Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ? (page 22)

The Finger

Djeggnog, Thank you for explaining your view of Jesus being present or absent. As you know what is truth today may not be tomorrow. However Jesus is the truth and my faith is in him.

In Vines Expository Dictionary under the word Coming (noun) is the word parousia, which to me suggests they are the almost the same word and is contrast with the word absence, (like the train that is absent from the station) an example is given of Phil.2:12. 2Pet. 1:16 uses the word with reference to the transfiguration. It goes on to describe when used of the return of Christ as being from that moment until his revelation and manifestation to the world.

I'm sorry but I still fail to see and I think if I were on the platform at the train station and the train was absent from the platform at the time it was due and I turned to my fellow commuters and stated "You'll see the train soon, at least we have the invisible presence" I think they would think I'm potty or would laugh.

The Finger

Djeggnog, you said

"You are making no sense, and I was focusing on the words you were using here in describing "the sign of the Son of man" in trying to make a connection between "the sign of the Son of man" and what Daniel saw in his vision as is recorded at Daniel 7:13, 14, so I decided to research which issue in 1966 did the Watchtower provide this wholly unscriptural viewpoint and I found the article "The Sign of the Sign of Man" [w66 1/15, pp. 37-40]. This is the reason that "you guys," who have left God's organization and are still holding on to these older magazines and books, and rely upon what they say thinking that the information contained in them is static, when later on, in fact, adjustments have been made to some of what these older publications contain."

This wholly unscriptural viewpoint can also be found in the Insight book pg. 942. Just out of interest.

The Finger

Djeggnog,

When I was about 9/10 I was witnessing to the boy who sat in front of me at school and the conversation went to discussing the "sign." I didn't have my bible with me but lunchtimes I went home. When I got home I read Matt. 24. and felt let down. It didn't read that the composite sign was the sign of Christ's presence. So I got the WT's out and soon found the explanation, "wholly unscriptural" as you said. I tried to avoid the boy when I got back to school and was successful. He was never going to get the explanation was he.

In 1994 the WT took time to explain the word "then" and moved the sign of verse 30 forward. Why do you think that they could not see what the word "Then" meant prior to this?

Some of those who claim to be of the annointed class seem to have seen a few "signs" and "presences" I think in your ancestry of this class you trace it back in a previous post to the Millarites, remembered for the Great Disappointment. Is any wonder that people tire of hearing these explanations of the "sign" the "generation" etc. and lose faith.

Essan

Dj Eggnog repeated - again - "

Can you post here a citation from any of the WTS' publications that specifically [indicates] that Russell predicted "the invisible coming of Christ in 1914"? I'd like to read one of these WTS publications wherein it is stated how Russell actually made a prediction as to "the invisible coming of Christ in 1914." Do you have anything like that?...

First of all, there is a difference between Jesus' "presence" and Jesus' "coming," and I cannot make this any [clearer] than I have made it. In my [previous] post"

DJ, this objection has been totally refuted. Evidence was presented to prove that Russell definitely predicted Jesus "COMING" for 1914. It is on page 10 of this thread, 11 posts down (it is my post number 328) - http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/196432/10/Have-your-JW-Relatives-Explained-about-Generation-Overlap-Change-to-You
Have you read these quotes of Russell's that you asked for and that have been provided to you, or are you simply ignoring them? They are not the first set of quotes, the clear import of which you were unable to discern, they are another set , more explicit (for those dull in perception) and dealing specifically with Christ's "coming" .
Honesty and courtesy require that you read the evidence you asked for and respond to it by retracting your false claim, as this continual evasion and repeating of claims despite unequivocal evidence disproving them is destroying what little shreds of credibility you may have left.

Mad Dawg

Eggnog said:

You did ask though "if the composite sign of the parousia in 1914 is so obvious, why did it take the WTS 30 years to see it? and I'm sure that I cannot answer your question since it assumes facts not in evidence. On what is this "30 years to see it" part of your question based? Is this conjecture on your part or do you have facts to support this portion of your statement regarding this "30 years"? I'd be interested in seeing what you can provide in support.

The question assumes nothing. The first mention of Jesus’ invisible presence having occurred in 1914 was in 1943. Go check your library. I defy you to find a reference to a 1914 parousia prior to 1943. There was one reference in the late 20’s that kinda-sorta hinted at it. If the WTS has been honest and “consistant” about the 1914 date, there should be a multitude of references in this time period. Go ahead. I dare you. See if you can prove me to be a liar. If I am, it should be easy for you. Do you have the stones to face the possibility that I may be right?

Munching

Essan

Dj said to Mad Dawg: "I'd be interested in seeing what you can provide in support."

No, he wouldn't Mad. That evidence you refer to regarding 1943 was given to DJ much earlier in this thread (page 7), and there have been more than 8 references to it since then, yet, you notice he's still asking for the evidence now, as if he's never seen it, claiming he'd be "interested to see it".

That is what he does: he makes a false claim, asks for evidence to the contrary, claiming or implying it doesn't exist, then when you provide it he ignores it, doesn't respond, and keeps repeating his false claims - and even keeps asking for evidence he has already been given! He's also shown himself unprepared to do the research for himself which further indicates that he's not interested in the knowing truth but in protecting his delusion.

DJ keeps his hands pressed tightly over his eyes and says "Where is the evidence? I have seen no evidence! Such evidence does not exist".

Halfwitted or grossly dishonest? You decide.

Mad Dawg

My honor is on the line here. If I am a liar, then prove it and I will be shamed. Otherwise, Eggnog is a shameful liar without honor and the WTS is a bunch of thieves and liars.

djeggnog

@flipper:

EGGNOG- LOL ! I see your shell is cracked ! My real motive here is to speak the truth

Well, you're failing miserably at doing this. You are not speaking the truth at all!

and expose the lies coming out from the WT society in trying to re-define what constitutes a " generation " in reality and in true definitions in not only the English language- but EVERY language.

What you think to be "lies" are not lies. Every Christian denomination (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholic, Seventh-Day Adventist, Lutheran, etc.) has it's own beliefs, it's own teachings, that distinguishes the theological viewpoints adhered to by one Christian denomination from the theological viewpoints adhered to by some other Christian denomination. If you happen to one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then you would be expected to subscribe and adhere to what things are taught by Jehovah's Witnesses, whereas if it happens that you were a Catholic, then it would be expected that you subscribe and adhere to what things are taught by the Roman Catholic Church, and so forth.

If you were a Catholic before 1970, then you would be expected to adhere to the teaching of the Eucharist, which is that portion of the Mass when the Catholic priest says a blessing over the Host, that is to say, the bread ("the wafers") and the wine, and then invites the church to receive Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, where the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine are said to be miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ.

Now it's clear to me that you do not accept what Jehovah's Witnesses teach the adherents of its Christian denomination as to what Jesus meant by "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, which is, of course, your right to do, but what you may think to be a lie as someone outside that isn't an adherent of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses is not a lie for someone inside that is an adherent of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. If you were one of Jehovah's Witnesses before 1995, then you would be expected to adhere to the teaching that the "generation" to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 had to do with those of Jesus' anointed brothers that saw the events that unfolded in 1914.

Now you, as a non-Catholic, might think this notion of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to its doctrine of transubstantiation to be a lie, that the bread and wine do not miraculously become transformed into Christ's literal body and blood, which would be your view, but this would not be view of Catholics that adhere to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, it was in 1970, that Pope Paul VI stepped in and effected a change in the Eucharist, so that the Roman Catholic Church has now done away with the restriction that had been placed upon the priests inviting the church to partake of the wine that the priests alone had before 1970 been the only ones allowed to partake, so now, in addition to the wafers, this change permits the offering of both the bread and wine to congregants as a regular part of Communion. I might add here that in 1987, some of the Lutheran Churches and the United Churches of Christ elected to offer grape juice as an alternative to wine for those attending the Eucharist ceremony to accommodate those in the church that wished to abstain from drinking alcohol.

It was after 1995 that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses discerned that "the generation" to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34 seemed to not have been with reference to Jesus' anointed brothers, but, rather, should be applied to the unbelieving Jewish contemporaries of Jesus Christ to whom he was speaking, and thereby, by extension, to the world that saw the events that unfolded in 1914. However, 13 years later, in 2008, an adjustment to our understanding of Matthew 24:34 rescinded the 1995 explanation, restoring the pre-1995 explanation until 2010, when the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses discerned that anointed would be contemporaries of the generation whose lives would overlap the lives of those that would see the beginning of the composite sign and those that would see the end, including the great tribulation.

What Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus meant by his reference to "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 is not a lie, but a doctrinal viewpoint held by Jehovah's Witnesses, and the definition of a "generation" as a period of time and not limited to an average of 20-23 years is based on a Bible generation being described as a period of years, such as is the case with Joseph's generation, which covered a period of 110 years, which is the current viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses, and ex-Jehovah's Witnesses and non-Jehovah's Witnesses are not expected to adhere to this teaching since they are not Jehovah's Witnesses.

Likewise, what the Roman Catholic Church believes with respect to the transubstantiation is a doctrinal viewpoint held by Catholics, and even though in this day and age hardly anyone is willing to go on record in saying that they believe such a miraculous transformation of the bread and wine into Jesus' literal flesh and blood occurs every day at Mass, this is the current viewpoint of Catholics, and ex-Catholics and non-Catholics are not expected to adhere to this teaching since they are not Catholics.

Like a typical JW you are imputing wrong motives to me saying I'm " seeking glory ". That is hilarious !

What other motive could you possibly have for doing what you are doing? You are not doing this for anyone else, but yourself, so it if for you own glory that you do this and for no one else's glory, not Jehovah's glory, not Jesus' glory, not even in the glory of the angels, but in your own glory. You say a lot of things, but you never seem to think about the meaning of your words or actions, do you, @flipper?

All I want to do is assist ex-JW's, JW's sitting on the fence to analyze with an OPEN mind the false information coming out from the WT society.

Oh, please! How exactly are you providing assistance to ex-JWs or to JWs that are in "fade," that are currently sitting on the proverbial fence, may I ask? You cannot even help yourself, let alone help someone else make the right choices with respect to their salvation. Here, you have essentially launched a one-man campaign, in association with other such campaigns, to persuade folks that Jehovah's Witnesses are providing false information when explaining to others from the Bible the need for them to repent and turn around from their former course of conduct, to take in accurate knowledge of both God and Christ that their faith might increase, so that they might become dedicated servants of God and, after baptism, followers of Jesus Christ that they might be saved.

All of these things I mention here are doctrinal viewpoints held by Jehovah's Witnesses, but even though Jehovah's Witnesses have essentially returned to the pre-1995 explanation regarding the anointed, you want to hold our feet to the fire, so to speak, because we dare to make an adjustment in our viewpoint on what a Bible generation consists? Good grief! Why are you so set against freedom of religion, the belief that everyone has the right to choose their religion and what things they will or will not believe? What's with this "Inquisition" from you against the exercise of our own rights to choose our form of worship and to embrace whatever religious beliefs we want?

If the chief tenet of your "church" is to be anti-Jehovah's Witnesses, then I understand why you would be going after us in this way, but don't say that you are not doing this for your own glory, because you are! Don't say that you are doing this purely "to assist ex-JW's, JW's sitting on the fence to analyze with an OPEN mind the false information coming out from the WT society," when the very foundation of the doctrines of your church is really just based on anti-Jehovah's Witness venom and hatred. Say that and I can respect your candor, but this nonsense about seeing to assist ex-JW's and those JW's sitting on the fence to be able to analyze the false information coming out from the WTS with an open mind is both transparent and laughable, @flipper.

Whether you accept it or not ; is a non-issue to me. I don't print threads for losers who try to hi-jack my threads ( such as yourself ) and spend 24 hours a day arguing with people.

You are such a liar and I didn't hijack your thread. I have consistently been addressing the topic you raised here, and if you would have said that the responses of active Jehovah's Witnesses are not welcome, then I may not have joined this thread. But you didn't, and now you are here calling me names again. Why? I don't spend 24 hours a day arguing with people; I post messages to the various threads here on this forum that have been started by others and it is these threads that are available here 24 hours a day. I don't care why you start threads here, but you are a liar to say that what things you have said here and continue to ignorantly say here are "a non-issue" for you.

As you can see- everyone here are mostly ex-witnesses or have faded from the JW cult. Of course they mostly agree with what I've posted as they have done independent research on their own ! They don't take MY word for it - they [have] critical thinking ability to research the Internet and inform themselves .

Something you are NOT allowed to have as a Jehovah's Witness- critical thinking ability to research on the internet. You are controlled to ONLY read WT literature about the " generation " doctrine- so your views are going to be skewed and VERY biased in ONLY the WT society's mindset.

Hey, @flipper? Must you continue to say such stupid things? Some of us here are educated, and some of us here even are engaged in secular employment that requires critical thinking that lawyers must have in order to move cases expeditiously through the judicial process to obtain resolution for the people that hire legal professionals like myself (I'm a LDA and not a lawyer, but I believe you're smart enough to use the internet to conduct your own research into what my critical thinking process might consist!), so for you to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to be in possession of critical thinking ability suggests that by my talking to you, I might do better to be talking to a fool. But you're interesting, your viewpoints, right or wrong, are interesting. Reading your screeds makes me chuckle.

You say that my viewpoints are skewed, but they aren't skewed, but they are based squarely on what things the Bible teaches. I haven't once heard you mention a thing about the kingdom of God, even though Jesus' teachings centered upon this government that God was setting up and putting Jesus on the throne as king in order to bring relief to billions of people who, by means of Jesus' ransom, will be given the opportunity to learn the very things that Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching folks today based on the Bible, in order that they might have a real shot at the real life, eternal life. It's clear to me that you only believe in this life, and for you this life is all there is (which sounds about right!), because you are also telling these folks here that are sitting on the proverbial fence that Armageddon is an unreality, when, in fact, Jesus' coming is imminent! How can you be such a false guide and claim to be here trying to provide assistance to folks, when you yourself need help?

So, I hope YOU have listened to the many bright, intelligent posters on this thread. I doubt you have, but that's alright. Some of our words have sunk into your brain I'm sure. If not, that's fine as well.

I have listened to you, and to other posters here as well, but the jury is still out where intelligence comes into the picture, for some of these posters to whom you refer think that they are going to be saved, despite their presently being separated from God. My hope is that some of my words here have sunk into their brain and that you, in time, will begin to get the sense of my words, too, before it's too late for you to do anything to change your circumstances.

@wasblind:

do you know the difference between a post and a novel[?]

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. Why do you ask? By the way, when I post I have a lot to say, but judging by the typically length of your posts, you don't have much to say, there in lies the reason our posts differ from one another, but novels they're not.

if i wanted to read a novel i'd use my library card and get a damn book.

Why do you have a library card? Are you able to understand what things you read whenever you visit the public library? When exactly was the last time you visited a public library to read a novel anyway? I'm just curious since many folks buy novels and only visit book stores for other kinds of books, non-fiction typically.

@The Finger:

Thank you for explaining your view of Jesus being present or absent. As you know what is truth today may not be tomorrow. However Jesus is the truth and my faith is in him.

I don't know that what is truth today may not be truth tomorrow. In fact, I know that the truth is always the same, but that it is elusive for the reasons that Jesus stated at Matthew 13:10-13 in response to the question, "Why is it you speak to them by the use of illustrations?" In speaking about Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus said:

To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted.

There are many people like yourself that hear what I'm saying to them, but upon hearing, "they hear in vain, neither do they get the sense of it."

However Jesus is the truth

Yes, Jesus is the truth; he is the very personification of truth.(John 18:37)

and my faith is in him.

This is not really so, now is it? Do you really have faith? Are you the sort that has faith "to the preserving alive of the soul"? Or, are you the kind of person that has just "[shrunk] back to destruction? (Hebrews 10:39) If the former were true, this would be a good thing, but I have judged that the latter is true about you, which is not a good thing.

In Vines Expository Dictionary under the word Coming (noun) is the word parousia, which to me suggests they are the almost the same word and is contrast with the word absence, (like the train that is absent from the station) an example is given of Phil.2:12. 2Pet. 1:16 uses the word with reference to the transfiguration. It goes on to describe when used of the return of Christ as being from that moment until his revelation and manifestation to the world.

It doesn't matter what it was you read in Vines since you evidently didn't understand the issue that you were researching. I'm pretty sure that you feel that you took away from what you read in Vines what it was you wanted, but when was it that I ever mentioned the word being "absent" in contrast with being "present"? What I had been discussing with you is Jesus' presence and Jesus' coming, and now with this remark it has become clear that you were on a different track than I was on. No one said a thing about a train being absent from the station. I was talking to you about the scheduled arrival of a train on a set day and at a set time corresponding to the train's presence, and the arrival of that train corresponding to that train's coming. It was just an illustration, but evidently it confused you, so maybe we should move away from it.

I'm sorry but I still fail to see and I think if I were on the platform at the train station and the train was absent from the platform at the time it was due and I turned to my fellow commuters and stated "You'll see the train soon, at least we have the invisible presence" I think they would think I'm potty or would laugh.

But what exactly would be sign of the invisible presence of that train? Would it not be the commuter announcement indicating that all passengers with tickets to board Train 1111 to Point BB that is scheduled to arrive at 6:40 pm should head to the Platform X because the train is due to arrive shortly? Would it not be the later commuter announcement to the effect that Train 1111 to Point BB that was scheduled to arrive at 6:40 pm is delayed? As these commute announcements keep coming every five minutes or so, each of these are a part of the sign of the invisible presence of Train 1111, that it is coming, and just as I stated in an earlier post, when Train 1111 should finally arrive at 7:00 pm, this would be time of the train's coming.

@The Finger wrote:

This part of Matthew 24:3 was applied to Matthew 24:30. and you can see why. When the "sign of the Son of Man" appears there is a gathering. The "sign" in the 1966 WT showed it to be Christ coming in before God as in Daniel as this tied in with the portion of the verse "See the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory"

The composite sign was not the sign of either verse 3 or verse 30 but rather a visible result of sign of the son of man. Christ having [received] power was the birth of his kingly rule and people were "gathered" to it by [submitting] to his rule and putting the Kingdom first. You could be gathered to this sign whereas you cannot be gathered to the composite sign and so it is not the sign of Christ's presence. If you do not have the sign, you do not have the presence.

@djeggnog wrote:

You are making no sense, [as] I was focusing on the words you were using here in describing "the sign of the Son of man" in trying to make a connection between "the sign of the Son of man" and what Daniel saw in his vision as is recorded at Daniel 7:13, 14, so I decided to research which issue in 1966 did the Watchtower provide this wholly unscriptural viewpoint and I found the article "The Sign of the Sign of Man" [w66 1/15, pp. 37-40]. This is the reason that "you guys," who have left God's organization and are still holding on to these older magazines and books, and rely upon what they say thinking that the information contained in them is static, when later on, in fact, adjustments have been made to some of what these older publications contain.

@The Finger wrote:

This wholly unscriptural viewpoint can also be found in the Insight book pg. 942. Just out of interest.

This "wholly unscriptural viewpoint" that appeared in the Watchtower back in 1966 and which also appears in the Insight book as you mention, was which book was released in 1988.

The book, God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, published in 1973 or seven years following the above Watchtower article from 1966, in Chapter 16 ("Completion of the Foretold 'Sign' Nears") under the subheading "Sign of the Son of Man ... In Heaven," at pp. 326-328, ¶¶ 72-76, contains the adjusted viewpoint. I cannot explain why no one caught this "wholly unscriptural viewpoint" that appeared in the Watchtower article back in 1966 was repeated in the Insight book released 15 years after the God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached book was released, but this book contains the correct understanding of this matter and that understanding is still current today.

@djeggnog

wasblind

Eggnogg said: "Why do you have a library card?"

I most certainly do, not censored by the WTS anymore, it's refreshing to read something without images of people dying or laying dead in the street.

Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?

Share this