life today.
[4] For a detailed explanation see “Wars and Reports of Wars—A Red Herring?"
[5] Daniel 10:13
[6] See comments 1 and 2
[7] See a series of articles under the topic, “Identifying the Slave”.
[8] Matthew 28:18
[9] Thanks to menrov for this information.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Sargon on 2014-03-10 22:17:41
I may have to skip this watchtower. Not because it's upsetting, but because I can't bear seeing my brothers consume this self serving spiritual junk food. We are worshiping the organization. At the same time we are not being truthful about our past. The true religion should have nothing to hide.
Reply by KeepOnSeeking on 2014-03-10 23:37:25
Certainly will be a difficult study to sit through. Our Circuit Overseer will be in the hall this weekend, so not quite as easy for me to skip.
Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-11 00:36:35
At least you will have an abbreviated study:) Soaking up the reading of the paragraphs will be the worst part for me
Comment by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-10 22:38:09
This Watchtower is full of delusions. What does the Kingdom rule of Christ have to do with JW history? Why can't we focus on the Bible and Christ?
I'm afraid we are stuck with this 1914 teaching. Its a milestone around our neck. I find it very hard to believe that the writers believe Christ was enthroned in 1914 .
I'm going to have to pray through this WT study.
Comment by search4truth on 2014-03-10 22:58:51
This Wt spiritual food at the proper time is really something difficult to swallow. The worst thing is that my kids and my wife have to sit through this indoctrination session feeding on this timely food and then I have to work really hard to show them that they indeed ate garbage without being accused of apostasy. I'm getting tired of playing this game with some self appointed people from New York. Why they don't leave us alone. I have nothing against my brothers or my congregation in fact I am happy there and I love them. I just can't stand how easily many of us accepted man to interpret God's word for them.
Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-11 00:54:33
Search4truth I agree.
My child reminds me so much of myself at her age. She asked me a weighty scriptural question as a result of my studies with her .She then went to the hall the other day and whispered during the mtg " Mom I did have another question to ask you but I heard the answer from the man on the stage". (she's very young). Under normal circumstances I would be elated that she is finally listening to the the talks but I was horrified when she said that. Thankfully her question was only about why we should go to the hall( no false doctrine).
I was agitated the entire meeting. I've been praying all week about that. Training (indoctrination) begins from infancy. My goal is to put love of God and neighbor in her heart along with a depth of scriptural knowledge. I won't give the Org my child like my parents did.(they didn't know better). The choice will be hers.Reply by search4truth on 2014-03-11 03:48:32
GodWordisTruth I agree. I have Bible study with my teens but I'm not using "bible based literature " any more. I do my best to instill the love of God and christian values in them. If they will decide to accept real Bible message it may be potentially dangerous and confusing road for them due the the fact that they likely lose all social contacts in the congragation. Also I don't encourage them to get baptise as I am more and more opposed to the idea of one being babtised into Org and having the judicial committe threating them with Df's for their lapses or dissent.
Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-11 10:24:39
Same here!
My husband and I had a heated discussion regarding this subject. While I of course share his sentiments regarding baptism if the JW baptism did not come with automatic enrollment in the organisation (sounds like a company sales pitch , doesn't it?) I would be all for it.
I use the Bible as the primary source of study with my kids. I only use articles or chapters of publications that doesn't bother my conscience. I find myself heavily scrutinizing any article I decide to present to my children and if there's even a hint of falsehood I won't use it .
I have to strike a balance so as not to offend my Husband but at the same time I'm not giving my kids something I won't "eat" myself.
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-12 19:18:12
I'm continuing to be amazed, how so many of us that visit and comment on this blog are reaching the same challenges and conclusions around the same time.
Your worries about your daughter mirror my own. When I first felt a bit 'shaken' I worried an awful lot about the job of keeping my family together, while still making it clear I would not be listening to men over my conscience - as you said some "heated" debates.
The product of being completely convinced while growing up that someone else has worked hard to give you the gift of truth - truth that it would be disloyal to question (because there is no good reason to question it) - seems to be feeling more and more apathetic and disconnected as time passes by and not understanding why. I may have always been pretty rubbish, but felt I had a good grounding in the scriptures, had been taught how to spend lots of time doing all the right things and that I had made it my own by getting baptised. Indoctrination aside, the truth is that the ties to this way of life and community are strong and heavily binding even for someone as antisocial as me.
However, if I stay the course, I will be making sure my daughter understands from the scriptures how much I believe in Jesus as our savior and in the scriptures. The organisation has produced some good tools, but this is the information age. You can learn so much and it is so much more challenging and enjoyable when you can widen your net. Perhaps naive to hope she will skip any need to deviate during her early years, but I do hope she can skip some of the more useless and damaging experiences. Hopefully, all being well, my daughter will hold on to Christian values, ask me some questions and at least remember the basics.
That's one good thing about being raised a JW, you really do get to know your bible back to front compared with most people. It doesn't matter whether you believe it, or get baptised, or even if the understanding is accurate, or even if you were really listening, because the chances are that a lot of it is always bouncing around up there somewhere.
Whats amazing me, is that I was just thinking about this issue of baptism during the last week and here we are talking about it after reaching some conclusions. It has joined the list of worries for me over the past months. I became content that my own baptism is valid, but I wasn't sure how to offer options to my daughter when she is old enough. Eventually the answer came to me and I was literally kicking myself when it did - I can surely baptise her myself if needs be?
An example of another thing unlearned I think! :)Reply by menrov on 2014-03-13 08:12:31
Joel, I have similar experiences like you when discussing certain doctrines in light of what the bible really says. I often get to hear, in particular when they feel the arguments provided make sense: "When it is wrong, Jehovah will correct it in due course"
Well, my answer is in those cases, Why would He do that? Why would he allow to have mistakes or incorrect or simply wrong views printed in the first place.
I have never read that any of the profets or Paul or Peter to come back on one of their statements in their letters or profecies like "Oh, sorry, I know I told you before x, y and z but now I am telling you a, b and c."
And then...it is quiet...Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-13 10:30:05
Merov-
“Well, my answer is in those cases, Why would He do that? Why would he allow to have mistakes or incorrect or simply wrong views printed in the first place.”
I believe that Jesus is allowing in the Christian congregation as a whole. I have thought about those questions for many months now. I do not feel that in “waiting on Jehovah” that we will see any doctrinal changes. He is not going to straighten out the 144,000 or 1914 doctrine no more than he is going to straighten out any other doctrines ( immortality of the soul, hellfire , purgatory etc.)
When we are told to “wait on Jehovah “ It really means wait on the governing body.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-13 10:42:34
I agree, GodsWordIsTruth. When some speak of the hope the organization comes around or that Jehovah acts to correct things, I think of Jesus' words, that you cannot sew a new patch on an old garment and you cannot put new wine in old wineskins.
Reply by menrov on 2014-03-13 11:27:22
Hi, yes, I do not see that Jehovah nor Jesus have actively acted these days to correct or remove wrong or false doctrines. Honest people might correct their views when they realize that their understanding was wrong. I do believe though that in individual cases, Jesus and/or Jehovah can help someone to gain better knowledge. But that will happen when that person has the right heart condition to ask for that help. And I believe that such a person would not be involved (lead, run) religious organisations, but would be a modest individual. Like the many portrait in the bible.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-13 11:35:36
We are in agreement, menrov.
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-13 12:31:58
Amen!
Reply by umbertoecho on 2014-03-13 20:21:16
You can make a career out of waiting you know.
Reply by umbertoecho on 2014-03-13 20:15:41
Hello Joel,
I am facing a problem with the baptism as I balked at being affiliated as a part of the organization. It seemed so out of whack, so very non biblical.
This is why I did not go through with it. So very glad to hear your conclusion about baptism and your own child. It actually sounds more loving and deeply spiritual. I do so wish that I could find some way to get baptized, for I know myself well enough to be certain that I will open my big mouth up at that "question" and blow it all. Maybe I already have.
Good thoughts to youReply by Joel on 2014-03-16 20:29:03
I understand your dilemma around the organisational baptism and I would like to help you if I can, but in the case of our organisation, I doubt there is an easy solution. Please do not take what I say as advice/suggestions on a course of action, because it may not be right for you, but I can try to imagine what I might do in your situation. You've likely considered it at length already, but maybe hearing it from someone else is useful?
There are a lot of questions to trawl through before you even get to the pool and a lot of them may cause you issues if you cannot answer truthfully during your "approval process".
Personally, I think it would be tricky, but not impossible to arrange my baptism through the congregation, by modifying the route a little.
I would probably have dwelt on this a while and if I remained resolved to get baptised and the feeling was urgent, I would summon the courage, no doubt after having prayed a lot about it and I would go directly to an elder in my congregation before/after one of the meetings (i.e. off guard and in public). I would go to whichever man I felt most comfortable with at first, the most approachable, humble, honest , genuine and down to earth person available to me. There is usually at least one man who can be reasoned with - usually. I would then ask him in a low-key manner for a private one-on-one meeting to discuss something I am struggling with. Once in private, I would outline to the elder, that I wish to get baptised, but I have been unsable because I have some issues with the baptism procedure (i.e. questions) and I have decided I would like the elders in the congregation to accomodate my scriptural wish to get baptised without the approval process. I would be asked why and my first response would probably be "personal reasons", my second would be that I did not feel I could answer some of the questions and my third would be that the process doesn't feel right and is unscriptural. I would be bound to face many questions from the elders for sure, but at the end of the day, organisational procedures around baptism ARE unscriptural and it is easy to prove as far as I'm concerned, but certainly easy to sow doubt and support good reasons for a person wishing to simply get baptised. All they would really need to know is that it conflicts with my conscience, or that it is my wish - the rest is irrelevant. I am certain that this could be reasoned out to allow a person to be approved as a candidate for baptism. The first hurdles may be difficult and phrases such as "are you men actually going to prevent me from getting baptised contrary to the direction given by our Lord and the scriptures?" would no doubt need to be inserted into the conversations. but in the end I think they would have to relent or they are potentially a cause for stumbling - I might also tell them that if they were refusing to help.
I would see 2 possible outcomes to this imaginary scenario in order of likelihood - 1) a compromise - both parties agree to going through the questions in order to fulfill the organisations requirements, but with the understanding that I will "pass" on some of the questions. 2) agreement to bypass the questions altogether.
When I got to the baptism day, I would then stand to be counted at the convention, or wherever the baptism venue/situation happened to be and I would answer the first question and then keep my mouth shut for the second. I think that would more than satisfy my conscience.
Another hope might be, perhaps in the future, to find someone, a genuine Christian, either in or out of the organisation who is happy to simply baptise you.
Different persons will deal with these problems in different ways. I hope you find an answer that works for you, because baptism is very important. Please don't be discouraged and give it careful thought!
Reply by search4truth on 2014-03-14 09:29:13
Joel - I was literally kicking myself when it did – I can surely baptise her myself if needs be?" Matt 28:19 - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," . Maybe I'm wrong but I believe any Christian can babtize other person in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Can't find any support in the Bible for organization to make any strict rules around it.
Reply by menrov on 2014-03-14 10:19:59
I was thinking about this as well and even said to my wife. If the verse in Matt. is used to motivate all of us to preach, then we are also all entitled to baptize, right??
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-14 10:49:54
Menrov-
I don't see why you could not. The disciples baptized others ( John 4:2)Reply by menrov on 2014-03-14 10:54:21
True, Jon 4.2 indicates His disciples were, so if we are considered disciples, we indeed are allowed to baptize and is not the exclusive right of an organisation nor up to their judgement.
hahahah....I can only imagine the reactions if this conclusion was discussed in the congregation.
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-14 11:26:51
And if you want it strictly scriptural, wait till your kids are 30. Only then are they truly bar mitzvah'd (since Jesus also waited that long)
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-14 11:42:58
Well exactly. I suppose in the organisation you (as a child) always have the worry that it is just abou time to make a decision, etc. Its certainly not a wrong decision to get baptised in any sense, but the full meaning of it perhaps not quite there. Perhaps for some very mature and settled teenagers it is perfectly fine. But I think by the time you reach 25 you are a completely different person with far more perspective. I'm certainly glad I didn't get married until after 25.
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-14 11:36:17
Yes of course, hence the kicking myself.
I have never considered baptising someone outside the organisation, because I was a teenager when baptised and always expected someone would be there to do it.
I now believe the baptism questions and policies leading up to baptism are unscriptural, so my view has changed.
Maybe I should just say that my "worry" surrounding it disappeared.
Reply by Samaritan Woman on 2014-03-11 11:12:34
Thankfully my husband was a convert and came in "eyes wide open" and we have had the same discussion regarding baptism and children. I was baptised at 15 , him at 41, there is alot of life that goes on between those ages and thankfully we are on the same page. If i wouldn"t let my child get married at 15 I sure wont be encouraging them to get baptized either.
Reply by menrov on 2014-03-11 12:45:46
Hi Samaritan Woman, excellent point, if we do not allow our children to get married at 12 (that is the age the WT recommends youngsters to get baptized), one should never support baptism at that age.
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-12 19:29:04
" I have to work really hard to show them that they indeed ate garbage without being accused of apostasy."
2nd that. Navigating the maze is tricky and their are walls everywhere. In cases where you have come to a different understanding through study, you can think that you have really laid it out in a very logical way, but for every scripture that conflicts with established understanding, there comes the inevitable "yes, but is it really all that important anyway?"
If you counter with the question "if it isn't important, then why is it printed on that page you are reading?" it is probably met with "well, it is one way to look at it and if it is in there it is most probably right".
I think I have encountered that loop at some point in almost every doctrinal conversation including the interpretation of "came to life" in the reasoning book school study item this week, for example.
Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-03-10 23:07:59
The question raised is very appropriate. All of the JW are "affected". If only we could answer truthfully on just how much it has affected us.
Comment by Katrina on 2014-03-11 01:28:41
I get so frustrated with articles like these that deliberately avoid be honest, do they consider the many older ones that really know different?
It seems they are only concerned with the younger generations of JW an new recruits, the dumming down is sickening, and I for one feel that they are so disrespectful on any b/s that do have a good understanding of the WT history according to their own publications, and the inconsistancies and out right hypocrisy of these articles, makes on want to just walk out.
While many are hoodwinked and others are just siting there saying nothing knowing full well the GB have black mail over their heads if they dare say a peep, lose of family, work some the only life they have known.
It appears to me that the WT is no better than those that Jesus condemned for putting the traditions of men over the truth from Gods word.
Even more alarming is the blatant disregard for Jehovah's appointment of his precious Son as king, all authority has been given to the Son, this is Jehovah's way his wish, Christ is the one that died for mankind, not the GB nor any other authoritative figure, its as if the GB are taking a stand against Gods arrangement, and sometimes I think they fear giving to much importance to Christ, the old trinity scare comes into mind.
The fact that they feel they have already been chosen and chastised and blessed makes it easy for anyone to over look any wrongs made, she'll be right mate!
There is so much more that can be said about these rehashed articles, that seem to be coming out more because of the 100 yr anniversary, its like they are trying to convince with words, rather than any bases scriptualy and covering over the real history shows just how far the WT will go to keep the 1914 lie alive.
Makes me wonder if they believe what they say, I doubt they do.
Comment by JB on 2014-03-11 02:31:45
I wasn't able to attend any meeting for last 4-5 weeks, but I remember one study where it was said that we should obey elders, etc even if the recommendations would appear strategically or humanely "strange" (or something like that). I'll go and check the analysis (and comments) on that article.
One thing I remember that, when this part was read, a sister in the Kingdom Hall commented : "Yes, we should follow BLINDLY". I was shocked to hear this.
If this is the spiritual food, I'm sorry to say, that makes the Kingdom Halls spiritual Mc Donald's ... Too much junk food would destroy the body so I hope that much junk spiritual food doesn't destroy spirits.
These brothers and sisters, in those KH's deserve better, and above all, more Christian love.
Such articles are made with no intention of "feeding" people spiritually. It's just about keeping control on them;
As for whether they believe what they say on this article or not ... maybe back in time, they also belived in this, but to me it appears clearly that they don't believe what they say here themselves.
Comment by menrov on 2014-03-11 02:50:56
For some statistics over the past years with nice graphs: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php
Comment by menrov on 2014-03-11 05:10:19
I have read the article and I can only say I agree with the analysis by Meleti and comments already made on this article by all of you. The last study article contains an item on the GENERATION. Conclusion: not all elected (anointed) are part of the generation that Jesus mentioned....another twist to avoid difficult questions around their many interpretations about the generation. Eph 6:4 says Fathers, do not irritate your children.
This text was often used to indicate we should teach our children in a consistent way. It is close to impossible to apply this approach when teaching people about the meaning of Generation if we use the many views of WT on this item......Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-03-11 06:00:26
I'd like to see a watchtower cover these questions sometime:
1. Prove, only using your Bible, that Jesus talked about a generation that would live between +-1894 and +-1974.
2. Prove, only using your Bible, that furthermore, this generation would only include members of a select group of Bible Students who later also accepted the name JW for themselves.
3. Prove, only using the Bible, that Jesus inspected this generation between 1914 and 1919. And prove the Faithful slave is part of that generation.
4. Prove, only using the Bible, that the faithful slave is literal, but that the evil slave is symbolic and thus just a warning of something impossible to occur.
5. Prove, only using the Bible, that there is a second generation that will not pass away, that this second generation will outlive the first generation, and that this first generation which would not pass away will have passed away at the Lords return.
List can continue.
I was lied to when I got baptized as a pre-teenager child. I believed I joined a religion which based all it's teaching only on the Bible. This is bait and switch.Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-03-11 13:01:32
By eliminating the idea of an evil Slave the faithful and discreet slave has put themselves in a very bad situation in my opinion. It's funny how much that sounds like Calvinistic thinking. God for-knew that the Slave would be good when he selected them, so they WILL be faithful.
The bait and switch is legendary. They start you off in the teach book Jehovah is your father (but not YET as you will find out if you ever get spiritually mature enough). We have no doctrines (but instead, everything we teach is dogma made by 8 men). I could go on and on...
The sad thing is, a lot of people were so happy to learn the name of God, or that the dead would be resurrected, that that pearl was so GREAT for them they would listen to anything else. They use the beautiful biblical truths and then add falsehoods on top..
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-11 06:01:31
Thank you again, Meleti for stirring the pot of growing controversy! You are fortunate to have your wife edit your material. It's a labour of love in many ways.
Me? I’m a man in the wilderness since there are none in my family (wife or children) who are NOT fine upstanding 'letter-of-the-law' Jehovah’s Witnesses.
As you suggest, Par. 3 is flagrantly deceitful in saying, “Toward the end of the 19th century, light began to shine on a 2,500-year-old prophecy…”
Has anyone read the Feb15, 2014 Questions from Readers?—“What reasons did Jews in the first century have for being ‘in expectation’ of the Messiah?” I’ll quote what it says:
“The fact is that there were many conflicting interpretations of the 70 weeks in Jesus’ day, and none come close to our present understanding.” It further concludes: “If the apostles and other early Christians had correctly understood the prophecy about the 70 weeks, we would expect them to have mentioned the prophecy as proof that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and that he had arrived on time. But there is no evidence that the early Christians did so,” and while “Gospel writers often mentioned prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures . . . none of them wrote that the prophecy of the 70 weeks had anything to do with Jesus Christ.”
Having this article in hand to prove that the inspired writers made no mention of Jesus first arrival, how can we in good conscience say we know so precisely Jesus second arrival according to the 7 times of Daniel 4:16-32?
swReply by gogetter60 on 2014-03-11 07:22:25
This is an article that reminds me that although I am mentally out of the "cell" I'm still locked in the prison. The prison guards names are "Apostate" and Disfellowship" and they are mighty and vigilant.
When we compare all of the true history of this organization ( of which has been recorded in writing by the same organization for all to see) with the scriptures and especially articles like this, we should be in awe of the audacity of the GB and the ingenious system of control all witnesses are under.
They are fully aware that their revisionist history is easily challenged and can be brought to light through the pages of all the past publications and yet can do this with impunity, not even fearing their professed Lord and Master.
We will all sit through this study and the many more like it to come, and they know we are there but we will remain silent because they have our friends and families hostage.
Thank the Creator of the universe for this site and others that allow the "prisoners" a place to congregate! (and vent)
Peace be upon us all as we fill a seat at the KH during this watchtower study.
Comment by kev c on 2014-03-11 07:14:33
To be fair meleti this point about one of the chief princes has to be taken in context daniel 10 v 13 speaks also of the prince of persia and verse 20 also speaks of the prince of greece and michael according to verse 21 seems to be the prince of israel and it more than likely is the angel gabriel that is holding with him .could it be that the bible is merely referencing michael in relation to the other even demonic princes of the nations .although i dont think michael is jesus either hebrews chapter 1 seems clear enough on this point to me kev
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-11 08:34:01
A interesting viewpoint. It could well be. It's not clear who made up the group of foremost princes. My point was that whatever the makeup, it is a group of equals, which would seem to exclude the Word as being part of it. Unfortunately, there are so many inaccurate statements being made in this week's Watchtower that to properly address them all would be impossible. Fortunately, we now have a fair bit of reference material of our own to point to. The question of whether Michael is Jesus would make a good topic for our discussion forum, currently in limited roll-out.
Reply by Anonymous on 2014-03-11 10:53:31
Michael could simply be the archangel through which Jesus acts. That would explain texts that show Michael engaging in prominent actions that would be associated with Jesus' authority.
For example Thessalonians speak of Jesus having God's trumpet and an archangels voice. We don't reason that Jesus is God because of his having God's trumpet, do we? So why reason that his having an archangel's voice proves that he's an archangel? Furthermore, if he really is an archangel, then why even mention that he has an archangel's voice? It seems ridiculously superfluous to mention such an obvious and irrelevant detail.
I get the impression that the reference to Jesus having God's trumpet and an archangel's voice is really meant to emphasize the great commanding authority with which he will act. He has God's own trumpet at his disposal and the command of God's chief angels - he's at the top of the chain of command with God/below God. His calling forth the dead with an archangel's voice could simply be a concise way of alluding to him using an archangel as his medium for calling forth the dead, even as Jehovah used Jesus to call forth Lazarus. Jesus is an exalted king is he not? Like Jehovah, he does not have to act directly, he can simply act through archangels.
Comment by JB on 2014-03-11 10:11:02
I took a moment to read the last article of that issue where "this generation" is explained. I'll be definitely looking forward towards the analysis of that article !
Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-11 10:16:45
Meleti, thanks for the review of the WT Study in advance. Truthfully, I have come to avoid much of the Society's literature as so much indoctination. But I usually study the WT lesson with an eye on keeping my critical thinking skills sharp and testing out beliefs I have come to have that are now contrary to WT dogma. I'm probably one of the most well-studied in my KH for each lesson. But as others have also mentioned above, I usually have to bite my tongue for the whole meeting. I like the comment above, expressing the idea that endurance builds character.
The 'Seven times=2520 years' idea seems to have originated with John Aquila Brown in a 33 page tractate entitled "The Even-Tide." (1823; At the least, this is the earliest published that I know of for the idea.) It should be easily found online as a PDF. I have a copy on my HD.
Thanks again, very much, for the review.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-11 10:53:09
Thanks for that information, Bobcat. Could you please send me a copy of that tractate?:
I'm putting a reference to your comment into the post.Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-11 11:34:28
I would be happy to. I guess I use the "Contact us" at the top of the page(?). If not, you might have to point me to which e-mail address to use.
I posted some research on "the last days" referenced in the article here:
http://meletivivlon.com/2012/07/13/the-last-days-revisited/#comment-9643
Thanks again for the review of the article.Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-11 11:38:52
Re: The Even-Tide:
Even better - Here is direct address to the PDF for any who wish to have it. Simply let it load and then save it to your HD:
http://www.a2z.org/wtarchive/docs/1823_Even-Tide_Gentile_Times.pdf
Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-12 10:00:13
Since the WT article being discussed features the idea of "the last days," and the WT equates "the last days" with "the conclusion of the system of things," I posted a survey of verses employing that phrase here:
http://meletivivlon.com/2012/07/13/the-last-days-revisited/#comment-9691
Comment by BeenMislead on 2014-03-11 10:57:13
In paragraph 8 they say:
“By 1919, the “good news of the Kingdom” had taken on added meaning. (Matt. 24:14) The King was ruling in heaven, and he had gathered a small group of cleansed earthly subjects.”
Would a “cleansed” group be preaching false hoods?
Also they love to reference the 1922 convention in Cedar Point Ohio. But are very selective in quoting what Rutherford said at it. He also said “millions now living will never die”. And that Jesus was present in 1874.
Here is what he said before saying “advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom”.
“Thus we see that those of the temple class are clearly designated as the Lord's witnesses at this time, to bring a message of consolation to the people, that the Kingdom of heaven is here, and that millions now living will never die. Thus it is seen that God purposes that his name shall be magnified, that the people shall know that he is Lord. Thus we see that God purposes to have a people in the earth in this time of stress, clearly marked as separate and distinct from all others, standing as his witnesses, fearlessly crying out the message: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand!" ...
Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign?
Then back to the field, O ye sons of the most high God! Gird on your armor! Be sober, be vigilant, be active, be brave. Be faithful and true witnesses for the Lord. Go forward in the fight until every vestige of Babylon lies desolate. Herald the message far and wide. The world must know that Jehovah is God and that Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. This is the day of all days. Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom.” – (Jehovah’s Witness in the Divine Purpose, pg .101- 102, published in 1959)Reply by menrov on 2014-03-11 12:54:43
Amazing. The good point is, at least he was honouring Jesus as being the KING.
Comment by Samaritan Woman on 2014-03-11 11:01:17
I couldn’t get past the title of this article without rolling my eyes and sighing in frustration. It reminded me of a conversation that I had at a party in 2013. The middle aged brother, after talking about his sons’ recent wedding stated that he was excited about next year. Naturally people asked why and he remarked that it was 2014 and it would be 100 years since 1914 and surely something important must happen. The rest of the party commented that we should be vigilant and agreed that yes, something must happen. I avoided commenting until I was asked directly what I thought. I had a knot in my stomach but responded that it is not the place of people to attempt to direct or teach in a way we think God should but let the bible alone speak and direct our thoughts. As you might imagine this did not go over well, especially with me being the youngest person there. It is amazing to me how much I let other people think for me, a fact I could only see when I threw off the weights of the Organization.
Regarding the article, I can’t get out of my mind Revelation 20: 1-3 “And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. He seized the dragon, the original serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for 1,000 years. And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not mislead the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended. After this he must be released for a little while.”
This is a major event that marks the rule of Jesus Christ, yet to my incomplete knowledge, has not happened. It then follows that his rule has not yet started. It’s going to be a long watchtower study..Reply by menrov on 2014-03-11 12:51:41
I am not that young anymore (49 ... I feel old...) but I feel I am treated like a child, that is not able to think for himself and is not able to understand the bible without the guidance of the WT. I am not going to say I know all, and I am far from perfect but I have been given a good set of brains (talent) and I am quite strong in analyzng things. Not sure why say this but felt like shring his as it seems in line with your statements above.
Reply by Samaritan Woman on 2014-03-11 14:59:53
I was 35 at the time Menrov so no worries there.
Comment by Anonymous on 2014-03-11 11:16:40
What I find odd is that the organization teaches that Jesus took up kingship in 33 CE - kingship over the christian congregation, "the Kingdom of the son of his love". They take care to differentiate this kingdom from the messianic kingdom set up in 1914. But when this article highlights the benefits of the rule of the messianic kingdom, all it speaks about is refinements of the global congregation of Jehovah's witnesses - the kingdom of the son of his love, the congregation kingdom. They are pointing to events confined to Jesus' kingship over his congregation as benefits of the messianic kingdom. Shouldn't we be seeing the doings of the messianic kingdom outside of the congregation kingdom? If all the doings of the messianic kingdom is so far limited to the realm of the congregation kingdom then can't we just as easily attribute them to the congregation kingdom instead of the messianic kingdom? What evidence is there of the doing of the messianic kingdom that does not fall within the realm of the congregation kingdom?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-11 11:32:00
What an excellent piece of insight. Thank you so much for sharing with with us.
Comment by kev c on 2014-03-11 12:40:41
Yes ive been thinking on the same lines as well the fact is in a way jesus has been invisibly present with christians since 33ce anyway matthew 28 v 19 and 20 and he said that would be the case until the conclusion of the system of things .Now hes returned in 1914 also invisibibly To organise a preaching work when he said he was with them in the preaching work anyway until the end .I cant seem to get my head around this watchtower Perhaps faith can be blind after all kev
Comment by umbertoecho on 2014-03-11 22:02:40
Thank you for this summary Meleti
Beautifully written as usual with no repetitive mind numbing assertions.
I love these articles of yours.
Why is it that this religion is so "opposed" to the true authority given to Jesus Christ by his (and our) Father?
I do become very afraid when I see how diminished Jesus Christ has been made through WT publications. When I spoke with a fellow witness lady yesterday about conforming to Christ's command to love and be kind to one another.........all I got was a blank stare. She did not like what I said for some reason, but could not find the words or perhaps she could not collate her thoughts well enough; to express why she didn't like my reference. I could see her confusion and therefore.........her instinctive rejection of my praise for, the Son of God...
This is how bad it has become in this religion, so bad that I was told not long ago, that to mention Jesus more than Jehovah constituted worshiping "the wrong god". I was merely defending the role of Jesus Christ by pointing out that he had succeeded where every other living created being had failed in turning Satan away....I was warned that I was on the point of glorifying Jesus to a status above Jehovah. I could have gone on with my limited but clear proofs from the bible, but felt I would estrange my sister forever from me........Reply by menrov on 2014-03-12 03:35:20
Hi Umbertoecho, I am asking myself the same question. I guess it all started when the name Jehovah's witnesses was introduced. With that name, it is implied we all are providing witnesss by guidance of Jehovah and as such, the organization gave themselves the role of "intermediair" between the witnesses and Jehovah. Most peculiar of course if you follow what is written about the role of Jesus. Anyway,bottom line, I guess it is their drive to be different from the other Christian denominations, at all costs.
I had a similar experience. A lady we know since she was young is havng serious marital problems (married to a JW as well but she feels she has been mentally abused) and after 14 years of marriage she has finally left the house to recuperate. Not an easy decision but at the time really the best.
When I tried to comfort her and gave various examples on how Jesus treated the people around him, she said: I have never considered that, I never think about Jesus. For me it is always Jehovah.
I guess i have a bumpy road ahead of me as I do not think I will be able to continue to keep silent when incorrect teachings are discussed or promoted.Reply by umbertoecho on 2014-03-13 19:57:20
Menrov.
Hello and thank you for your response to my comment. I have just posted a situation whereby my own sister has left her husband after over forty years of marriage. They are devout in their beliefs, but have missed out on the fine points that Jesus came to teach us by word and example. She said the same thing you mentioned above, however she really went to town on "Christendom" There was something very ironic to her little diatribe, as I sat spell bound (oops) by her fierceness. It seemed as though she was very insecure about her faith by the way she attacked me for my faith in God's Son. How very odd this religion has become of late.
Take care and hear from you again I hope
Comment by Sargon on 2014-03-12 08:54:40
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this series of articles is a prelude to the destruction of the 1914 teaching regarding Jesus presence. It is not theologically acceptable to say that Christ's presence began in 1914. As has been demonstrated even on this site, the 1914 teaching of Christ presence is untenable. So we will quietly drop that teaching and instead mark 1914 as the beginning of Christ rule from heaven. Other events associated with Christs presence will be pushed into the future as we will see in coming articles, and as we have already seen with the new FDS teaching.
So what will we teach happened in 1914? Nothing that can be disputed with scripture. We will now teach that Jesus became "king" by casting out Satan even though we say Jesus was already ruling the congregation since 33 CE. We will point to secular evidence (WW1) as our proof. Since the casting out of Satan is mentioned only in Revelation and is open to interpretation, we can use this event to be the new 1914 marker instead of the beginning of Christ's invisible presence which we know is a lie.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-12 10:15:00
I think you're on to something here. The fact that they make no mention of Christ's presence in the RNWT Appendix B1 adds support to the idea that they are preparing to revise this teaching. They have to keep 1914 and particularly 1919 since the foundation for their authority--their alleged divine selection--stems from that. So if they move the presence forward but leave the "inspection" where it is, they can have their cake and eat it too.
Reply by umbertoecho on 2014-03-13 20:03:07
I like cake. Do you?
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-14 10:57:45
Well as I recall while I sat through the AGM in the fall, it was explained that they've only been appointed faithful and discreet in 1919 with final approval pending Christ's next return. So maybe there's 3 returns of Christ in total, but then how is the R&F to know anything for sure if they keep changing the mind of Christ?
swReply by menrov on 2014-03-14 10:59:36
R&F ?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-14 11:27:47
Rank and File.
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-14 11:34:47
Sorry menrov,
"R&F" = rank and file. As much as I hate acronyms too, I would really like an onboard acronym dictionary.
Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-12 10:47:15
Sargon:
>> Since the casting out of Satan is mentioned only in Revelation and is open to interpretation . . .
I added additional non-Revelation material pertaining to this thought here:
http://meletivivlon.com/2014/03/03/wt-study-worship-jehovah-the-king-of-eternity/#comment-9509
(See about a third to halfway down the post.)
Reply by Bobcat on 2014-03-14 10:07:51
Just to add to my post immediately above in reference to non-Revelation evidence that Satan was cast out of heaven shortly after Jesus' ascension:
(John 16:7-11) . . .Nevertheless, I am telling YOU the truth, It is for YOUR benefit I am going away. For if I do not go away, the helper will by no means come to YOU; but if I do go my way, I will send him to YOU. 8 And when that one arrives he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 in the first place, concerning sin, because they are not exercising faith in me; 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and YOU will behold me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
Verse 11 is the verse of interest. But I included from verse 7 for context. The verb "has been judged" is "perfect," a completed action. Alternate renderings of the verse at BibleHub bring this out also. Although this is indirect evidence, it would make plain why Jesus would say in John 12:31, "now the ruler of this world will be cast out." There was no reason to let him remain for another 1900 years.
Comment by brendaevans32b on 2014-03-12 13:04:19
I am wondering where the 20 years have got to. In the study, it mentions the 2,500 year prophecy - still pointing to 1914 as the year when Satan is cast down. I also note that the most recent year the organisation uses is, correct me if I am wrong, as being 589 BCE and not 607 BCE. My thoughts linger back to a conversation I had with the lass I have Bible Study with, oooh so many years ago now, that could she explain how they got to 1914.
The reply was following from 607BCE, add the 2520 years, plus 1 for the year when Jesus was born, and voila, 1914. Being 1260 days doubled up (something to do with 3 1/2 times mentioned in the Bible, 3 1/2 being half of 7 - therefore double up).
I had to calculate and recalculate - just to make sure the brain is not deceiving me - and if you take the year of 587 BCE (one of the years mentioned for the fall of Jerusalem), then add your 2500 plus 1, then we arrive at 1914.
The problem I have with it, is what has happened to the 20 years dutifully recorded in the Bible? This is the Word of God, and for me, to curtail or amend the information that has been imparted to us from Jehovah is not the done thing.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Or barking mad? I have a Bible Study with her and her husband tomorrow (in an attempt to put me right about where the right to call themselves 'The Faithful and Discreet Slave' and the 7 Shepherds, 8 Dukes (I am still on that one!)
I am looking forward to the answers.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-12 13:20:11
I think they say 2,500 years just for rounding purposes. They are being vague and generalizing about everything. The more specific they get the more they have to prove, which they don't want to. So they just generalize and make unsupported statements which the vast majority swallow down with nary a hiccup.
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-13 12:17:17
Not to mention calling into question their own October and November 2011 public edition Watchtowers - "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?"
It's all about "us" and "them" .... "us" being the enlightened few and "them" being the rest of the world ruled by the devil. Divide and conquer has more to do with psychological warfare than allowing logic to take its shortest journey to the truth. Ask anyone why those two articles weren't printed in study editions.
Comment by Nick O. on 2014-03-13 20:28:02
Yes we might ask the question. What has the messianic kingdom done that the "kingdom of the son of his love" has not done since 33CE?
Interestingly enough the RNWT renders this verse a the "kingdom of his beloved son". It seems as though this revised wording is a little more difficult to use as a title (the Watchtower conductor asked what this special kingdom is called - looking for an audience member to use the phrase as a title). Though not likely, could this change in phrase be a backdoor for a future 1914 phaseout?
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-17 16:12:52
Well Meleti, as you said: "I seriously don’t know how I’m going to manage" this study but you managed as did we. It truly was a 'double-think' lesson that froze any seriously crafted comment into a 100 year glacier turned blue for more reasons than the lack of oxygen.