Site To Refute Franz And Cameron

by Bangalore 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • t33ap80c

    TW said, "Christ’s presence is not a "past event" or something that has "already happened."

    But THE BEGINNING of Christ’s presence is a "past event." The beginning of Christ’s presence is something that has "already happened." Jehovah’s Witnesses are not looking for Christ’s invisible presence to begin because they believe it already began in 1914.

    TW then asked, "How is it that the Bible Students missed his presence? Maybe Cameron can answer that for us."

    Answer: If Jesus’ invisible presence began in 1914 the Bible Students missed that event because they believed it had already begun in 1874. In the same way, if Jesus’ parousia began yesterday then TW would have missed it because he believes that the beginning of Jesus’ invisible presence already happened in 1914.

    Don Cameron

  • Bangalore

    Looks like he has deleted the readers comments. Many JW's do not much like critical anaylis I guess.


  • teel

    Yep, no more comments, questionings allowed. Only praising words - there's one more comment left, easy to guess the content. Long live the freedom of speech!

  • boyzone

    Hi Ann,

    my original entry on sidewiki didn't show up so I've written another.

    Its here

    Read the book! This critique of Don Cameron's book "Captives of a Concept" is such an appalling distortion that its difficult to know where to begin. The use of strawman arguments, diversions and generalisations used on this website are so extensive that it renders the whole critique meaningless and without credibility. It is a desperate attempt by the writer to defend Jehovahs Witnesses at any cost. A reader of this website would do well not to rely on such a poor apology for JW's but would do better in obtaining a copy of Captives of a Concept and judging the validity of the content for himself.

  • teel

    Too bad the comments are down though, I read some more on the site, and it's going downhill. The guy is gripping at straws in his cognitive dissonance. At the blog entry The Truth About the Mexican Military and Jehovah’s Witnesses he wrote:

    They had no choice in doing something illegal if they were going to continue to serve God. The fact is that they would either have to disobey God and obey the government by serving or obey God and do something illegal according to the government.

    So what does the "Spirit-directed slave" do? Adopts a third choice, which the blog writer ommitted: disobey the government AND God. This is what in essence the bribe is.

    He's also trying to explain bribe in Mexico is not so bad, it's socially acceptable No comment there.

  • AnnOMaly

    Yep, he's deleted the comments and persisting in 'setting the record crooked' by keeping in the same errors that were shown to be false.

  • AnnOMaly

    I posted.

    Hello again STRS.

    You said:
    "On page 23 Cameron writes:Today they teach that he returned to begin his Second Coming in 1914.They believe 1914 marks Jesus' invisible presence, not his Second Coming. The Second Coming consists of the presence, and then the Return. Cameron fails to make this vital and important distinction in his book. Why? Because if he were to present Jehovah's Witness teachings as they teach and not as Cameron portrays them, then he'd be exposed for the liar that he is."

    Again Cameron is correct and your accusation about his deceit in this matter is unfounded. Please note the comments in the article, 'How Does Christ Come the Second Time?' (Watchtower 1955, 2/15, p. 104):

    "To sum up: We have seen that Jesus came the first time as a human ... that he could not have inherited heaven had he remained a human nor, much less, as such, accomplish the glorious purposes of his second presence; that HE CAME as an invisible spirit and in the sense that he directed his attention to earth's affairs, and that AFTER HIS SECOND COMING three features appear, the first, the parousia, or presence, beginning in 1914." [emphasis mine]

    The Second Coming therefore results in a continuing Presence from 1914. Moreover, the Second Coming is synonymous with the Return:

    "It is just such a composite sign that marks the time of Jesus' SECOND COMING OR, MORE ACCURATELY, HIS PRESENCE. The Greek word parousi′a that many translations render "coming" at Matthew 24:3 does not mean a time when he would come or arrive but means that he has already arrived and is on hand, is present. In Jesus' case it means that he is invisibly present as Jehovah's enthroned King and is reigning from heaven. This is in keeping with Jesus' statement at John 14:19: "A little longer and the world will behold me no more." Since he would not be physically visible, he gave a sign that would indicate HIS RETURN AND INVISIBLE PRESENCE as Jehovah's reigning King. ... ... The fulfillment of this composite sign given by Jesus, plus some additional conditions given by three of the apostles, began in a remarkable way from 1914 onward." [emphasis mine] - Awake! 1993, 3/22, p.6.

    To succinctly drive the point home:

    "So it was in 1914 that Jesus returned invisibly" - w.1991, 5/15, p.9.

    You said:
    "Actually President Russell and Rutherford both believed that Christ would return in 1914"

    As has already been pointed out to you (the posts appear to have been deleted now), they were NOT expecting Jesus to return in 1914. I remind you of the following references.

    The September 15, 1922 WT, p.278 states:
    "No one can properly understand the work of God at this present time who does not realize that since 1874, the time of the Lord's return in power, there has been a complete change in God's operations."

    And as the Proclaimers book points out on p.631,
    "Calculations based on this cycle of years led to the conclusion that perhaps a greater Jubilee for all the earth had begun in the autumn of 1874, that evidently the Lord had returned in that year and was invisibly present, and that "the times of restitution of all things" had arrived.-Acts 3:19-21, KJ."

    Even the quotations you give from POST-1914 literature do not help your argument. They demonstrate that Russell and Rutherford were NOT in expectation of Jesus' 'return' and 'setting up' of the Kingdom BEFORE 1914. To them these were LONG PAST events, to which other period literature testifies.

    You simply cannot be 'setting the record straight' by persistently misrepresenting the facts about what the Bible Students taught and believed and doing the very thing that you accuse Cameron of! It's very bad form.

  • inbetween

    interesting, i wish we had more sites like this, why?

    many things I´ve been looking at since a few month here and on other sides are raising many issues concerning the WTS.

    While, as most here, I had doubts and problems with some WTS teachings and practices before, the internet enlightened my horizon much more, so that today I know, this can not be Gods organsation.

    however, some accusations proved to be onesided or simply wrong.

    There are serveral reasons, why whoever acts as an apologist, should have a possibility to voice their defend:

    1) in order to see the facts, it is helpful to know different opinions. It may give a balanced view. based on that, an informative judgment on a certain matter be made.

    2) if one of the issues ever becomes an argument with other JW, elders or any apologists, it is very helpful to know what arguments they may use for defense. Sometimes reading apologist sides, first you may understand their point, even tend to agree. Then you need time to think over and see the flaws in their arguments. But if you hear them the first time, you may be unprepared and therefore tend to give in.

    3) In some cases a weak defense even supports the issue more than no defense. I may illustrate: While reading some chapters of CoC, I always have in the back of my mind, well "who knows if Ray Franz is right", maybe he also presents half-truths (no pun intended, its just because esp. after dealing with the half-truths of the WTS, people become even more sceptical). But when you see, how apologists try to refute his arguments, they get even more weight. When you see, how they use red herring and strawman strategies, then you know, that he is really telling the truth.

    just my 2 cents,


  • AnnOMaly

    Got a reply from STRS that said he was one of a few STRSs managing the blog, that he had not seen any of the previous comments and so hadn't deleted them. I'm not sure what to make of that. He also said he would be revising the chapters - eventually.

  • dinah

    Since when does simply deleting posts that disagree with you refuting anything? Oh yeah, that's how the Witnesses roll.

Share this