GaryBuss: What religion's not a religion of assumptions? Just curious.
You’ve got a point. All belief systems are comprised of observations, assumptions and subjective conclusions, even science. But there are levels of assumptions, some made from observation and others based on supposition.
Assumption is defined as,
The act of:
- taking to or upon oneself
- taking over
- taking for granted
- accepted as true without proof
- a presumption
It also can mean the act of:
- taking to or upon oneself
- taking over
- taking for granted
- something taken for granted
- accepted as true without proof
- a supposition: a valid assumption or presumption
As we can see, some aspects of the word are more insubstantial than others. So at what levels are the Jehovah’s Witnesses guilty of assumption? I always thought the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was one of the few religions that met the entire gamut of the word.
Carmel: Christ wished by suggestion, or an allusion, to confirm the words of Peter; so...He said: "and upon this rock I will build My church," meaning, thy belief that Christ is the Son of the living God, will be the foundation of the Religion of God....
It was more than a belief at that point, I think. Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ because the Father had revealed it through the power of the Holy Spirit. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee,” Jesus said, “but my Father in Heaven.” As you said, this irrefutable knowledge was to be the driving force of the church, and the “rock” was revelation from God, the life’s blood of the church, or the sure knowledge that God was leading his people. Not Peter, for he was flesh and, left unto himself, was nothing. Looking at the Jehovah’s Witnesses, we have, I think, a case of the blind leading the blind.
Should great tribulations come upon the earth, of what worth would the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses be? As far as I know, in the past the members of this group have seldom been correct in scriptural exegeses on nearly everything. Their dates for significant happenings have always been wrong, their views on prophecy and eschatology issues like Armageddon are consistently incorrect. Their historical understandings also are frequently off (like the destruction of Jerusalem and their insistence that Jesus died on a stake, not a cross). And they miss critical eschatological events like the gathering of Judah back to the lands of their forefathers.
So when the asteroids begin hitting the earth and the ground opens up and starts moaning and quaking, do these men in the Governing Body have a given track record to inspire confidence and to lead people to places of safety, as the apostles did in the days of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans?
Such guidance requires two things: first, a church, because Jesus said he would build his church; and knowledge that flows from God in the form of revelation—the type that “flesh and blood” cannot provide. The Jehovah’s Witnesses say they aren’t a church and, until recently, they have denied receiving the type of revelation the apostles did.