[From ws 06/19 p.2 –August 5 – August 11]
“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition.” – Col. 2:8
Before beginning our review of this week‘s article, let us consider the theme text in greater detail.
The letter was written by Paul in Rome to the Colossians.
In verse 4 and 8 of the second chapter Paul says the following:
“I am saying this so that no one may delude you with persuasive arguments.”
“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;”
What is Paul warning the Colossians about?
According to Strong’s Concordance:
- Philosophy - From “philosophos”; 'philosophy', i.e., Jewish sophistry
- Empty Deception - Deceit, deception, deceitfulness, delusion. From the word “apatao” meaning delusion.
- Human tradition - An instruction, tradition from the word “paradidomi”, specially, the Jewish traditionary law
- Elementary things or rudiments of the world - constituent, proposition of the world
It’s clear that Paul is warning against the Colossians being taken captive and deceived by well-crafted arguments that are based on Jewish or worldly philosophies, human and more specifically Jewish tradition and well-crafted arguments that are based on worldly elements and teachings that are not according to Christ.
Logically then, based on the theme text, one would expect that we will learn about how to avoid being captured by human philosophy, human traditions or any other enticing reasoning that is based on elements of this world.
What though is the focus of this week’s Watchtower article?
“In this article, we will discuss how Satan uses “empty deception” to try to influence our thinking. We will identify three of his “crafty acts,” or “schemes.”" (Par. 3)
Tempted to Commit Idolatry
Before we are told about the crafty acts, we are given a history lesson on how the Israelites had to adopt new ways of farming after they left Egypt. In Egypt they watered their crop by means of water drawn from the Nile River, now in their new territory they had to rely on seasonal rainfall and dew. How is the change in the way the Israelites farmed relevant to a discussion on Colossians 2:8?
The truth is, it is not relevant, but the Organisation wants to set the scene for what is about to follow.
Three tactics Satan used to take the Iasraelites Captive
- Appealing to a normal desire – Satan deceived the Israelites to believe that they had to adopt pagan practices in order to receive the rain they needed.
- Appealing to immoral desires – Israelites were attracted by the pagans’ sexually immoral rituals and allowed themselves to be lured into serving false gods.
- Satan blurred the Israelites’ view of Jehovah. God’s people apparently stopped using Jehovah’s name and substituted it with the name Baal
These are the three tactics Satan used according to The Watchtower to capture the Israelites.
Which of these are related to Colossians 2:8?
Perhaps at best the first one may have some relevance to the theme text. The rest have to do with temptation, immorality and abandoning the worship of Jehovah. Paul was warning the Colossians about those who would infiltrate the congregation and teach the congregation things that were contrary to what they had come to understand about the Christ.
The writer of the article did not need to refer to the Israelites to make that point clear.
The real reason why the example of the Israelites is used becomes more apparent as we read paragraphs 10 thru 16
Satan's Tactics Today
The three tactics which Satan used to deceive the Israelites are now extended to Jehovah’s Witnesses today.
Satan blurs people’s view of Jehovah: Satan blurred the way Christians viewed Jehovah after the apostles died by removing the use of the name Jehovah. This contributed to the Trinity doctrine.
In reality, the Trinity doctrine really had nothing to do with the use of the name Jehovah but was an odd historical outcome from the debate on the nature of God at the Council of Nicaea convened by the Constantine in 325 CE.
The Watchtower writer does not have nor mention any evidence to support the claim that the removal of the name Jehovah contributed to the Trinity doctrine but it is important that this is mentioned to support the notion that Jehovah’s Witnesses have a clear view of who Jehovah is. It also speaks to the narrative that Satan has blurred the view of the rest of Christendom. Coincidentally, this is an example of the human traditions that Paul was speaking about in Colossians.
The Trinity Doctrine was introduced by Athanasius at the Council of Nicaea. He was a deacon from Alexandria. His view was that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other. This was contrary to what the Christians understood to be true at the time. Interestingly many of the Bishops on the Council were not in support of this view; it certainly was not what the apostles had taught.
Satan appeals to immoral desires: This is true, the Bible has many examples that show how Jehovah’s servants were tempted and fell into sin as a result of immoral desires. This point though once again has nothing to do with Colossians 2:8.
Satan appeals to natural desires: The educational system in many countries teaches students not only practical skills but also human philosophy. Students are encouraged to question the existence of God and to disregard the Bible.
This is also true to some extent, although not all courses or educational programs focus on philosophy. Although some form of philosophy is taught in many courses, this does not necessarily focus on questioning the existence of God or on the Bible.
Some of the skills taught at universities globally are not just technical skills or subject matters but also critical thinking skills which evidently don’t always get applied by the students.
For instance, I believed in JW.org being God’s only organisation on earth without question, despite having done 6 months of philosophy in my University Degree. My congregation had 4 brothers who had PHD’s in science or engineering who still believe everything the organisation says without question.
Many educated people still blindly follow politicians, cultural norms and other religions, despite having been in university.
The Organisation is afraid of any exposure by the individual members to a questioning mind.
The reason why this is mentioned is because of the following point:
“Some Christians who have pursued university education have had their minds molded by human thinking rather than by God’s thinking.”
What the statement means by “God’s thinking” is actually the “Governing Body’s thinking”.
This is a convenient way of again reinforcing its negative viewpoint of higher education on the mind of Witnesses.
While at times some Witnesses have stopped believing in God due to higher education, far more Witnesses have stop believing in God because they realize that what they have been taught by the Organisation are half-truths or outright lies.
Conclusion
This is another missed opportunity to expand on the context and application of the theme scripture.
The writer reverts back to the example of the Israelites to support his predetermined conclusion. No mention is made of Jesus Christ’s teachings which is what the Christians are admonished to adhere to in Colossians.
The Organisation is itself plagued by human tradition and deceptive teachings.
Just to mention a few:
- 1914 and 1919 – No Bible evidence to support this
- The Anointed and the Governing Body – deliberate misapplication of Matthew 24
- “Full-time Service” – JW tradition
The list seems endless and therefore we need to be vigilant that we do not fall prey to their falsehoods.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by messenger on 2019-08-05 13:04:09
Nobleman, how can you be so sure the Governing Body deliberately misapplies Matthew 24, as you stated here, "The Anointed and the Governing Body – deliberate misapplication of Matthew 24?"
In comparison, I apply most of those scriptures in Matthew 24 differently than Tadua, and possibly differently than Eric, believing I am 100% correct in my understanding of them. Yet I do not believe Tadua deliberately misapplies those scriptures. And if I cannot be sure that Taudua does that deliberately, or even suggests to myself that he does, then how could I know, for sure, that the Governing Body does it deliberately, or even suggests to myself that they do that? Have you heard something from the GB, or from one of their close associates, suggesting what they are teaching is fraudulent, a hoax?
Remember, you used believe what they teach about Matthew 24, as you stated here, "I believed in JW.org being God’s only organisation on earth without question," (Nobleman). Part of that teaching was/is that they sincerely represent God-Matthew 24:45.Reply by messenger on 2019-08-05 13:13:18
Also, most Jehovah's Witnesses are just ignorant in the places they misunderstand scriptures. They are not rebellious in doing so. Although I haven't been close to a lot of those that claim the special JW anointing, I was close to one. Like you used to, she sincerely believes what WT teaches; and she sincerely believes she is anointed.
Reply by Justin Michesloff on 2019-08-05 18:17:09
Messenger, if you believe that you are 100% correct in your understanding, why don't you share your brilliance with the rest of us by sharing in the writing of the articles posted on this site? I guess I don't see the value in your consistently negative responses. I, for one, would love to see a well written 100% accurate review of a WT article, or any topic for that matter. Please, indulge us!!
Reply by messenger on 2019-08-05 20:30:05
Justin M.,
I find it interesting that some people take offense, or at least they appear to take offense because they get huffy, after reading that someone else had an idea corrected. I can only guess you read from this site because you are a JW, or you used to be a Jehovah's Witness; but now you don't agree with the fact that WT expects all Jehovah's Witnesses to accept WT teaching and never to question the accuracy of their teaching. And yet ,if that's so, it appears, from the nature of your comment, that is what you want on this forum. Or at least it's your desire mouths should be kept shut if not heaping praise on the writers of these articles, but don't offer correction, at least not too much.
As for what I wrote I believe I was 100% correct about, that was my understanding of what Christ was speaking of in Matthew chapter 24. I did not say I have a clear understanding about every topic that exists, which is what your comment seems to imply. About me writing articles for this site; those can be written, but it is up to the site owners or editors as to whether you will ever read them. I have only sent in one. That was about a week ago. I sent it in because in Eric's article about his disfellowshipping he asked for volunteers. If that's posted I might submit others. I also informed Eric he can use some of the ideas submitted in that document for an article he writes on the subject, if he wishes to. Because I don't care who gets the credit for writing.
Here's a quote of yours, "I, for one, would love to see a well written 100% accurate review of a WT article, or any topic for that matter." (Justin Michesloff) Your quote implies you have never seen a 100% factually accurate article on this site. Is that correct? If so, did you at least attempt to offer corrections to those writers who shared information you found to be inaccurate? And if not, why not?
As for reviewing WT articles. I don't read those, as I believe WT is apostate, and that its action of beating other Christians unjustly identifies it with Christ's evil slave, (Matthew chapter 24). Note that when speaking of the evil slave, in Matthew chapter 24, Christ identified him as an evil slave because of what he did, not because of what he taught. So, I won't write any WT article reviews.Reply by Justin Michesloff on 2019-08-05 21:50:33
Messenger,
Wow, I guess I touched a nerve... You know what they say, people react the hardest to what hits closest to home.
I do not wish to banter with you as to what is 100% right or wrong. Opinions are like noses, they are always right in front of us and always in our view.
I apologize for my sarcastic remarks. My point, if you will, is simply that someone has invested a significant amount of time and research into writing on this forum, which we all read. I have read your opinions before and find your view mentally stimulating, you really make us think. But why present it as an attack? Wouldn't it be received so much better if it was simply presented as a differing opinion, "seasoned with salt"?
JMReply by messenger on 2019-08-06 08:28:44
Justin;
What I wrote here is not an attack, it's a question: "Nobleman, how can you be so sure the Governing Body deliberately misapplies Matthew 24, as you stated here, “The Anointed and the Governing Body – deliberate misapplication of Matthew 24?” (messenger)
On the other hand, your written response to that question I asked Nobleman is an attempt at character smearing, for the only point it brings into question is my character. It said or asked nothing about the point I raised. ["Messenger, if you believe that you are 100% correct in your understanding, why don’t you share your brilliance with the rest of us by sharing in the writing of the articles posted on this site? I guess I don’t see the value in your consistently negative responses. I, for one, would love to see a well written 100% accurate review of a WT article, or any topic for that matter. Please, indulge us!!" (Justin Michesloff}
And based on statements in your apology I don't take your apology as genuine, because I am not that stupid. This is no apology, instead you use the word apology in pretense:
"Messenger,
Wow, I guess I touched a nerve… You know what they say, people react the hardest to what hits closest to home.
I do not wish to banter with you as to what is 100% right or wrong. Opinions are like noses, they are always right in front of us and always in our view.
I apologize for my sarcastic remarks." (Justin)
I work in God's behalf. Therefore, I don't write on websites to offer my opinions. In representing God I communicate with all sorts of people, and while I make points to teach God's thoughts I let and I want people to be the type of persons they chose to be, whether good or bad in different ways, whether they believe God's thoughts or don't. Because that is God's purpose.
I realize some here take offense, some people always do when they are confronted with God's messages. Others make excuses not to receive them, excuses like God doesn't exist, or what God's messengers say is just their opinions not his. Sometimes God doesn't allow understanding to some people; hence this comment from above, " I am a regular reader of this site and must apologize but for the life of me I do not understand any of messenger’s comments, as they seem very incoherent." (Gogetter)
If what I write or say is incoherent WT reps wouldn't have place me on their stages every week, neither would the teachers I turned papers into have given me top grades, neither would the thousands of students I teach have learned. To drive home that last point, in public schools I have taught every grade level, but right now I am teaching elementary school children, mostly grades 1-5; and they understand everything I teach.
In high school my students averaged the highest grades they received from all their teachers. And yet some here don't understand what I write? Could this be a reason? "At that time Jesus declared, '“I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."' Matthew 11:25
God has given us this time to reveal the thoughts and intentions of our hearts. But that's not the only reason. He also wants us to understand the motivations of other people, so we will understand why everyone cannot be in his kingdom. As for touching a nerve Justin, you didn't, because you can't. I understand there are all types of people, as I stated above; and I understand what God wants us to learn from them. But he is not interested in us learning what their opinions are on his words.Reply by Justin Michesloff on 2019-08-06 12:22:02
Sadly, the evidence presented herein fully proves the assertions made by me and others. Please remember that a great many of us who read this forum also have extensive resumes, both religiously and secularly, however they are not rolled out for all to read in a misguided attempt to prove our rightness or righteousness. Please continue to comment as your views are interesting and mentally stimulating, but please leave the Pharisaical condescending attitude out. Thank you.
JMReply by Frankie on 2019-08-06 17:34:27
Well written, Justin. The purpose of Christian community is not presentation one's 100% knowledge at all costs (1 Cor 13:12). But rather building each other in love, because "So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” (Phil 2:1-3, ESV)
Let's pray for God's holy Spirit so that we might receive abundance of Spirit's fruit "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." (Gal 5:22-23).
Love over law and love over knowledge, because love is above all (1 Cor 13:13) !
And I have something else to say. IMHO, we can't anticipate at all if someone can be in God's kingdom or not. I don't know heart and mind at all. The one, who knows the heart and thoughts is our Lord (John 4:1; John 5:6; John 5:42; John 6:15), who will judge me and everyone in righteousness (Acts 17:31).
Love to you and all, Frankie.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-08-06 15:06:19
Hi Messenger,
First of all I want to say that I'm a little concerned about the argumentative atmosphere that seems to follow at times when you make comments. We all have to work at developing a thicker skin when commenting publicly, in part because it is very easy to misconstrue what someone means and thus take offense. Even if offense is given intentionally, we have the words of our Lord instructing us to turn the other cheek. It is far better to ignore a slight, then to respond to it and thus spoil the atmosphere for the rest.
That being said, I've just read your comment and saw your reference to me in which you state you "sent in one" article about a week ago. I didn't recall getting an email from you, so I checked. It didn't come in under your alias, "messenger", but under another name, which is why I didn't realize you had sent anything. I needed to use your email address to find any a match. Once I did, I saw that you actually sent in, not one article, but six. Since I've been in the middle of moving, unpacking and setting up a new place, I haven't had time to read much of what is sent in to me on a daily basis. Today is the first day I've actually been able to devote any significant amount of time to the BP site.
Just to be clear, when I was asking for volunteers, I was looking for help with the publication of a book and with translation and proofreading.
It might surprise some to learn that volunteering to write articles doesn't free up time for me. Quite the opposite. You see, the purpose of this site is to promote Bible truth to the best of our ability. Thus, I have to read and research every article before it can be published. For example, if someone were to submit an article promoting the teaching of hell fire, I would not agree to publish it even though I respect that person's right to believe whatever he wishes, together with his absolute obligation to live with the consequences of such belief. Nevertheless, publishing such an article would amount to, at the very least, a tacit endorsement that the writer's point of view is worthy of consideration.
If I truly believe that a particular teaching is a lie, I would not want to be guilty of condoning it by aiding in its dissemination. (Re 22:15)
I'm not suggesting that your submissions fall into that category for a minute. I'm only using that example to show that publishing any article, even one I wholeheartedly agree with, requires a significant investment of time. In short, were I to entertain doing that with everyone who submits articles to me in both English and Spanish, I would have no time for anything else, and I would become essentially an internet publishing house.
Given that, I have two suggestions for you. Since you already have written six articles and likely have even more in mind or already written, why not start up your own WordPress site, as I did here? It's quite easy to do and at the beginning it doesn't even cost anything. I ran a free site for a couple of years before moving to pay for a hosted site. Alternately, you can publish on www.discussthetruth.com. They welcome articles on all Bible related subjects.Reply by messenger on 2019-08-06 21:30:52
Hello Eric,
In harmony with your wishes i will no longer respond to derogatory comments. With respect to my submissions, I only sent in one article. The other attachments to that email are not written articles. Those are something else.
Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-08-06 09:08:55
Messenger, I think you make an interesting point. If we start from the premise of what we were first taught, we probably accepted those teachings, we were in no position to see if there had been a deliberate misapplication . If we personally change our understanding that is a deliberate move, and there should be reasons for the change.
For one example, many of us once accepted the Trinity as truth, because that is how we were brought up. We were then shown scriptures to demonstrate that the Trinity is not supported by the Bible. Similarly, if we were brought up as a JW, we may have accepted disfellowshipping based on scriptures shown, but then we examined other scriptures and realised the basis for some aspects of disfellowshipping were a distortion of the Bible, so we could no longer agree with this teaching.
JWs are allowed to disagree with the teachings of the Trinity because the Organisation disagrees, but they are not allowed to openly disagree with some or all of the teachings connected to disfellowshipping, because they are expected to believe the current "official" teaching.
If I find that the Organisation changes a teaching, then that is a deliberate move by them. If scriptures can be reasoned on to prove the new position, then the motive is good. If scriptures cannot properly be reasoned upon, then we ask what the motive is. If no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming, then we would consider the reason for the change to be a deliberate misapplication. Examples of these could be
1. The overlapping generation teaching.
2. The misapplication in 1981(or perhaps earlier) of 2 John "not saying a greeting" to those who had been disfellowshipped.
3. The July 2013 articles on the faithful slave.
Those changes in teaching were reactionary. All the evidence which could have been made available was not properly considered, and the application was made to suit a situation. Many religious organisations have differing views as to how and what Jesus second coming will mean. They may be sincere in their beliefs, even if that means they are sincerely wrong from my point of view. And, then again, I might be wrong too. Obviously I hope not.
Do I believe some of the changes made are deliberate misapplications by JW.Org. Yes. Why ? Because I do not understand the change (I may not understand the original, too), and because they will not answer questions on the reason for the change, defending it with nonsense like "Do you think you know more than the GB" or "Don't you think Jesus will correct it if is wrong". I can also see that there may be bad motive for the change.
The fact that many (probably) sincere men, including those of the GB, appear to accept the change in teaching does not make it right. All misapplications have a reason, but motives may be harder to see.Reply by messenger on 2019-08-06 22:17:30
Leonardo,
That was my point Leonardo. Motives can be seen sometimes, that's true, when those are very obvious because of a person's actions. However, because of what Witnesses were all taught (including us) and believed about Matthew 24:45, it's almost impossible to know what a motive for WT changing a teaching is. We know they must recognize some previous teaching no longer works for them. But one reason not to define WT as disingenuous in changing is because WT has, from the beginning, stretched its doctrine to conform to what it claims anointed JWs did in the 20th century and thereafter. Remember all those books, like Man's Salvation Out of World Distress At Hand, that we studied? The whole book was about how scriptures in isaiah and other book apply to WT's anointed remnant. They structured that whole book around their remnant or organization. That's what they do with so many teachings, which means they might be sincere when they change a teaching to conform to their leaders' view of their organization or the world.
Because in the same way, when they change a belief, they often shape that change around their view of the so-called anointed remnant of JWs, or their view of their entire organization, at that time. And because they also believe they are fallible interpreters of scripture it's almost impossible to know if they are not sincere. I wouldn't attribute that to them, since I don't know. Though the teaching that only God and Christ can read hearts is a fallacy, in the case of what WT writers' and GB members' sincerity is or isn't, I don't know.
Most other teachers in Christianity do not teach like that, by applying scriptures to their one denomination and shaping their doctrines to conform to themselves. At least none that I have heard. And it's because of that unique teaching style of WT that makes it difficult to say they are pulling the wool over the public's eyes, or that instead they are sincerely doing their best to interpret scripture. Of course they realized they had to change their teaching on "this generation" or either 1914, because the time limit for the old 1914 teaching had expired. But did they do it to promote a hoax, or just because they are still ignorant, like a man in complete darkness. I don't know. The only clue to me, that I saw suggesting the GB might really understand Matt 24:34 was in what David Splane said in his video, which I brought out in my comment to If Ever.
I always appreciate your comments Leonardo!!!
Comment by Gogetter on 2019-08-06 06:24:37
I am a regular reader of this site and must apologize but for the life of me I do not understand any of messenger’s comments, as they seem very incoherent.
It appears Messenger is challenging something in the article Nobleman wrote but it’s not clear what.
There is nothing wrong with discussing differences of understanding of scriptures that we can’t do within the organization, but let’s remember no one has 100% understanding of scripture and therefore let’s discuss these matters with that in mind and keep an open mind to those differences in a respectful way.
Most of us come here because other ex-JW sites are full of bitter people who have an attack only agenda.
Eric and others has provided a safe and loving place to examine the scriptures in light of what we may have been taught as well as exposing the obvious misapplications of scriptures while not being dogmatic! The fact is over the years Eric has allowed many post on this site some of which have been pretty out there and sometimes Very argumentative, which goes to his credit of fairness.
This site and it’s contributors have always let scripture interpret scripture something the organization used to practice.
So please let’s keep it that way and not let this turn into what so many other sites have become.
Just my two cents!
Comment by if ever on 2019-08-06 09:12:42
Hello all, this is a long comment, but something I noted regarding the new Israelite farmers in the WT study. When reading the scriptures in Joshua 24:31 and Judges 2:7 & 10 I noted the generation as mentioned in Judges 2:10 is tied to a misapplication in Matthew 24:34. I wanted to share some thoughts for consideration by the readers.
In Judges 2:7&10 the definition of a generation who were faithful after the conquest of Canaan when applied in the current manner as approved and taught by the Governing Body surely results distortions throughout Holy Scripture.
Additionally, you could say the generation teaching if applied to Judges 2:7&10 could also distort the calculation of Jesus presence starting in 1914 as counted from year of the removal of Zedekiah as King of Judah.
When David Splane taught how Matthew 24:34 applied to Jesus words "...this generation..." he used an illustration how a former member of the Governing Body, Fred W Franz's (FWF) lifespan could be applied to people living at the same time. During David Splane’s presentation in the September 2015 JW Broadcast I noted my life overlapped with Fred Franz.
As I was 20 in 1992 it would therefore mean as we were both living at the same time then a generation can approximately be 178 years if I also live to be 99 years old. (Approximately 178 years, counting from Fred Franz birth in 1893 to me being 99 in 2071)
Ok how does this teaching of what a generation is fit with other scriptures? It is very problematic. According to Judges 2:7&10, the people continued to serve Jehovah, generational contemporaries of Joshua of whom all served Jehovah until they passed.
What is the problem with a generation teaching as taught by the Governing Body?
1. Let’s say an Israelite called Harry was 20 years old at the time of Joshua's death at 110 years of age. Then a generation could span another 90 years since Joshua’s death. Then the event in Joshua 2:10 transpires, “All that generation were gathered to their ancestors...”
2. Next, when you add up all the years as recorded in the book of Judges when Israel was oppressed and the number of years the Judges delivered the Israelites (I counted 407 years in total), then you run into some issues when calculating when Saul become king.
3. Continuing on this course you would also have to change the year when Zedekiah was removed as king of Judah.
For most people, a generation is defined as “the whole body of people born about the same time” - Source; Macquarie Pocket Dictionary 4th edition 2010.
Additionally, Google says about the definition of a generation: “The average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, in which children grow up, become adults, and have children of their own.”
In summary, a conclusion I have come to is when a change to the definition of a generation was made, it consequently resulted in a pure mismatch with Matthew 1:17 where the number of generations counted in Matthew’s record, would have to be counted and defined differently by Matthew when he wrote what is now known as Matthew 24:34. I have now added Judges 2:7&10 to the list of mismatched scriptures.
Whether the application of Matthew 24:34 was deliberate or not I cannot say. But it sure does look that way.
For me when developing the approved teaching the Governing Body must have known of Matthew 1:17 and the application of a generation being applicable the next ones born and not lives overlapping.
So in light of reconciling Matthew 1:17 and Matthew 24:34 did the Governing Body premeditatedly throw Matthew 1:17 under the bus? I cannot say. Perhaps they would be investigated for manslaughter at least.Reply by messenger on 2019-08-06 20:51:08
I viewed David Splane's video a while ago, so if I don't quote him exactly it's because his exact words escape me. But I definitely remember his ideas are the same ideas I state. When I saw the overlapping generations video Splane looked like he was about to teach a correct application of Matthew 24:34, but then he went another way.
I remember after going over some of the circumstances in Matthew chapter 24, that WT claims is a sign of the last days, Splane stopped and then said, but there is more. And the "more" that I thought he was about to include is what I was waiting for him to correctly apply. But just by making that statement, "but there is more," along with his staged pause, caused me to wonder if he really knows the truth about vs 34, but because of WT doctrine didn't want to bring that out.
This is where I thought he was going after talking about wars, food shortages, earthquakes, but then said, "but there is more." In Matthew chapter 24 vss read {along with my comments, not Spane's}:
Vs 36 reads, “Concerning THAT day and hour.” (What day?) In Vs 37 the answer given is,”the presence of the Son of man.” So Christ there was answering their question concerning his return. He previously addressed Jerusalem’s stones getting knocked down in vs 15
He was also speaking of his return in Vs 33, “when you see all these thing, know that he is near at the doors.” (Who is HE?) The answer given is Christ in vss 37,39. Yes in vs 33 he was also answering their question concerning his return. Note that he also said they would see, “ALL THESE THINGS,“ in vs 33. So in vs 33 the subject of the sentence Christ called "you," though "you" was a future generation of Christians; and they will see what Christ called "all these things," while Christ is at the doors. (His implied return to Earth-also, implying they would see his actual return).
Vs 34 reads, “this generation will by no means pass away until ALL THESE THINGS OCCUR.” What precisely was spoken of as “all these things,” in vss 33 & 34? In vs 34 Christ explicitly said "this generation" will see his return, something he had already implied in vs 33. Read Matthew 24:4-31. Because ALL means ALL or it doesn’t. All does not mean just part of something. “All these things,” were the things Christ said must happen before his return. Christ spoke of a great tribulation, and miraculous signs in the heavens, as well as the many other events WT believes define a sign of the “last days,” before he said, “when you see ALL THESE THINGS,” in verse 33. Then right after that he referred to ALL THESE THINGS again, in vs 34, and it is in that vs that he mentions “this generation.” Just as he used the pronoun you in vs 33 to mean a future generation, not the generation of his audience that was present, so he used that phrase, “this generation,” to mean a future audience, not that generation of his apostles.
Vs 34 “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until ALL THESE THINGS occur.”
If WT was any good at interpreting scripture they would realize Christ was not giving a sign of any last days for two reason. First, the apostles never asked for a sign of the last days. They asked instead for a sign of Christ’s actual return and the end of the world. And second, and more profoundly, after giving the sign they asked for Christ spent the rest of his speech teaching that Christians would not know when he would return, or when the world would end, until they saw those two things actually taking place. And that teaching of Christ continues through the rest of chapter 24, and all of chapter 25.
Comment by Psalmbee on 2019-08-06 10:35:39
Messenger,
You are right that the JW's could be ignorant, but there is a big difference between being ignorant and willing to learn, and being ignorant and NOT being willing to learn. Of course the ORG misapplies Matthew 24, just as sure as they misapply that Michael is Jesus, just as sure as they misapply they are the only way to eternal life, etc, etc etc, etc. Their whole doctrine is misapplied to the benefit of the GB and the WTBTS.
Psalmbee
Comment by Psalmbee on 2019-08-06 11:22:48
"Satan blurs people’s view of Jehovah: Satan blurred the way Christians viewed Jehovah after the apostles died by removing the use of the name Jehovah. This contributed to the Trinity doctrine."
This is completely erroneous, the name Jehovah wasn't being used during this time and was not until many centuries later.
What is not erroneous is the way the ORG blurs the Name of the LORD Jesus Christ. (Acts 4:12)
PsalmbeeReply by messenger on 2019-08-06 19:10:33
I get your points and agree with them Psalmbee. But it is even worse if Bible teachers are purposely teaching false ideas, and still worse if they do it for some benefit they seek. That's worse than just not being unwilling to learn. I wanted to know if Nobleman heard from anyone close to the GB that they are willfully doing that.
The problem that JWs have is that we (JWs) were coaxed into putting all our trust in the GB, as God's appointed servants (per WT's application of Matthew 24:45); whether they were always correct was not the point. So, either the GB believes that idea, like we did, or they are purposely leading a hoax.
I do know, from reading Ray Franz's books, that when he was a member of the GB they often didn't agree on matters, but nevertheless enforced unagreed on policies among their worldwide congregations. And they didn't agree on all doctrinal points WT taught either. But with a group of people, that's understandable. So I could see some members of the GB not agreeing with WT's teaching on Matthew 24. When Franz was there some GB members wanted to change the 1914 date to 1955 or 1954, somewhere around there; I cannot remember the exact date, but I know it was in the 1950's. That's one example of their mixed beliefs, one that never appeared in their magazine.
If they are willfully teaching wrong ideas as a group, and it's not just because of a minority compromise, that's a big problem for them. And I mean a problem for them with Christ , not with me. I can't have a problem with them , because I don't go to the Hall. And if they ever decide to disfellowship me, like they did Eric, that's of little consequence to me. It would have about the same effect on me, as the effect I had on them when I disfellowshipped them from my life. That was of no consequence to them, except that they do not like what I tell others about them here, or elsewhere.
I am also afraid many members of the GB will get judged because of the beatings they give other Christians due to WT's rules and its governing policies. The parable of the slave was not given to pronounce who Christ gave authority to. It was given to describe consequences, whether good or bad, that Christians will receive for proving faithful or unfaithful while Christ is away. The first act of the unfaithful slave was beating other slaves of Christ. He assumed those others are his slaves, and that he can treat them as he wished, make his own rules, and enforce consequences for not following them. I cannot see how a person who contemplates that idea could not associate WT, or the GB, or elders participating in those beatings, with the evil slave. The fact that in that parable Christ claimed to place the slave over other Christians to feed them, as the GB claims they are, makes the point quite apparent, because of their rules and beatings.
WT's got a few serious strikes against it. First it teaches bad things about Christians who aren't JWs. Second it beats JWs. Third, whether presenting a hoax or not, it's teaching on Matthew 24:45 is presumptuous. Christ said if a blind man follows a blind man they both fall into a pit. So whether the GB believes it's teaching of Matthew 24:45 because they followed someone else, or they don't believe that teaching at all, they are probably still in trouble.
One of the reasons I don't read WT literature is that some of its ideas are appealing, true, and are written to elicit nice emotional feelings of love and safety. But, as WT taught us, a little bit of some poison will kill. The poison of deception works best when it is concealed in pleasant thoughts. Usually when a con man cons someone, they don't know it, until the con has worked at their expense. In an anthropology class, that I took, the teacher said a psychopath seems like a normal person, but he sets a traps for his victims, and they never realize that until they are caught in the trap. He said that happened to him once, that is he was caught in the trap of a psychopath.
Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-08-06 21:20:51
Hi all
I just like to take this opportunity to thank ALL the contributors on this web site, this is the site I get to reason from the bible with all in the congregation.
The writers on this web site asked to look at the scriptures for the correct meaning and to see if we are on the right track. Well I did, as a result of that, we had a public talk and
Rev 4:11 was read: “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honour and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.
At the meeting I thought of looking up this verse in biblehub.com and interlinear, as there was something in this verse didn't sit right in my mind. The word God is in capital and that should be rendered Theon and not Theos.
So I asked an elder in our congregation to look at what I found out in our interlinear and it was the same, then I asked "who gave Jehovah the glory and the honour and the power, according to our NWT? And wasn't Jesus who created all things?
Well I was asked to talk about it in second room, as I was waiting, 2 more elders joined in. Can you imagine facing "3 elders" and being asked "where are you going with this?"
All I said to them " I am just asking not implying anything, and why are there 3 of you with me just to answer my question? If one of you met a house holder with the same question, would you say, wait a minute and I will get 2 more JW's to answer your question"?.
I walked away feeling like the apostles in Acts 5: 40 At this they took his advice, and they summoned the apostles, flogged them, and ordered them to stop speaking on the basis of Jesus’ name, and let them go. 41 So they went out from before the Sanʹhe·drin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy to be dishonoured in behalf of his name.
I just shut my mouth and remembered the words of Psalmbee:
"You are right that the JW’s could be ignorant, but there is a big difference between being ignorant and willing to learn, and being ignorant and NOT being willing to learn."
Again I like to thank all the contributors on this web site.
Love to allReply by messenger on 2019-08-06 23:34:04
Jamesbrown,
The first elder you asked didn't get the other two elders to answer your question. He got them as witnesses to your comments, and to get their opinions, seeing if they need to straighten you out, and then possibly form a judicial committee against you if their attempt fails. In your religion teaching in contradiction to WT is considered a sin. Even believing in contradiction to WT without teaching that belief is considered apostasy by WT. That's stated in a 1980 letter from Bethel to circuit overseers. In the letter Bethel wrote if the elders cannot get a Witness to give up a belief that contradicts WT teachings then they should handle the matter judicially, which means it ends when they disfellowship the offender. That's the reason they got Eric. Though Eric is spreading beliefs in contradiction to WT, the 1980 letter states a JW doesn't have to do that to be an apostate, believing different beliefs makes one an apostate according to their 1980 letter. Now the letter did state elders were not to start questioning publishers like thought police. But when you raise questions to them first that contradict what they teach you open yourself up to further questions from them.
I have an friend named Ricardo on JWSurvey. He kept questioning his elders about procedures, not even about JW doctrine, until the finally disfellowshipped him on a charge he was causing division in the organization or congregation. I know one of his claims is that elders had falsified a letter from Bethel, either sent or received I cannot remember. He also asked questions about their lack of adequate child protection policies. Those type of things got him disfellowshipped about a year ago. Be careful around the elders if you want to stay in the organization.
Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-08-07 00:23:10
Messenger
Thanks a lot for your help, I really appreciate this info, trust me I will NEVER raise a question with the elders again.
Jesus said keep on asking and it will be given you, the apostle Paul said that the Beroeans were more noble minded because they examined the scriptures and asked questions to see if what Paul was saying is true.
What a difference in attitudes.
Thanks again messengerReply by messenger on 2019-08-07 03:01:18
I wasn't suggesting you go that far Jamesbrown and never ask elders anything; but I meant if you want to stay in be careful with the types of questions you ask them. I wouldn't ask questions that imply your beliefs contradict WT teaching for the reasons I've stated before. And because they probably already suspect that some of your beliefs do contradict WT's, it's especially important to be careful now.
Ricardo was telling us, on that other forum, that he had done something similar for quite some time, before they disfellowshipped him. I probably commented on that other site for at least three years, maybe four or five, as I don't remember. And Ricardo claimed to be doing that when I first arrived there. He wasn't disfellowshipped until about a year ago. I'd say it took them at least three years before they nailed him. I never heard him doubt WT's doctrinal teachings, just their policies, and he also constantly expressed disgust with the behavior of elders. Since he believes they are all bullies he would offer comments about behavior at his meetings.
Ricardo was a regular pioneer, and at one time a ministerial servant. His dad is an elder, and his brother is an elder. His elder brother turned him in to his congregation for saying something in a private conversation between the two brothers. Being turned in for saying something to his brother no doubt contributed to his disfellowshipping. If a JW says anything that contradicts WT teachings or policies you can expect they will treat them as their enemy. Part of the elders' job is keeping everyone in line. They call it keeping the congregation clean, which includes clean against opposing ideas.
The scripture they apply to justify their reasoning is this, "Now I beseech you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."1Corinthians 1:10. WT teaches that scripture speaks of keeping unity in the congregation, primarily by all congregants accepting everything WT teaches, whether it's right or wrong. Thus your elders have questioned what your were getting at when you asked some of your questions. WT holds this idea as more important than something else Paul wrote. At Romans 14:1-11 Paul wrote to accept Christians with conflicting scriptural beliefs as spiritual brothers or sisters. WT only applies this second scripture to rather trivial or mundane choices, like the choice of music, or what to wear, not scriptural beliefs. The scripture is actually speaking of scriptural beliefs though, not mundane choices.
Paul wrote 1Cor. 1:10 because members of that congregation were dividing into sects within their own congregation by following leaders they preferred to promote, or to belong to, rather than following Christ. Paul didn't claim he wrote that because they had different scriptural beliefs, as WT applies it. With that application WT contradicts what Paul said directly preceding vs 10. See vss 4-6 here, "4 I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5 For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— 6 God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you." (1 Cor 1:4-6) Since those Christians had already been enriched with all knowledge, according to Paul's understanding at that time, it would make no sense for him to next write they were divided because of conflicting scriptural beliefs about doctrine. Instead he wrote that because they were putting some teachers on their pedestals, which lowered the value of others in their minds. It was a form of hero worship that was divisive.
Comment by Atromitos on 2019-08-13 02:59:48
These honest and educated appraisals of the study articles are so strengthening at this time.
I'm recently awakened and the floodgates are opened to all the information that was concealed while I was obediently turning away from any negative reports. This is at times overwhelming.
Thank you for giving me a spiritual refuge. I always feel calmer and more at peace after visiting this site.