I don't have time to comment on all the mistakes the Watchtower Society makes in its publications, but every now and then something catches my eye and I cannot, in good conscience, overlook it. People are trapped in this organization believing that it is God who runs it. So, if there is anything that shows that not to be the case, I feel we need to speak up.
The organization often uses Proverbs 4:18 to refer to itself as a way to explain the various errors, false predictions, and misinterpretations they have made. It reads:
“But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.” (Proverbs 4:18 NWT)
Well, they’ve been walking that path for almost 150 years, so the light should be blinding by now. Yet, by the time we are finished with this video, I think you’re going to see that it isn’t verse 18 that applies, but rather the following verse:
“The way of the wicked is like the darkness; They do not know what makes them stumble.” (Proverbs 4:19 NWT)
Yes, by the end of this video, you’ll see evidence that the organization has lost its grasp on one of the fundamental aspects of Christianity.
Let’s begin by examining the Watchtower Study article 38 titled “Draw Close to Your Spiritual Family” from the September 2021 study edition of The Watchtower, which was studied in the congregation during the week of November 22 to 28, 2021.
Let’s start with the title. When the Bible speaks about a Christian family, it isn’t being metaphorical, but literal. Christians are literally children of God and Jehovah is literally their Father. He gives them life, and not just life, but everlasting life. So, Christians can rightly refer to each other as brothers and sisters, because they all share the same Father, and that is the point of this article, and by and large, I have to agree with some of the valid Scriptural points that the article makes.
The article also states in paragraph 5 that, “like an older brother, Jesus teaches us how to respect and obey our Father, how to avoid displeasing Him, and how to gain His approval.”
If this were the first ever article of the Watchtower you ever read, you would draw the conclusion that Jehovah’s Witnesses, the rank and file, that is, consider Jehovah God to be their Father. Having God as their Father makes all of them brothers and sisters, part of one big, happy family. They also view Jesus Christ as an older brother.
Most Witnesses would agree with that assessment of their status with God. Yet, that is not what they have been taught by the Organization. They are taught that instead of being children of God, they are at best, friends of God. Therefore, they cannot legitimately call him Father.
If you ask your average Jehovah’s Witness, he will state that he is a child of God, but at the same time will agree with the Watchtower teaching that the other sheep—a group making up almost 99.7% of all Jehovah’s Witnesses—are only God’s friends, Jehovah’s friends. How can they hold two such contradictory ideas in their mind?
I’m not making this up. This is what the Insight book has to say about the other sheep:
it-1 p. 606 Declare Righteous
In one of Jesus’ illustrations, or parables, relating to the time of his coming in Kingdom glory, persons likened to sheep are designated as “righteous ones.” (Mt 25:31-46) It is notable, however, that in this illustration these “righteous ones” are presented as separate and distinct from those whom Christ calls “my brothers.” (Mt 25:34, 37, 40, 46; compare Heb 2:10, 11.) Because these sheeplike ones render assistance to Christ’s spiritual “brothers,” thus demonstrating faith in Christ himself, they are blessed by God and are called “righteous ones.” Like Abraham, they are accounted, or declared, righteous as friends of God. (Jas 2:23)
So, they are all friends of God. Just one big, happy group of friends. That means God can’t be their Father and Jesus can’t be their brother. You’re all just friends
Some will counter, but can’t they be both children of God and friends of God? Not according to Watchtower doctrine.
“…Jehovah has declared his anointed ones righteous as sons and the other sheep righteous as friends…” (w12 7/15 p. 28 par. 7)
To explain, if you are a child of God—whether God also considers you his friend or not, is irrelevant—if you are a child of God, you get the inheritance which is your due. The fact that according to Watchtower doctrine, Jehovah does not declare the other sheep righteous as his children means they are not his children. Only children get the inheritance.
Remember the parable of the prodigal son? He asked his Father to give him his inheritance which he then took and squandered. If he had only been that man’s friend, there would have been no inheritance to ask for. You see, if the other sheep were both friends and children, then the Father would declare them righteous as his children. (By the way, there is no place in Scripture where we find God declaring Christians righteous as his friends. The Governing Body has just made that up, created a teaching out of thin air, much like they did with the overlapping generation.
There is one scripture at James 2:23 where we see Abraham being declared righteous as God’s friend, but that was before Jesus Christ gave his life to bring us back into God’s family. That is why you never read of Abraham calling Jehovah “Abba Father.” Jesus came and opened the way for us to become adopted children.
“However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name. 13 And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God.” (John 1:12, 13)
Notice it says, “to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children”. It doesn’t say to the first 144,000 who received him, does it? This isn’t a first- come-first-served sale. The first 144,000 shoppers will get a coupon for one free eternal life.
Now why would the organization teach something that contradicts its own doctrine? Just a year ago, there was another Watchtower Study article contradicting the whole idea of family. In the April 2020 issue, Study Article 17, we are treated to this title: “I Have Called You Friends”. That’s Jesus speaking to his disciples. That isn’t Jehovah speaking to us. Then we get this box titled: “Friendship With Jesus Leads to Friendship With Jehovah”. Really? Where does the Bible say that? It doesn’t. They’ve made it up. If you compare the two articles, you’ll notice that the current one from September of this year is full of Scriptural references to back up the teaching that Christians are God’s children and so it should, because they are. However, the April 2020 makes a lot of assumptions, but provides no Scriptures to support the idea that Christians are God’s friends.
At the beginning of this video, I told you that we’d see evidence that the organization has lost its grasp on one of the fundamental aspects of Christianity. We’re going to see that now.
In the April 2020 article about friendship with God, they actually make this stunning statement: “We must attach neither too much nor too little importance to our love for Jesus.—John 16:27.”
In typical fashion, they have attached a Bible reference to this statement hoping the reader will assume it provides scriptural support for what they claim and in typical fashion, it does not. Not even close.
“For the Father himself has affection for you, because you have had affection for me and have believed that I came as God’s representative.” (John 16:27)
Nothing there cautioning the Christian about having too much love for Jesus.
Why do I say this is a stunning statement? Because I’m stunned by how far they have fallen from the truth. Because I cannot believe they have so lost touch with the basic foundation of Christianity, which is love, so as to think that it should be regulated, limited, restricted in any way. The Bible tells us quite the opposite:
“On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22, 23)
What does it mean to say that against such things there is no law? It means there are no restrictions, no limits, no rules governing these things. Since love is the first one mentioned, it means we can’t put a limit on it. This love is Christian love, agape love. There are four words for love in Greek. One for the love that is defined by passion. Another for the instinctive love one has for family. Yet another for the love of friendship. Those all have a limit. Too much of any of those could be a bad thing. But for the love we have for Jesus, agape love, there is no limit. To state otherwise, as the article in the April 2020 Watchtower does, is to contradict the law of God. To go beyond what is written. To impose a rule where God says there is to be none.
The identifying mark of true Christianity is love. Jesus himself tells us that at John 13:34, 35, a scripture we all know well. This statement from a Watchtower reviewed by all the Governing Body members—because they tell us they review all the study articles—indicates they’ve lost their sense of what Christian love is. Truly, they are walking in darkness and stumbling over things they cannot see.
Just to show the dismal level of Bible understanding present in those who presume to be God’s channel, have a look at this illustration from paragraph 6 of article 38 from the September 2021 Watchtower.
Do you see the problem? The angel has wings! What? Does their Bible research extend to mythology? Are they studying renaissance art for their illustrations? Angels don’t have wings. Not literally. The cherubs on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant had wings, but that was a carving. There are living creatures that appear in some visions with wings, but those use highly symbolic imagery to convey ideas. They aren’t meant to be taken literally. If you run a search on the word angel in the Bible and scan through all the references, you will not find one where an angel wearing a pair of wings physically visited a human. When angels appeared to Abraham and Lot, they were called “men.” There was no mention of wings. When Daniel was visited by Gabriel and others, he describes them as men. When Mary was told she would conceive a son, she saw a man. In none of the angelic visitations that faithful men and women received are we told the messengers were winged. Why would they be? Like Jesus who appeared inside a locked room, these messengers can slip in and out of our reality.
This winged angel illustration is so silly that it is an embarrassment. It misrepresents the Bible and provides more grist for the mill of those who only seek to discredit God’s word. What are we to think? That the angel came swooping down from the sky to make a landing near our Lord? You’d think the flapping of those enormous wings would have woken up the disciples sleeping nearby. You know they claim to be faithful and discreet. Another word for discreet is wise. Wisdom is the practical application of knowledge, but if you don’t have real Bible knowledge, it’s hard to be wise.
You’ve heard it said that a picture is worth a thousand words. If you want to understand the abysmal level of scholarship at JW headquarters, I give you this.
Now, what can we take away from all this? Jesus said, “A student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.” (Luke 6:40 NIV). In other words, a student is no better than his teacher. If you read the Bible, then your teacher is God and your Lord Jesus, and you will be rising forever in knowledge. However, if your teacher is the Watchtower and the other publications of the organization. Hmm, that reminds me of something Jesus said:
“For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.” (Matthew 13:12)
Thank you for watching and for supporting this channel.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Devora on 2021-12-08 15:35:22
Another Sound article,using the Scriptures.Thank You.
We who have found'the height,breadth,depth'of the Christ recognize that Basic;that ground-level..that there are NO limits on our Love,Loving Christ,His Love..
His Father's.
The organization of JW's have now plainly shown-- they've controlled+
regulated+straitjacketed even "..the Love of the Christ(compells us).."
into a pale shadow,hiding
in a corner.
Comment by Nathan on 2021-12-10 15:25:03
Goodmorning everyone. I am writing from Italy I am a former elder and have served as one of Jehovah's Witnesses for more than forty years. For a few months after a long period of detachment from congregational activities, I have definitively distanced myself. Over the years I have always asked myself some important questions to which I have never been able to give a serious and concrete answer. At first, I left them there with the illusion that Jehovah would someday give me the answer in this organization. Unfortunately, over time the questions accumulated but it wasn't true that I didn't have answers. The answers were there, but they were in places I didn't expect to find. I am one of the administrators of a blog in Italy where we give the possibility to many "brothers" to be able to express themselves freely without risking repercussions in the congregations to which they belong. Ours is a great little community where we freely develop theocratic themes and encourage each other.
With pleasure I wanted to greet Eric for his valuable work and the precious contribution he is giving to the great conscious work that the brotherhood of the whole world requires. There are many references that we have on the web of dissent but what remains interesting for me is the effort to maintain contact with God and his word.
Also in this post we can find many small pearls that can warm our hearts. To make a small contribution to the post I would like to highlight how the organization does not have a rigorous theological study. The figure of Christ as you well know has always been seen in an ambiguously chaotic way. Jehovah's Witnesses define themselves as Christians but if you look closely they are only for the etiquette and not for a specific theological study. There are many other evidences that can be taken into consideration for not defining Jehovah's Witnesses as a Christian religion. A heartfelt hug to everyone.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-12-10 16:26:00
Welcome to our site, Nathan, and it is so good to hear that our Italian brothers and sistesr are also sharing in the free exchange of Bible research--something which JW.org dreads.
Reply by vitisbp on 2021-12-11 18:40:41
Hi Nathan,
Could you give me, please, the name of the blog in Ita)y where you are one of the administrators? or the link? I'd attended meetings in Italian, but those ended about a year ago. I don't speak Italian, but I speak Spanish. Has there been any discussion on your blog lately of having an online meeting? I would like to attend Italian meetings again.Reply by Nathan on 2021-12-12 13:12:19
Hi thank you Eric. Our blog site is Osservatore Teocratico.
The site has a policy that does not promote clandestine sibling meetings on its own initiative. But obviously he is not even against it because many brother and sister feel the need to get together. I am aware of one of these weekly meetings if you want to know the details you can contact me at this email nathanzwillinger@gmail.com you will be given the directions.Reply by vitisbp on 2021-12-13 12:35:29
Hi Nathan,
Thank you very much.
But, I'll explain that I am not Eric. I sometimes work for him, such as doing proofreading or moderating. I had lived in Ecuador when he lived in Colombia. But we hadn't met back then. I will email you.
Comment by ctron on 2021-12-08 16:16:15
Hi Eric,
I want to bring up this topic with someone and I'm trying to anticipate all the possible answers and arguments I could get. The Organization teaches that the first century Christians are part of the 144,000. So the answer I could get from citing John 1:12 is that it talks about the time when Jesus was on earth since it says "to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children". It doesn't say: "to all who do receive him, he gives authority to become God’s children". And so we can't say that this particular verse applies to us today. How would you respond?
Thanks,
ctronReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-12-08 18:13:37
A valid question, Ctron. The reason that John is speaking in the past tense is that he is writing about the nation of Israel, which by that point (around 96 CE) had ceased to exist.
John 1:11 reads: "He came to his own home, but his own people did not accept him."
So we might expand John 1:12 to read "However, to all [of his own people] who did receive him, he gave authority to become God's children. So the all in this instance is limited by context to the Jews. That the authority to become God's children is not restricted to the Jews, we need to look elsewhere:
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)
“16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him. 18 Whoever exercises faith in him is not to be judged. Whoever does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judgment: that the light has come into the world, but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. 20 For whoever practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his works may not be reproved. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that his works may be made manifest as having been done in harmony with God.”” (John 3:16-21)
John 11:52
and not only for the nation, but also for the scattered children of God, to gather them together into one.
Romans 8:14
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-08 23:56:25
"John 1:11 reads: “He came to his own home, but his own people did not accept him.”
So we might expand John 1:12 to read “However, to all [of his own people] who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children. So the all in this instance is limited by context to the Jews."
Wow, I never thought of it that way! That is certainly a valid way to interpret the scripture. I think, however, there is another equally valid way to interpret the scripture. Here's how I interpret the surrounding verses.
John 1:9-13;
"9 The true light, which gives light to everyone[all people], was coming into the world[of all mankind]. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him[John is already writing long after Jesus ascended. There would undoubtedly be quite a number of gentiles who had received Jesus by then. Is John really only talking specifically about the Jews that accepted him? The "but" could mean, "despite the fact" that most of his people rejected him, some of his people did accept him, and even more gentiles did!], who believed in his name he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
Ok, so, notice a pattern here? Well there (probably) is one!
Notice… Verses 9-10 talk about the world as the aggregate of mankind, which contains all people of all races within it.
Then verse 11 then suddenly jumps to particularly Jesus' people, the Jews.
Finally, verses 12-13 return to talking about the world once more.
So, basically;
The outer verses(two units, each consisting of two verses; 9-10 and 12-13 respectively) talk about Jesus' relation to the world. And the inner verse(11) talks about his relation to his people. (At least, that's what I believe.) Neat, huh?
So, the scriptures could be saying something along the lines of this;
"The word of God is the true light, who gives light to everyone by coming into the world(at least, you'd think that everyone would receive said "true light"). And yet, when he was in the world, the world did not recognize him! Even his own people did not accept him! But to all the people who did accept him and did believe in him, whether belonging to his own people or the other people of the world, he did in fact give light to, as well as the authority to become sons and daughters of the true God and the ability to be born, not of flesh nor of blood nor of man, but of God."
In summary; I think the scriptures in context are talking about how Jesus is supposed to be a light for everyone by coming into the world, but how so many did not and do not acknowledge him, but instead reject him(even those of his own people). But despite this, to those who do accept him(whether Jew or Gentile), he gives light to, as well as the ability to be born of God and be His child. All this applied back when it was written, all this applies today. It is a powerful statement, and a very truthful one I might add(it's been true throughout all the generations since he came).
Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-08 16:32:49
The context of John 1 shows that the narrator(who is narrating from third-person omniscient POV) is talking about the new beginnings that Jesus brought into fruition during his time on earth, of which he told his disciples(all of them) to, not only perpetuate, but cultivate until the "the end of the age." (Matthew 28:16-20) If they want to say John 1:12 applies only to the disciples in antiquity, then they better stay consistent and say Matthew 28:16-20 does also. In which case, the entire purpose of the organization falls apart, as no longer is spreading the good news necessitated(of course, the "good news" they preach isn't the gospel at all).
Oh, and also you can just tell them that reading the verse in that way means that the 8 men at the top of the whole operation can't be anointed either, in which instance no one is obliged to obey them any longer(of course, no one is obliged to obey them now, nor in the past, nor will anyone ever be, but I digress).
Comment by rajeshsony on 2021-12-08 16:17:18
Angels with wings! Ha. I can't believe it. Not to mention, an angel isn't a type of spiritual being, nor is a cherub. These are not descriptions of physicality, because spirit beings don't have physicality. They are job descriptions and/or specific roles or statuses. The cherubim are God's throne guardians; that's why they are depicted many times on the sides of God's throne(that's also why they change appearance throughout the Bible, depending on the context of the cultures at that time period. Sometimes throne guardians are depicted as animal hybrids, other times they are depicted as seraphim, serpent-like throne guardians). And angels are God's messengers. That's literally what the Hebrew word for angel(mal'ak) means; messenger or ambassador.
And a specific angel, the Angel of the Lord/Jehovah, seems to be His primary messenger, who, when he visits people on Earth, acts like God, performing blessings and curses, speaking like he is God Himself; no other angels are ever depicted doing. He is even called Jehovah on more than one occasion. For every other angel, whenever the name of an angel is given, it is never given Jehovah(e.g. Michael or Gabriel). I believe that this is Jesus, before he was incarnated at his first coming. Ok, I'm going on a tangent. The point is; they don't know that angels and cherubim are job descriptions/statuses, not types of spirit beings with specific appearances.
Fantastic job on this video, my brother! You never disappoint!! ;)Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-12-08 18:15:56
Thanks Rajeshsony
Comment by Ilja Hartsenko on 2021-12-08 16:28:12
Hi, Eric,
In the April 2020 article about friendship with God, they actually make this stunning statement: “We must attach neither too much nor too little importance to our love for Jesus.—John 16:27.”
Here's how this sentence was translated into Russian WT:
"At the same time, we remember that love for Jesus should not be stronger than love for his Father."Reply by Ilja Hartsenko on 2021-12-08 16:50:17
In Ukrainian:
"We should neither exaggerate nor downplay the importance of loving Jesus"
In Estonian:
"However, love for Jesus should not be more important to us than love for Jehovah."
In Bulgarian:
"We should not attach too much importance to the love of Jesus, but we should not underestimate it."
In GEORGIAN:
"We have a balanced view and we do not attach too much importance to our love for Jesus."Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-12-08 18:17:21
I envy you, my brother, to be able to speak so many tongues.
Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-08 16:53:35
Yikes. You can't love the Father without loving Jesus, and you can't love Jesus without loving the Father. Who you love to a greater extent is of unimportance. Being a Christian, you must have a substantial amount of love for BOTH Father and Son. Worrying about things like who you should or shouldn't have more love for is petty and inconsequential.
I know Christians who feel like they have a stronger relationship with Jesus than with God, because of how they can relate more to Jesus considering how he was flesh and bones like us, and was tempted to sin like us, and who suffered so greatly like us(although most of us will never have to go through anything like what Jesus did). And I know Christians who have a closer relationship with God as well.
But the common denominator between all of them; if you asked every one of them who their loving creator and Father is, and who their Lord and Savior and King is, every one of them would say God and Jesus respectively. And they ALL love God and Jesus more than anyone else. The point is, love for Jesus and love for God are inextricably linked.
And, by the way, it's not like you can control love anyway(it's variable, subject to change). To suppress it and embiggen it at will? Such nonsense.Reply by Ilja Hartsenko on 2021-12-08 18:02:52
I completely agree, I just gave examples of translation into different languages, and showed that even here there is no unanimity.
And love for the Father and Christ cannot be measured by any instrument or scale, or by rules and instructions, as a "slave" does.
Comment by yobec on 2021-12-08 18:48:41
Some of us were raised in a household where their Father was abusive towards them.
resulting, through no fault of their own, to have serious difficulties in feeling close to their heavenly Father
I know someone who after beeing in " the truth " for 23 years, still saw Jehovah as a fault finding judge sitting on his throne in heaven , watching his every move, ready to clobber him should he step out of line.
Then came " The greatest man book" This book had a profound effect on him,
After developping this deep love for Christ, he got down on his knees one night and apologized to Jehovah because, as he put it, he seemed to love Christ more than Jehovah and that bothered him and so he begged for forgiveness.
This person accepted professional help and eventually saw how his upbringing had warped him as far as how he perceived his heavenly father.
I wish I could say that this is an isolated case but unfortunately it is not
There are many who struggle with trust and love when it comes to their heavenly Father due to similar or worse abuse but have a deep love for Christ and I am sure that Jehovah who can read hearts is okay with thatReply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-08 19:41:15
I agree. I know people who can relate a lot more to Jesus, him being mere flesh and blood as you and I, being tempted to sin as we humans are(he was tempted by the primary temptations from which all other temptations stem; desire for the flesh, desire for the eyes, and pride of life/possessions), suffering to such a great extent, and yet he overcame it ALL like no human had or will ever do again. (See Hebrews 4:14-15 and 1 John 2:16)
Also, nowhere is It said to be a requirement to call God our Father. Being His children, it is not only correct to do so, but optimal, as we are implored to do so. But, it is still not a requirement. As long as we know who God is(the almighty sovereign and creator of the universe), what He has done for us(given us an opportunity to gain eternal life in a world with no suffering or wickedness or pain of any sort, all through His one and only Son, our Lord and Savior), how much He loves us(willing to sacrifice His only-begotten son for ALL of humanity; He voluntarily gave up His firstfruits so that the severance between God and humanity could finally be mended and restored, once and for all), and, most importantly, we have a healthy fear of Him(for the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom as a whole - see Proverbs 9:10); all that is what matters the most.
Might I add, in realizing and doing all these things, we naturally have a father-child relationship with God, as it is intrinsic. But I get that the relationship in and of itself is not the problem. The problem is how you deliberately refer to the relationship and how you specifically label the members within it. As doing so in a certain way might inadvertently remind you of all the distress you've had in the past between a relationship that was referred to/labeled in such a manner. And Jehovah undoubtedly realizes and understands this, and is absolutely ok with you feeling better off not referring to Him as Father.
Just remember, my brother, that in the New Heavens and the New Earth, we will be able to completely move forward(above and beyond) from all the suffering and anguish of our previous lives. A time I'm sure we all look forward to! Take care, my brother, and have a wonderful day! :)
Comment by sincerelyours on 2021-12-08 19:46:09
I appreciate how you continue to prove the cherry-picking of scriptures. Being an optimist and always trying to find the good in people, it is becoming harder for me to make excuses for this behavior and possibly some ignorance but really. How is it possible that elders who I am sure, get folks coming to them ALL THE TIME raising concerns and how can it be that they so casually dismiss these major concerns. They cherry pick to make the narrative work. Yes of course. But. If their hearts are truly about looking after the flock, why aren't they investigating for themselves to see if these concerns truly have merit. Or, do they know, and are truly just a pack of evil men. I don't want to refer to them as wolves. Wolves are innocent animals. It's becoming harder for me to see these men as innocently ignorant and foolish people. I'm starting to see that this is truly men on a power trip and not only losing Holy Spirit, but allowing for demonic possession of their hearts. This makes me sad beyond words.
Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-08 20:12:47
Maybe a little to harsh on the "demonic possession" part... But otherwise I agree with you.
Reply by sincerelyours on 2021-12-08 20:27:42
Rajeshsony, perhaps it is harsh. I do not know what terminology best describes folks who know that children are being hurt, lives destroyed, know about it, do absolutely nothing and in fact turn it against the victim and make them out to be the villians. I really don't know what to call this. But it isn't anything innocent. For certain.
Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-08 22:12:14
Well, most elders do not know that children are being abused.
Reply by wish4truth2 on 2021-12-11 01:39:31
Nothing to do with what elders do not know, but it is all about what is actually happening, it is real.
Reply by wish4truth2 on 2021-12-11 01:50:46
No others words to describe them but demonic. Any who are elders have seen and heard things, it should motivate their hearts to do good, get out and help others to get out. The Bible has a phrase for this motivation : "love of truth". But sadly many are comfortable with the power they have, overlooking all things,not interested in truth their hearts become dark.
Reply by sincerelyours on 2021-12-20 07:58:27
wish4truth2,
I used that term simply because of the fact there are two sides to a fence and then the top of the fence. If you are not waffling, then you are on one side or the other. When I raised valid, pertinent questions to the main elder, I was treated with a demonic attitude. One who was not willing to help me find answers, but rather buy into man's thinking. Going further, puts me down for even raising such questions, employs scare tactics stating that I was "treading on dangerous ground" and "you are sounding like a free thinker" as if that was a bad thing. The attitude was, 'hey, let's not explore your questions! If you want an opinion, you will use mine or nothing, and if I want an opinion, I'll give you one!' The only other term I could give my personal encounter if not demonic, would be mad, as in hatter, or crazies. I could not use the terms, loving, thoughtful, caring, concerned, ....its really choosing the side of a fence.Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-20 12:44:16
Great points. I cannot argue with that, my brother.
Comment by yobec on 2021-12-09 00:46:58
Also, the warning about showing too much love for Jesus as opposed to that of Jehovah, can be found in a book by the society called "then is finished the mystery of God" published in 1969.This book comments on Jesus' warning to the congregation in Ephesus where he tells them that they have lost the love they first had Rev: 2;4
In applying this warning " antitypically" it says that basically the " Bible students " were guilty of putting too much emphasis on Jesus and needed to go back and imitate the first century Christians.
Interestingly though, the Greek scriptures emphasize Jesus more often than Jehovah.
The light is indeed getting dimmerReply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-09 01:16:16
Exactly. On top of that, they never even mention the name Jehovah. Jehovah is only ever referred to as either "God" or "Father." But never once is the tetragrammaton(i.e. Yahweh, or Jehovah in English) found in the New Testament.
Comment by wish4truth2 on 2021-12-10 15:57:00
I do not believe the organisation ever had Holy Spirit in the first place. From the time of lawless Russell to the wicked lawless governing body today it has only existed, and has always existed by the operation of Satan. It was put in place to mislead all people but if possible, the Holy ones.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-12-10 16:23:35
I don't believe that holy spirit is poured out on an organization, but only on individuals.
Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-10 19:26:04
Yes, you are absolutely correct my brother. Holy Spirit is poured out on specific individuals. But Holy Spirit can also be found with a group of individuals who each carry the Holy Spirit within them. This is how Jesus could say at Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Jesus is with us, with our congregation, because the Holy Spirit, within each of us, can be found in our congregation. It's not poured on the congregation, but it can be found there, because we have the presence of Jesus with us. :)
Reply by wish4truth2 on 2021-12-10 22:05:54
Yes, I did not say it was, I believe the same as you Eric. It is not poured out on "THE" organisation, that is an expression. But,I believe Holy spirit cannot be poured out on any individual who remains within the ORG, I believe I never had Holy spirit when I was a JW, but remained under Gods wrath. As those who remain in the org for now, remain under the wrath of God, they remain amongst the many Antichrists whether knowing it or not. Knowing they are participating in leading people astray or not. Therefore, Holy Spirit cannot exist in the organisation. "No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him". Many are yet to be drawn out of the org to the Christ,where they will receive Holy Spirit for the first time.
Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-10 23:25:14
Antichrists are not those who point to others instead of Jesus. Antichrists are those who point to themselves instead of Jesus. To be an antichrist means to place yourself in exchange for Jesus. No JW's I know are doing that. The governing body is. The JW's serve an antichrist, but they themselves, by definition, are not antichrists.
Reply by wish4truth2 on 2021-12-11 00:24:29
You only tell part of the story, if you want to use definitions, AntiChrist does not just mean: "to place yourself in exchange for Jesus". It also means against:
1.an opponent of Christ; a person or power antagonistic to Christ.
2.a disbeliever in Christ.
3. a false Christ.
4.One who actively denies or opposes Christianity.
The prefix anti means “against” or “adversary of” or “in place of.”
John wanted to make clear that any teaching contrary to Christ and His purposes is Antichrist.
Do you think JW's actively teach people contrary to Christ and his purposes?
Do you think JWs actively teach a false Good News?
Which one do the rank and file Jw's fall into?Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-12 22:10:59
"You only tell part of the story, if you want to use definitions, AntiChrist does not just mean: “to place yourself in exchange for Jesus”. It also means against:
1.an opponent of Christ; a person or power antagonistic to Christ.
2.a disbeliever in Christ.
3. a false Christ.
4.One who actively denies or opposes Christianity.
The prefix anti means “against” or “adversary of” or “in place of.”
John wanted to make clear that any teaching contrary to Christ and His purposes is Antichrist."
Huh? What are you talking about... A teaching can't be an antichrist; only a person can. Ok, first of all, let's make some differentiations. How we use the prefix "anti-" in modern language is not the same as how it was used in antiquity. Today, "anti-" just means, directly opposed to; against. But that is not how it was used when in the time period John used the prefix(to describe antichrists). So, let's not conflate the two.
Second of all, he didn't even say that antichrists were opposed to Jesus. He just didn't. So, you aren't even right on that account. Here's what he actually said;
2 John 7 "For many deceivers have gone out into the world those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."
He says it again in 1 John 2:22, "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." A denial simply means a refusal to acknowledge. And a refusal to acknowledge is not the same thing as acknowledging the opposite. I have plenty of non-Christian friends, and even some non-Christian family members. They don't acknowledge that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. I guess that makes them antichrists, if we're going by the apostle John's definition.
Seemingly, I'm not allowed to associate with them. I can't even so much as give a greeting to them, otherwise, I am sharing in their wicked works! 2 John 10-11 "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." Wow. Well, the majority of people in this world do not bring the teaching of Jesus. So, I guess this means any sort of hospitality(but didn't Jesus encourage hospitality?) whatsoever towards non-Christians is totally forbidden. Boy, John's definition of antichrist is even harsher than yours. It doesn't just include JW's like yours does; it includes the majority of people in the entire world! (8[billion] people - 2.6B professing Christians = 5.4B people. That's 68% of the world's population. Already the majority. And when you take into account that the majority of professed Christians aren't even true Christians, well, I'd say upwards of 85% of the world's population is non-Christian. Quite definitely the majority.) Wait a second... If we're not even allowed to say a greeting to non-Christians, how are we supposed to preach the gospel?? I mean, John did say if anyone comes and does not bring this teaching, we shouldn't even say hi to them(and I think having a bible study is much more than a "hello"). The majority of the world does not bring the teaching of Christ. This means spreading the gospel is impossible if that's what John means, and that goes directly against what Jesus told us to do. Unless of course, John means something different when he says, "antichrist." We know that John was under inspiration when he wrote the letter, so there's no way he could be contradicting what Jesus so plainly told us to do. So, let's take a step back.
Let's see Strong's concordance for ἀντί(see Strong's G0473). "anti; a prim. prep., also a pref.; over against, opposite, hence instead of, in comp. denotes contrast, requital(which means "something given in return, compensation, or retaliation"; Merriam-Webster), substitution, correspondence." Notice, when used as a prefix(in compound with another word), it does not mean opposed or against(it means substitution or requital). It doesn't even mean denial. So, neither you nor John is correct... or so it seems. I 100% agree with you when you say an antichrist is opposed to Jesus. But, is anyone who opposes Jesus an antichrist? Better yet, is anyone who doesn't confess Jesus an antichrist? That is what John said after all. Or maybe, when John said the antichrist is someone who does not confess Jesus, he wasn't actually defining what an antichrist IS, but what an antichrist DOES. Kind of like Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not being seen." (BLB) The author isn't giving us the denotation of faith(faith just means complete trust and confidence in someone/something. That's the defintion of the word in Greek as well), but telling us the result of faith; what it DOES. When John used the prefix "ἀντί-" in conjunction with Χριστοῦ(Christou, or Christ), he knew his readers would understand what he meant by that, just like how you know that I know what you mean when you tell me to "replay" the show; you want me to play the show again. When the John's readers saw the word "ἀντίχριστος"(antichrist), the first thought that came to their mind wasn't, a teaching or person that directly opposed Jesus; it was someone who takes the place of Jesus, someone who is a substitute for him. And John was trying to tell his readers how every single one of these people(he did say many antichrists had come already), who puts themselves in the place of Christ, is one who denies the Christ and has neither the Father or the Son in them. He is talking about how antichrists are people who deny Jesus in a specific way.
So, an antichrist is someone who puts themselves as a substitute for Christ, such that when you juxtapose the two the disparity is perceptible. The antichrist is given in return for Christ, i.e. people give up following Jesus to follow the antichrist. Of course, not only Christians can be misled; others can as well. So, how does one put themselves in Christs' place? Merely by proclaiming teachings in disharmony with Jesus'? Is that all Jesus did? Teach? Or did he also garner followers for himself, and proclaim to be a teller of truth, and himself to be a means of salvation? That he did, no doubt. So, how does one take the place of Jesus? Well, they teach that which is contradictory(they do not have to be entirely contradictory. The best lies often have elements of truth as part of their substructure) to Christs' teachings and use their teachings(which they promulgate as truth) to garner followers of their OWN(even to lead the chosen ones astray). It's these sorts of people the apostle John was warning us about; these are the antichrists. Basically, you discern if someone is an antichrist by examining whether or not they put the teachings of the Word of God(i.e. Jesus) above their own, and whether their focus is on bringing people to Jesus or amassing followers for themselves. So, do JW's fit these criteria? NO! JW's put the teachings of the governing body above the teachings of Jesus, and they focus on gaining followers for the organization, not themselves. If you want to be technical about it... JW's are anti-disciples! Jesus' disciples put his word above all others, and gain followers for him. An antichrists' disciples put his word above all others, and gain followers for him. They are anti-disciples; they put themselves in the place of real disciples of Jesus. They are NOT antichrists. Sorry, it just doesn't work.
So, the answer your question;
"Which one do the rank and file Jw’s fall into?"
Anti-disciples, not antichrists.
Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-12 22:27:58
What John would have thought of when he heard the word "antichrist" is not what modern people would think of when they hear the same word. For example(so sorry, this is the only thing I can think of at the moment), the word "sodomy" today just means; an*l or or*l copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex. (Merriam-Webster) People like to use this definition to prove to others why God views extra-marital relations as sinful, because we all know God viewed the Sodomites as sinful. Of course, that's not what sodomy means. It technically means, "the sin of Sodom." That is sodomy, by definition. And the sin of Sodom was not what is thought of today. In the story, the men lusted for the angels(who were also men), and wanted to r*pe them. Sodomy is when a man tries to perform homosexual acts on another man in a non-consensual(sexually abusive) manner. That's the sin of Sodom, and that is what sodomy is. It is not what most people define "sodomy" to be, as is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-12-11 09:03:14
Something to consider is that in the letter to the seven congregations, there are whole congregations that were on the road to experiencing the wrath of Jesus, yet there were those within those congregations in whom he still took deelight or of whom he still approved. Holy Spirit is not a black and white thing like throwing a switch on or off. Jehovah says he makes it rain over the evil and the good. He is not just talking about the weather but about his blessing. Like any father, he knows that his children may be errant and wayward, but his ultimate goal is to get them all back into his family and so he does what he can do to accomplish that purpose without overriding their free will. I would hate to think that during my 60+ years in the organization I did not have one iota of God's Holy Spirit. If that were the case, then all my spiritual development and whatever good that I did was out of my own strength and to my own glory. No credit nor glory would go to the Father and that notion is unacceptable to me. Glory must go to God and not to a human.
Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-11 15:37:05
Holy Spirit is not a black and white thing like throwing a switch on or off.
Such a good point! I like to think everyone has a Holy Spirit tank in them that can be filled up or drained. How much Spirit you have in your tank is proportional to how much you want it to lead you to a life of truth and love. Everyone has the ability to receive Holy Spirit, even wicked people if they change their ways. But, ultimately, how much help they receive from God through His Spirit is up to how much they want it. You, my brother, wanted to learn truth, because you were getting sick of the lies. You put love for God and love for truth(You cannot love God without loving truth. God = truth, because everything He speaks through His Word comes to pass) abovd all else, and God saw this and gave you His Spirit to help you do so. And look where you are now! God saw your decision, and gave you the tools to empower you through His Spirit.
I would hate to think that during my 60+ years in the organization I did not have one iota of God’s Holy Spirit.
No doubt you did. You did live a life aligned with God's standards and obeyed His commandments, after all. I don't think anyone can do that without Holy Spirit. God knows us and understands our imperfections; I don't think ignorance prevents you from having Holy Spirit. I know a lot of JW's who are very godly people, even though they are ignorant ofthe turth. I'd hate to think that they are able to live such God-fearing lives without a single mote of Holy Spirit.
Jehovah says he makes it rain over the evil and the good. He is not just talking about the weather but about his blessing.
There's an important lesson here. Jesus didn't preach to only the people he knew for certain would accept his message. He preached to everyone. Here's what he said at 18:20; "“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret." God is fair to everyone, which is why I strongly beleive that in the resurrection everyone will get a chance to learn about His message. But, while God will make sure everyone gets to hear the message(not just those He knows will accept it), one thing He will not do if force them to accept it. He won't even try to convince them if they clearly don't want to accept what they have heard completely plainly.
John 6:60-69;
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus was telling them how they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life in them. Of course, many thought he was talking about cannibalism. But in verse 58 he makes it clear that he is not talking about actually eating flesh, but bread that represents his flesh. He compared it to the bread their forefathers' ate(which was not flesh, but actual bread. They knew their forefathers' were not cannibals) in verse 58; "This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." And then he made it clear precisely why this bread was special in verse 63. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
But, despite making it all clear, the majority of his disciples ended up leaving him(he had even performed actual miracles not too long before the controversy!). When they rejected what Jesus said, and left him, he didn't run after them begging them to accept what he was saying(It even says he knew from the beginning who would and wouldn't accept his message). But one thing he always made sure to get done is to let everyone hear his message as plainly and truly as possible. That way, in the end, they cannot say they didn't get a chance to accept it or that they didn't really understand what he was talking about. God does indeed make it rain upon both good and bad, but what they choose to do with the rain they receive is entirely up to them. Thanks for this point, brother Eric! ;)
Reply by Fani on 2021-12-12 03:39:13
Rev 3 : "l’ange de l’Eglise qui est à Sardes, écris: « Voici ce que dit celui qui a les sept esprits de Dieu[1] et les sept étoiles: Je connais ta conduite, je sais que tu passes pour être vivant, mais tu es mort. ..Cependant, tu as à Sardes quelques personnes qui n’ont pas sali leurs vêtements; elles marcheront avec moi en vêtements blancs, car elles en sont dignes."
Oui ces versets lors de mon réveil spirituel m'ont beaucoup réconfortée. Même dans un groupe déclaré mort par Christ, il sait reconnaître ceux qui marchent avec lui et ont donc l'esprit de Dieu.
Merci Éric
Comment by James Mansoor on 2021-12-10 18:49:44
Morning all,
I am a little confused… Does that mean that the organisation is anti christ?
If the congregation is made up of individuals and the individuals make up the congregation and that make up the body of Christ and we all know that Christ looks after anyone who believes in him as we know from when some were expelling demons in Christ’s name and were told not to stumble them… Doesn’t that mean the “organisation” has a measure of holly spirit?
We all call Christ as Lord… Lord. Christ has poured out holly spirit on this website, individually and collectively, I cannot judge if the organisation does not have holly spirit… Christ will. Unless the organisation is Anti - Christ, then personally speaking, they do have a measure of holly spirit.
Please let me know what you think.Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-10 20:15:17
Well, the Holy Spirit cannot be poured onto a group. Nowhere does it say that in the Bible. It can be poured onto individuals, and when such individuals gather, consequently the Holy Spirit can be found there in that group. It is not poured within the group, but within the individuals that the group consists of. This is how Jesus could say that we would have his presence when a group is gathered in his name. Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." The word for "spirit" in Hebrew is "ruach", which means wind, breath, energy, or presence. God's Spirit is His breath, His wind, His energy, His presence. When the Israelites had it with them, it meant they had God with them. As Christians, having Jesus' Spirit with us, means having Jesus with us. But it can only be found with the group if the individuals within the group have the Holy Spirit within them. If the individuals themselves don't have it, how could the Holy Spirit even be there?
So, it's not technically about judging an organization or a group. It's about judging the individuals within the group. What Eric is saying is that it seems that the individuals of the groups do not have Holy Spirit with them, and thus the Holy Spirit is not a part of the group. Eric is not making a general statement about ALL the JW congregations in the world. He's talking specifically about the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, i.e. the guys on top of the whole operation. Hiding child sexual abuse cases, having an affiliation with the image of the beast, the UN, and so much more? The Holy Spirit is undoubtedly not with them. There's no way Jesus could have any of that.
I think the Holy Spirit can be found in anyone that puts faith in Jesus by repenting of their sins and accepting him as their Lord and Savior. I do not think baptism is a requirement to have the Spirit with you. I think if you are truly repentant and you do a conversion from your old way of life to a new one(as in doing so you have been forgiven, and if you have been forgiven you have been washed by the Holy Spirit), you already have the Holy Spirit with you. I do think, however, that in order to reap the full benefits of the Holy Spirit you must be baptized into Jesus' name. It was at his baptism that he received the Holy Spirit in such a way that it fully empowered him to do his ministry. Obviously, he had the Holy Spirit before. He was a perfect man! How could he not? But it was at his baptism that a whole new potential was unlocked to do so much good that he couldn't have done before. Do you need to be baptized to be saved? Well, I'm not 100% sure, but I assume that the one's who inherit the kingdom, God's children, can only be His children if they are born of Him, or "born of heaven," i.e. born again. And they can only do so by being baptized into the Spirit and Jesus was. But, once again, I do not really know.
As for the organization being an antichrist... it most certainly is. You see, an antichrist isn't just someone who openly opposes Jesus. It can also be one who subtly opposes Jesus, by putting themselves in place of him. See, the Greek word for the prefix "anti"(ἀντί) doesn't mean directly oppose, it means "in exchange for," "in place of," and "instead of." (check out Strong's G0473 to see for yourself) When someone puts themselves in place of Jesus towards others, they are in fact opposing Jesus because they are leading his people astray, drawing them away from him and towards them. They do not have to openly proclaim to be against Jesus. They can do so in a subtle way. Really, an antichrist is anyone who opposes Jesus, whether subtly or openly, whether knowingly or unknowingly. You do not need to know that you are deceiving someone to be a deceiver. Here's the definition of "deceive" - to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. Whether or not the WBTS knows they are an antichrist does not matter, because they time and time again place themselves in the place of Jesus, expecting others to completely obey them over matters of life and death, even if "it does not seem reasonable from a human standpoint." The WBTS is undeniably an antichrist.Reply by yobec on 2021-12-10 21:38:08
Well said
Reply by rajeshsony on 2021-12-10 21:41:32
Thank you my brother! :)
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2021-12-11 06:37:09
Hebrews 4:12 underscores 2 Tim 3:16-17 when Paul writes that "the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two edge sword and pierces to the dividing of soul and spirit". In other words, to get to the truth we must make sure that what we teach is solidly based on God's word.
I note the comments about the picture of the angel. Inaccurate, yes. But important ? I am not quite so sure.
But the teaching about friends is different. It falls in with many other questionable teachings which, as Witnesses, we simply swallowed as truth, on the basis of the Organisation's claim to be God's channel.
However, consider Jesus words at Luke 11:24-26 Perhaps someone has noticed this before on this site. What do you think ?
When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it passes through waterless places until it finds a resting place, and after finding none, it says "I will return to my house from which I have moved". And on arriving, it finds the house swept clean and adorned. Then it goes and takes along seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and after getting inside, they dwell there. So the final circumstances of that man become worse than the first.
Now, Jesus knows infinitely more than we do about the operations of demons, but could this have another application ?
When an errant teaching comes from an Organisation (or man), it seeks acceptance. This has applied to all sorts of branches of Christianity, and no less so than among Jehovah's Witnesses. If the teaching finds a resting place, a new version of Christianity may even arise, rejecting some former teachings and running with some new ones. Maybe this was once true of the Bible Students. However, over time, certain errant JW teachings were not seeking a new Organisation, so they returned, as it were, from whence they came, where they found a ready home of people prepared to swallow those teachings, hook, line and sinker. The home where those teachings found themselves claimed to be clean (truth) and to be God's Organisation, and a spiritual paradise.
There may have been a time when JWs were seeking truth, but mixing that search with preconceived ideas made truth much harder to find. When an Organisation is willing to consider carefully what the Bible says, it may well received God's spirit. When it does not, even turning out those with valid questions, refusing to answer them, then at least to that extent it cannot receive God's spirit.
Just like Israel of old, there is always the opportunity to return to Jehovah. Will it ever happen ? Well, there is a fair way to go.
Just my thoughts today (and the day before and the day before that). Your thoughts will be welcome.
Love to all seekers of truth on this site, and especially to Eric for raising the question and doing a great job in answering it.