My Standing "Bet" With JW Family

by TD 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TD

  Once a year, I attend the Sunday afternoon session of the District Convention with my wife. My wife and her family would like me to attend more JW functions, but besides not being terribly religious at all, I am put off by the open dishonesty of the JW parent organization.

  This has led to a "Bet" of sorts. If I can make it through the Sunday session without hearing a single demonstrably false statement made from the stage, I will attend more functions at the local level.

  Things are usually just fine until the Bethel speaker takes the stage. This year was no exception.

  In years gone by, it was common for JW literature to claim that the split between Russell and Barbour occurred because the latter rejected the Ransom. (See for example, The Watchtower 3/1/1989 p. 23)

  Although Barbour and Russell had a sharp disagreement over the mechanics of the Ransom, Barbour certainly never rejected it. He actually explained his position at length in the August 1877 issue of The Herald Of The Morning on pages 26-28.

  Russell advocated Atonement; Barbour advocated Substitution. The question of whether Christ died for you (Atonement) or whether he died in place of you (Substitution) is a question that generates disagreement amoung religious people even today. Those that advocate the former believe that the Ransom effects immediate forgiveness of sins. Those that advocate the latter believe that Christ removed the death sentence that was hanging over your head, but your sinful state is unchanged in God's sight

  The Proclaimers book did not explain this at any great length, but it did correct past mistatements about Barbour (pages 135 and 622) which was a refreshing departure from the past. Jehovah's Witnesses are indepted to Barbour for the one single chronological element taught during the Russell era that is still retained. They should give credit where credit is due.

  Instead however, they are back to repeating the tired old canard about Barbour rejecting the Ransom. This was explicitly stated in the final talk on Sunday entitled, "Remain in the Secret Place of the Most High."

  Maybe they'll do better next year....
• 

  snowbird

  Russell advocated Atonement; Barbour advocated Substitution. The question of whether Christ died for you (Atonement) or whether he died in place of you (Substitution) is a question that generates disagreement amoung religious people even today. Those that advocate the former believe that the Ransom effects immediate forgiveness of sins. Those that advocate the latter believe that Christ removed the death sentence that was hanging over your head, but your sinful state is unchanged in God's sight.

  I'm inclined to believe He died both for and in place of us - past, present, future.

  What an accomplishment!

  I'll bet you win the bet!

  Syl
• 

  OUTLAW

  TD..

  Your hilarious..

  What do they say when you point out the demonstratable false statement?..

  Next year it should cost just a little more..Whoever loses,buys lunch..

  Eventually they will figure out..Why they have to buy you lunch every year..LOL!!..

  ............................ ...OUTLAW
• 

  tec

  I agree with Outlaw.

  Immediate consequence, or they can just brush it off.

  Unless you do some major gloating?

  Funny bet, though :)

  Tammy
• 

  snowbird

  The WT would have us think that Russell uncovered some hitherto unknown facts about the Ransom.

  He didn't.

  Tee hee hee.

  Syl
• 

  AGuest

  I'm with you, dear S'Bird (peace to you, my sister!): both. I mean, isn't the end result pretty much the same thing? I'm just sayin'...

  SA, a slave of Christ, who thinks "Goodness, no wonder the Christ 'exists divided' if this is what those two 'broke up' over..."
• 

  AGuest

  "they are back to repeating the tired old canard about Barbour rejecting the Ransom."

  Well, there really IS only so much "light" up in there, dear TD (may you have peace!)... and what IS there majorily false, so... "old wineskin"... old wine.

  Maybe they'll do better next year....

  [Very] highly unlikely, though. I'd start thinkin' about where I'd wanna eat lunch, if I were you.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  TD

  The Bethel speaker where I attended this year was Perez

  Last year it was Samuelson. He claimed that they [The Bible Students] knew that Christ had started to rule in 1914, but it was not until 1925 that the fully understood what he had been doing up until then."

  (It was not until 1925 that the Bible Students began to teach that Christ began ruling in 1914.)

  He went on to claim that N.H. Knorr predicted in advance that the Allied nations would win the war and the League of Nations would emerge from the abyss as the United Nations.

  The year before that, it was Lett. He claimed that "..all dedicated, baptized Jehovah's Witnesses (And he included himself in this claim) have answered the following question in the affirmative:

  Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?

  (That question has only existed in this form since 1984-85)

  It seems like every year it's the Bethel speaker telling the whoppers from the stage....
• 

  hamsterbait

  They make out that the whole purpose of Christ dying for us is only taught by them.

  It is NOT. All churches teach it.

  That lie alone should make us distrust them.

  They condemn the Roman church for advising its adherents to follow the direction of God's representative, the Pope. Yet they say following the leadership of eight old fools in NY is following Jesus!!!!

  HB
• 

  cyberjesus

  Thats awesome! we should place a talk monitor on every convention just to watch for these falsehoods