@djeggnog wrote:
I read the quotes in your post, but what my reading of them told me is that you believe them to support your point of view. Your point of view seems to me to [be] ... that the WTS is not being used by God today as His prophet.... For example, in your previous post, you objected to Jehovah's Witnesses being referred to as "prophets," even though that is exactly what all Jehovah's Witnesses are.
@bennyk wrote:
[I]n your post 38 (page one), you asked: "has the WTS ever indicated that its words (or edicts) were inspired or that it had been given the gift of prophecy so that it could make predictions about the future? Then how can it be said that the WTS has ever been a 'false prophet'?" It is for that reason that I provided quotes indicating the Society's spurious claims regarding God 'put[ting] his words in their mouths', and being 'behind all their preaching and educational work'. I am pleased that you acknowledge that they are "prophets" for the record of their writings proves them unequivocally "false prophets". After all, the Society itself aptly states: "How will Jehovah show that such clergy prophets are fakes? By not fulfilling what they announce to be "an utterance!" or what they presume to speak in his name. He does not back up their falsehood. "‘Here I am against the prophets of false dreams,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘who relate them and cause my people to wander about [going astray] because of their falsehoods and because of their boasting.’ ‘But I myself did not send them or command them. So they will by no means benefit this people,’ is the utterance of Jehovah." (Jer. 23:32) Too bad for the people!" (w79 9/1 pp. 29-30, §29 The Royal "Shepherd" of Bible Prophecy) Yes, too bad for those who are affiliated with the Watch Tower Society.
While it may be the common belief of some that a prophet is someone that makes predictions, not all prophets do so; in fact, many of them are such by virtue of the fact that they deliver messages to others, communications that originate with God. So if someone should speak words in God's name that He really did not say, then that person would be a false prophet. Those people that would 'employ their tongue to steal away God's words away' (Jeremiah 23:30, 31) from those for whom Christ died by declaring things to them that the Bible does not support would be declaring falsehoods, making them false prophets.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not in the prediction-making business; we are evangelists, preachers of the good news, ambassadors substituting for Christ as representatives of God that beseech those estranged from God to become reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:20) While those who are parties to the New Covenant are an integral part of the heavenly kingdom government, New Jerusalem, their companions that assist in the work of bearing witness to Jesus are future subjects and envoys of the kingdom. Whatever it is the WTS publishes is based in part upon God's word and upon their understanding of it at that point in time. Jehovah's Witnesses prove that we are united in faith not just by their speaking the truth, but by our speaking the truth in agreement in connection with what things we teach. If any one of Jehovah's Witnesses should have a difference opinion on any doctrinal matter, they are free to voice their difference of opinion to others, even writing a letter to the WTS, for this is the means by which adjustments that would otherwise not have been made so soon are made.
But here's the thing: During the pendency of a matter being given consideration by the WTS, no one should be running ahead of our organization and begin teaching things that have not been "vetted" by those who have the responsibility of making sure that we are all united in faith and speaking in agreement. Some that have run ahead have even been disfellowshipped for a time for their doing so -- and more than once! -- even though it turns out that their view of the matter was correct! As a result, some have had to step down from serving as an elder for a time so that they might learn how not to contradict. Things are done in God's organization in an orderly manner and by arrangement, many in the organization have needed to learn how to be patient, for readjustments do not always take place over night, like, for example, many that are acquainted with God's view on blood later discover that they do not have the same view as to the sacredness of blood as does God's organization and become extremely depressed when they fail to "abstain ... from blood" and accept one or more blood transfusions in connection with what medical treatment they receive. Can you imagine how very depressed Peter was when his faith momentarily gave out? He actually denied even knowing "the man" in a way similar to how US President Bill Clinton referred to his former White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, as "that woman" with the idea that he could distance himself from Jesus -- who was not just his Lord, but his friend -- and not feel regret over knowing what he had done! Months or even years after some disfellowshipped ones that have excelled in the faith and have manifested the ability to clearly explain even the more difficult or obscure Bible topics decide that they must take some time away from God's organization so that they might more closely scrutinize their faith or whatever they feel is left of it are pulling the same stunt as did Peter in publicly denying that they were ever one of Jehovah's Witnesses when someone that did not know about their status "outs" them as having been such, which is often when the disfellowshipped one comes to realize what he or she has done and that faith-wise that they have advanced from bad to worse, and only then begin to feel regret over what they have done and over their dismal future prospects and return to us. But I digress.
@djeggnog wrote:
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't just prophets that have been given a commission by Jesus to speak God's words to others, but we are ministers of the New Covenant kindly given by God to those who have the work of bearing witness to Jesus and in company with the faithful slave, God's anointed, as well as we, Jesus' other sheep, who are serving alongside the remnant of that "little flock" in the earthly realm of God's House, giving direct worship to God, day and night, in the courtyards of God's Great Spiritual Temple, which is a holy place. I'm going to be returning to this later.
@bennyk wrote:
The Society denies your claim: "While the 'other sheep' would not be of the 'little flock,' they would be ministers of God, too, but not ministers of the new covenant." (Worldwide Security Under the "Prince of Peace", p.108) It appears that you are not especially conversant with the Society's teachings. Furthermore, you write: "we, Jesus' other sheep, who are serving alongside the remnant of that "little flock" in the earthly realm of God's House, giving direct worship to God, day and night, in the courtyards of God's Great Spiritual Temple, which is a holy place." The Scriptures place the "great crowd" in the naos, not in the courtyards (cf. Rev. 11:2 Gk).
I am going to first address the first two of your three criticisms and come back to the third one Normally, I would just ignore this second criticism, which would be the right thing to do, since no one needs to respond to every slight, or, for that matter, any slight that someone might lob at us, but I feel like I should exercise my prerogative here and just confront you on this, for as I transition to a mindset to give an appropriate response, I know my spiritual demeanor is going to be borderline, but let me say this first:
First, you are correct in what you say about how not all of Jehovah's Witnesses become "ministers of the New Covenant," for only members of the "anointed" are parties to it, but all Jehovah's Witnesses today do have a share in this ministry of reconciliation in connection with the commission that was given in connection with the Christian ministry. In this same publication you mention in your post, however, I would like to draw your attention to the following words contained in Chapter 8, "Sharing in 'the Joy' of the 'Prince of Peace'," at paragraph 13: "Thus the 'other sheep' are serving as faithful envoys of the 'Prince of Peace.'" (Emphasis added) ["Worldwide Security Under the 'Prince of Peace'" (1986) at page 70.]
BTW, this is really not a new thought, for back in 1982, there was an article that appeared in the Watchtower, "Carry On as Men," which include the following comments at paragraph 18: "Since the close of the first world war in 1918, and notably since the memorable year of 1935, a great crowd of persons of all nationalities have responded to that entreaty extended by the anointed remnant of the kingdom heirs.... In appreciation these are acting as the companions of the remnant of 'ambassadors substituting for Christ,' and could be viewed as 'envoys substituting for Christ' in extending the appeal to be reconciled with God to still other sheeplike ones." (Emphasis added) [w82, 10/1, pp. 24, 25]
An envoy is typically a diplomat that represents a government, but it is usually the case that he or she has less authority than someone that serves as an ambassador for the government would have. However, the words expressed by an ambassador or envoy would be consistent with the laws and policies of their government.
Second, I'm going to keep this short: I am "in the truth," as they say, and I've been in the truth for many years. While I was "raised in the truth," or, as we now say it, "raised in a Christian household," because at least one of my parents was in the truth when I was a child so that I cannot really remember if I ever never attended a meeting at the Kingdom Hall. (As I am kind of a wordsmith, the vagueness in what things I'm saying here at the moment is intentional.) You don't get to tell me how conversant you think me to be with respect to "the Society's teachings." What are these "teachings" exactly?
I'm familiar with many of the things that the Bible teaches, I've conducted and am presently conducting a couple of Bible studies over the years, and then there are the weekly meetings where much teaching takes place (I'm sure you can remember the meetings to which I refer), and it's disconcerting to meet someone, albeit here in cyberspace, that used to be one of us reduced to sniping at those spiritual brothers of his that he used to give respect because you and he worshipped the same God, Jehovah. But I suppose that this is your decision, that no one forced you to make this decision, that you are here doing what things you do now because you have chosen to do them, and I believe that this is really how things ought to be, but where do you get the temerity to sum me up, to size me up, to tell me that I don't appear to you to be "especially conversant" with anything? Again, I'm going to be the rhetorical question to you again as to what only you know what you mean by the expression, "the Society's teachings": What are they?
I have read many of the messages that have been posted to this forum and I've posted messages of my own to a few of the threads here -- even started one when a thread got derailed due to the formatting used in someone's message -- but one of the things that is oft stated here, which indicates to me a degree of immaturity -- that is, a degree of immaturity in my opinion, and I believe I'm entitled to have an opinion -- as well as a lack of understanding on the part of these immature ones as to what it is Jehovah's Witnesses actually teach in this regard (as is reflected by your slight) is that Jehovah's Witnesses put their faith in "the Society's teachings," which isn't true at all.
Ask most anyone that has studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses without using any of our publications before they began attending our meetings and began to regularly associate with us and they will tell you that they are putting their faith in the Bible, or that they are putting their faith in Jehovah, because they do not make the association that you (and others here on this forum) make between the things we discuss in our Bible-based publications, like the Watchtower, and the WTS or even the governing body. They just don't. And why is this the case?
Because they know the WTS to be a corporate publishing company. where our many publications and media items are produced. They know that the WTS is staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses, and they know what you are referring to here as "the Society's teachings" as "Bible teachings," and they know this because many of them are quite deft with using the Bible to prove one of the Bible teaching that they learned through their association with Jehovah's Witnesses. They know that the WTS oversees the worldwide preaching work that is taking place in some 236 lands, including 115 branch offices and 103,267 congregations.
The WTS is not anyone's "leader," nor do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the governing body as being the masters of our faith. They are our brothers that are taking the lead to ensure that our preaching work gets done in an organized fashion, and making sure that a suitable witness is being given to those that speak a different language than our own. Why translating our publications for consumption by those that need them, for example, is difficult work, but we endeavor to use our human and financial resources wisely to get the preaching work done as practicable as humanly possible.
The Association of Jehovah's Witnesses is not a cult; we have are no human leader, for our leader is one: Jesus Christ, who is no longer a human being, but a God in his own right, a spirit having immortality, second to Jehovah our God as will also be Jesus' spiritual brothers, Gods in their own right, spirits having immortality.
I am conversant with what things the Bible teaches on many divergent subjects. I am also conversant with what things we publish in our publications. Please note my use of the words "we" and "our." By these words, I am referring to those Jehovah's Witnesses that are actually involved in the day-to-day work of producing WTS publications, but since I am also one of Jehovah's Witnesses, my intent is to associate myself with their work by saying "we" and "our" since we are all Jehovah's Witnesses and I support the efforts of my brothers and sisters in this fine spiritual endeavor.
Now I want to take a moment here to parse the controversial statement I made to which you objected.
[1] Jehovah's Witnesses aren't just prophets that have been given a commission by Jesus to speak God's words to others, [2] but we are ministers of the New Covenant kindly given by God to those who have the work of bearing witness to Jesus and in company with the faithful slave, God's anointed, as well as we, Jesus' other sheep, who are serving alongside the remnant of that "little flock" [3] in the earthly realm of God's House, giving direct worship to God, day and night, in the courtyards of God's Great Spiritual Temple, which is a holy place.
I am saying here that Jehovah's Witnesses are [1] prophets, that they have been given a commission by Jesus to speak to others about God's kingdom, even though that commission was given to those of his "little flock." I am saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are [2] ministers of the New Covenant .... "in company with ... God's anointed" as well as [with] ... Jesus' other sheep, who are serving alongside ... that 'little flock."
Note that I did not say here that all Jehovah's Witnesses are "ministers of the New Covenant" without the inclusion of any qualifiers, do I? Being "in the truth" for as long as I have been makes it difficult for me to make certain statements on the 'net without the use of qualifiers, since (a) I do not know who is reading my posts and (b) I do not wish to mislead anyone into thinking I was saying something in one of my written communications that I really didn't intend to write. Ok?
[3] As to the third of your three criticisms by asking you whether you know where God's Great Spiritual Temple is. Do you know or don't you? You wrote that 'the Scriptures do not place the "great crowd" in the courtyards, citing Revelation 11:2, though I know not why since this verse has nothing at all to do with the "great crowd" and everything to do with the anointed.
Tell me: How familiar are you with Ezekiel's visionary temple, the one described in the book of Ezekiel, the 40th through the 42nd chapters? God dwells in his sanctuary, in the "Most Holy" of his Great Spiritual Tabernacle, by spirit, and those of Christ's body, his anointed underpriests, are the ones represented by the spiritual house where God dwells in person, and this 'trampling' about which Revelation 11:2 speaks doesn't refer to New Jerusalem in heaven, but to the anointed remnant here on earth when they were undergoing persecution during WWI for those 42 months.
The temple courtyard represents the righteous standing of those standing in it; those standing in the inner courtyard where only the anointed underpriests stand, and the "great crowd" are the ones that the apostle John sees in his vision at Revelation 7:9, 10, 13-15, wearing white robes and standing in the outer courtyards alongside other nonpriestly worshippers of Jehovah.
When these underpriests complete their earthly course, they will then pass through the inner curtain of the temple that separates the "Holy" compartment from the "Most Holy," which is heaven itself (Hebrews 9:24), and upon being resurrected to immortal heavenly life, will find themselves standing in the Most Holy before the very person of Jehovah, who, along with Jesus Christ, is the temple of New Jerusalem! (Revelation 21:22)
I am in agreement with your statement: "those turning from the authority of Satan to do God's will have already received "forgiveness of sins" (Acts 26:18), those exercising faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice had already had "forgiveness of sins" published to them through Jesus by us. (Acts 13:38; John 17:18, 20) In fact, @bennyk, everyone that puts faith in Jesus "gets forgiveness of sins through Jesus' name" at once (Acts 10:43)", but you have failed to see that the Society denies these precious promises for the "other sheep", whom they declare no part of the new covenant. ("Though he is not their legal Mediator, for they are not in the new covenant, he is their means of approaching Jehovah." [w89 8/15 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers] ).
Recall that in an earlier post, I told you that you were preaching a different gospel, for you wrote:
I do indeed speak to others regarding the "good news", viz.: ... [T]hey are reconciled to God [citations] and adopted as His children [citations], thereby becoming brothers of Christ [citation], who serves as their Advocate [citations], High Priest [citations], and Mediator [citations]. Christians thus become heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ [citations], who graciously grants everlasting life [citations]. As you see, the Gospel I preach is scriptural.
[and]
In fact, the Society's doctrines deny 99.8% of their followers entrance into the New Covenant, which means the so-called Witnesses are ' without hope and without God' [citation].
At that time, you noticed the bracketed "not" was missing and wrote:
I trust that was a typographical error.
Now you seem to have renewed the point that you had earlier made, which point you had identified as being a part your "gospel," namely, your belief that you are somehow a party to the New Covenant. However, if you are not one of the "anointed," spiritual sonship has nothing to do with you and you have not been adopted as one of God's children, and neither are you one of Christ's anointed brothers, for only those chosen by God to be "heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ" -- the anointed -- are the ones that are parties to the New Covenant.
This allegation you keep making here isn't scriptural, and the WTS has nothing at all to do with what things the Bible itself teaches. Cite the scripture(s) that support your particular viewpoint; prove yourself to be more righteous than what things you read in our publications. Bluster is a bluff and isn't"proof" of anything. I'm not like many Witnesses that need to consult a publication or need to do a bit of research; I actually know the Scriptures that support what things I believe, and I suspect the reason your use the very WTS publications with which you disagree is because you are not clear on the scriptures that support your beliefs.
The WTS doesn't deny anyone of the"other sheep" any "promise," and frankly I find it interesting that you are here bashing the WTS for the things it writes, but are referring to the "other sheep," a designation that Jehovah's Witnesses use, but which Christendom does not use at all. It does appear that your "gospel" recognizes that Jesus has a "great crowd" of "other sheep" that is a party of a "new covenant," and earlier you did mention a "little flock" that I suppose you believe to be also a party to this same "new covenant" to which the "other sheep" are a party, but all of this raises a slew of questions in my mind as to your particular flavor of gospel, and here's one of them regarding your view of the anointed:
At Matthew 24:21, 22, Jesus said:
For then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.
I assume that you believe yourself to be one of these "chosen ones," but would this "flesh" that will be saved perhaps be innocent babies and children that will come out of the other side of the "great tribulation" and be saved through Armageddon? I ask since many people on this forum find it anathema that Jehovah would destroy the children of the wicked at Armageddon, so who do you teach to be the "flesh" that Jesus says is going to saved?
You write: "Examine the scriptures and you will see that for anyone to preach a promise of forgiveness of sins to anyone is to be preaching a different gospel, for such a gospel is not scriptural." Exactly. I am sorry if the word "promise" in my opening post sentence you. I proclaim these promises as a present possession, having already been fulfilled. This is in contrast to what the Society teaches. Again, it appears that you are not especially conversant with the Society's teachings.
I have no response.
You also write: "the holy spirit has progressively given God's people a progressive understanding of His word today, so that as world events unfold, we have been blessed -- and only Jehovah's Witnesses -- to discern the fulfillment of prophecy that others cannot since God's organization is led by God's spirit, and not inspired by it..." "Progressively" is defined as: "continuing by successive steps; favoring, working for, or characterized by progress or improvement", but the Society's record does not show successive improvement when they continually prophesy things which do not come true, or replace one false teaching with a different false teaching. The Society's claim to be led by the holy spirit perhaps borders on blasphemy of said spirit.
I have no response.
You write: "Now you (and others here on this forum) may think it reasonable to judge Jehovah's Witnesses by things we may have understood to be true in the past, but we have since moved on to embrace God's progressive revelatory truth as we know it today according to our current understanding..." The Watch Tower Society invited us to "judge Jehovah's Witnesses by things [they] may have understood to be true in the past": viz. "Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show? " (w72 4/1 p. 197 ‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them’) Moreover, "your current understanding" is still incorrect.
I realize that you do not know to whom you are speaking -- not really -- so I'm just going to tell you that I have written many articles and I'm more studious than most: I do not require you or require anyone at all to post any of the articles that have appeared in any of the WTS publications. I have all of them at my fingertips and I have probably read most of them, except for a few of the Golden Age and Awake! magazines, and only to review some of the zany comments brought to my attention over the years that appeared in them. You seem to be grandstanding and speaking to others here on the forum, but I don't care that you have some "beef" with the WTS; I really don't, and (b) you seem to repeat yourself for no real reason, except that you can.
I am going to ask that you please try to pretend that other folks on this forum won't be reading your posts, because in this post as well as in other responses to your post, you have made me feel like you are here representing their gripes against the WTS when I have nothing to do with your or their ill feelings for the WTS. Just talk to me. Thanks in advance.
