QFR: "Warning - memorial partakers might be loonies!"

by cedars 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • james_woods
    I would think that the possible "mental or emotional imbalance" would apply DOUBLY so to those who started partaking as teenagers... wouldn't you (nudge nudge wink wink)?

    Why? It is completely delusional for a modern day witness at any age, IMHO. But, yeah - to the witnesses, that would be doubly suspicious, at the very least.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Do they teach that the 144,000 ruling with Jesus in heaven that had to be reached a long time ago were do disloyal in heaven that they were kicked out? Christ is supposed to have power, not Satan. Satan is not a co-ruler. He is subordinate. Jews don't conceive of Satan the same way we do. They are not bothered by Satan because only God is God. Satan cannot be God. End of debate.

    Even as a child, I could not believe that Jesus would have two tiers of humans. The anointed's self-selection reminds me of Pilgrim and Puritan predestinated. The concept of an elect is not present in the gospels that I recall. Knowing the anointed as earthly humans should dash any thoughts that they are better or unique. The problem I see with the elect is that the individual determines it. Someone with a huge ego and self-importance is going to think that they are anointed. Humble ones will not think they are worthy enough.

    It was simple in my day. Only very old people could be remnant members. New light. New light. I can just see an md who absolutely botched a surgery coming into court and saying "new light," dismiss the law suit to the judge. When the East Coast black out occurred in the 1960s, one engineer was responsible for not shedding too much current on the transmission lines which cause the black out. So the responsible party, viewing all the riot destroyed cities, business losses and lives lost to rioting or no power, just says "New light."

    When have humans had the ability to judge another's worthiness before God?

  • Ding

    Isn't it strange that an organization that regulates every trivial aspect of JWs' lives -- including things like facial hair -- doesn't care at all about controlling who partakes at the Memorial, especially given the scripture that says that if anyone partakes in an unworthy manner they are guilty of the blood and body of Christ?

    Isn't it strange that an organization that is obsessed with the importance of "the faithful and discreet slave" doesn't care to know who is and who is not a part of the anointed faithful and discreet slave class?

  • AwareBeing

    Once again; OUTLAW makes a good point in truism style!

    WT's publishing campaign mostly draws in vulnerable people,

    but after a few years they get worse! Some pick up the

    judgmental trait that's there, and start questioning all things.

    While others learn supposed "piety", and get the sense that

    they are cleaner than the rest of the congregation. Either way;

    both groups are disliked by the cong., as they outshine the clique.

    The former wakes up and leaves, the latter get dreamy and partakes.

    The awakened one can't take the abuse, and the said "anointed"

    ones endures it as "tribulation from within the congregation"!

  • james_woods

    If this is what you meant, Band on The Run, I believe that the 1960s JW notion was that all the 144,000 had been selected by 1935 - hence all new witnesses were other sheep.

    However, they did have the disclaimer that if a living member of the pre-1935 annointed happened to fall away, then a "new" annointed might be selected when the fallen annointed died.

    The "new" annointed could not be selected until the fallen annointed died (not just when they fell away) because up until their death the fallen annointed might repent and be an approved annointed again.

    I don't know if it actually stated this in the watchtower, but this was a common teaching among the witness leadership in the 1960s to explain the small number of new annointed who started to partake after the cutoff of 1935.

    Nowadays, they don't seem to say this any more as far as I can tell - maybe it is easier to just call all new ones crazy (if they are not on the GB).

  • cedars

    AGuest - thanks for your input. Obviously many of these points are moot in relation to what should actually be happening. The bible doesn't prescribe a "two-tier" system of christianity, this has only been super-imposed onto the bible by the society.

    First, ALL were partakers at the time of Paul's words, so there was no differentiation between 'sheep'. Eating and drinking "unworthily" had absolutely NOTHING to do with that: it had to do with whether one was "clean" at the time of partaking... or not. Meaning, such one had to scrutinize the man they were ON THE INSIDE ("cleanse the inside of the cup")... or risk eating/drinking unworthily.

    I agree, although obviously hypothetically speaking the scripture about unworthiness must also extend to any who partake of the emblems "unworthily" insofar as they claim to be of the anointed when they aren't. OBVIOUSLY the original scripture wasn't written with two-tier christianity in mind, but if you are going to super-impose this idea and stick by this interpretation, you should also grasp and enforce the concept of 'partaking unworthily' which you would obviously be doing if you were partaking when you shouldn't be. Originally this scripture was intended for other reasons, but the concept holds true in the Society's application. Make sense?

    Interestingly, we now have 4-tier christianity:

    1. Anointed members of the governing body
    2. Anointed members who might not be crazy
    3. Anointed members who might be crazy
    4. Great crowd
  • cptkirk

    so true.

  • cedars

    It is a paradox that we are constantly being reminded to humbly submit to the direction of the FDS by those who, by their self-proclaimed anointed status and subsequent decision to accept elevation to the exalted but diminutive ranks of the Governing Body, are manifestly the least humble of all witnesses.

  • james_woods

    Interestingly, we now have 4-tier christianity:

    1. Anointed members of the governing body
    2. Anointed members who might not be crazy
    3. Anointed members who might be crazy
    4. Great crowd

    Sure does make it complicated when you insist on a division of normal christians and a literal number of 144,000 annointed, doesn't it? The complications just keep on adding up. Especially when you consider that there had to have been more than 144,000 "true christians" long before the witnesses thought up their strange doctrine of the two classes.

  • AGuest

    Yikes, folks... and may you all have peace! I don't know if any of you see it, but all of your comments smack of the very erroneous teachings of the WTBTS on the matter of anointing and things associated therewith. I can already hear your long sighs, but I ask you to bear with me if for no other reason so that you actually know the TRUTH about this matter. I mean, at least so that when you discuss it you are not simply repeating/parroting/perpetuating their false teachings. I am not trying to patronize or be condescending, truly, so I hope you can receive this in the spirit [of love] that I offer it, which I do because I once believed the lies, too.

    1. Partaking... and being anointed... are two entirely, separate things. "Partaking" is eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, via bread and wine which symbolizes the flesh and blood. Being anointed means being CHOSEN... by means of holy spirit. The person so chosen receives either a anointing by literal oil (poured over his head - done for kings and priests)... and/or holy spirit... the "oil of exultation"... which is literally poured out UPON such one and so much of it that it FILLS such one. The two CAN be related, but not necessarily. One who partakes has not necessarily BEEN anointed... or will be. One who is anointed may not have partaken, but since Pentecost all do. Some examples:

    • The Apostles partook. While they were chosen by my Lord, that were NOT yet anointed... with holy spirit... at the time they did. They did NOT receive holy spirit until it was blown on them... and then poured out upon and filled up IN them.
    • King Saul, David, and Cyrus, were all anointed. The first two by oil, literally, as well as holy spirit, and Cyrus solely by holy spirit. Yet, none of them partook of the flesh and blood of Christ... because that flesh and blood had not yet been prepared and sacrificed.
    • Cornelius and his household weren't even BAPTIZED when they received holy spirit... and none had partaken, yet.

    That one partakes of the flesh and blood of "Christ," therefore, does not constitute one as anointed. It simply indicates an attempt to be IN UNION with Christ... which many make. However, one's works, lack of works, faith, lack of faith, love, lack of love, etc., are all instrumental in such a union or lack thereof. Just because one eats a piece of bread and drinks a sip of wine, therefore, does not mean one is in union. Such one may be eating and drinking "unworthily"... EVEN if one HAS received holy spirit (received an anointing).

    2. It really is NOT true that one cannot say/describe what it's like to have been anointed... or WHEN. If one CANNOT describe their anointing... one has NOT received an anointing. Forgive me, but that's kind of a "duh" revelation, is it not? Prior to Pentecost 30 CE, "anointing" was merely the act of having the priest pour oil on one, to signify that one's choosing AS KING (for example, Saul, David, et al.)... or priest. OR... the Most Holy One of Israel STATING that a certain one was chosen (i.e., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Cyrus, the Prophets, et al.). OR... granting His holy spirit to such one (i.e., priests and Christ). OR... the HOLY One of Israel, His Son... stating that a certain one was chosen (i.e., the Apostles, Saul of Tarsus, et al.).

    Starting with the Apostles, however, and then at Pentecost 30 CE... ones received an anointing with God's holy spirit... and directly from CHRIST (John 20:21, 22; Acts 2:1-4). The anointing is done with the "water of life"... aka "living water"... aka "the oil of exultation"... which is poured out UPON one... which pouring one can FEEL... and then fills up IN one... which filling one can also feel. It is MANIFEST by one or more of the GIFTS of that spirit: wisdom by means of that spirit, knowledge by means that spirit, faith by that same spirit, gifts of healing, miraculous powers, prophecy, distinguishing between (hearing/discerning) spirits, speaking in different kinds of [HUMAN] tongues, and interpretation of tongues. It also grants power to forgive sins... in the SPIRIT realm.

    If a person does NOT possess one or more of these gifts... it is more likely than not they have NOT received the promised holy spirit and its anointing. Because (1) it has a PURPOSE (including granting life); and (2) it's not supposed to be some big hidden SECRET: it's SUPPOSED to be means to build up the Body of Christ... a means to show UNBELIEVERS what that spirit can DO... AND it is an identifying "mark" to the Adversary. By means of it, he knows who the "seed of the Woman" is. If it does NOTHING, however... how is an unbeliever supposed to be convinced of its POWER? Not that it's to be used to go around saying, "Hey, look at me, at what I got/can do; I'm special" to just any person - it absolutely is NOT. Rather, it is for the "Thomases", those who have SOME faith... and/or want to have [more] faith, but are still yet so fleshly that they need a physical manifestation. OR, so that one who speaks one language can speak coherently ABOUT the good news... with one who speaks another language.

    For example, tongues are NOT incoherent, unearthly, nonhuman languages; they are human languages, always. Are their tongues of spirit beings? Yes. But WE don't speak the language of angels, so why speak or prophesy in their language? And if they can speak to us in OUR language, why in the world would one receive in message in THEIRS? But one who speaks English may wish to share with one who speaks, say, Mandarin. Holy spirit will allow that one to SPEAK that language, perhaps not fluently but with enough words so that the recipient understands... or, alternatively, allow another to interpret FOR the recipient.

    Are their false anointed (christs)? Yes. And one way to tell is to ask someone to tell you how they know... what their experience was... and what their gift(s) is/are. If they can't answer ALL of these... then they're not who they say they are. There is no "Wink-wink, I know, but you don't need to know" goings on... going on. Christ does not work that way. Another way is by the FRUITS of such persons: the fruit of God's holy spirit is love, joy, peace, faith, kindness, mildness, goodness, long-suffering (patience), and self-control. There are "rotten" fruits, however, and by these one can tell that God's spirit does NOT dwell in another.

    What of those "wicked men" who arise "from among us"? They are those who receive such spirit or choosing... and then either turn away from (as King Saul and Judas did), prove false to, deny, or attempt to fool the One who dispenses it (as did Ananias). From among these are those who go off and "commit fornication with the kings of the earth" so as to produce "daughters"... the various religions that claim to know/follow the Most Holy One of Israel and His Son. THEY are the foundation of Babylon the Great, the ADULTERISH Harlot.

    Regarding your statement, dear cedars (again, peace to you!), that:

    obviously hypothetically speaking the scripture about unworthiness must also extend to any who partake of the emblems "unworthily" insofar as they claim to be of the anointed when they aren't. OBVIOUSLY the original scripture wasn't written with two-tier christianity in mind, but if you are going to super-impose this idea and stick by this interpretation, you should also grasp and enforce the concept of 'partaking unworthily' which you would obviously be doing if you were partaking when you shouldn't be. Originally this scripture was intended for other reasons, but the concept holds true in the Society's application. Make sense?

    It makes sense only in the hypothesis you give it; however, that was NOT the case when Paul wrote what he did. He wrote to the Corinthians CONGREGATION. If they were OF the congregation, then, they WERE partakers. The command to eat his flesh and drink his blood was given by Christ... BEFORE the blowing of spirit on the Apostles OR the outpouring at Pentecost.

    But even more important, UNLESS one eats or drinks... one has NO life within themselves. Nor can one be resurrected by Christ, as one who belongs to HIM. It is this eating... from Christ, the TRUE Vine... the Root of Jesse... Sprout!... who IS the Tree of LIFE... by means of which those who DO live forever do so.

    Finally, being humble has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Saul of Tarsus certainly was NOT a humble young man. Nor was Peter or a couple/few of the other disciples. Certainly, Judas wasn't... yet, he was chosen. It has to do with MERCY... and FAITH. If one is humble, one can say... or perhaps others will say as to him... "Well, I/he DESERVE(S) to be chosen." But, no. It does NOT work that way. It is due to UNdeserved kindness... as to EVERYONE... except Christ himself. NO ONE deserves it... no matter WHAT they've done... or how humble they are. Humility CAN, however, cause the Most Holy One of Israel to feel compassion and pity for one... and thus GRANT mercy. But one can be humble as the day is long; if they lack faith, they may not be any better off than one who has faith... but not love.

    ALL who are chosen (which is NOT all who are called!)... realize they are not worthy, that no one is worthy. Which is WHY they are SO grateful. They don't go around saying "I am chosen, so I am better than you/him/her/them." They go around saying, "I am chosen and you can be, too... so let's do this together!" They say, "I am chosen, and since my God is a God of SERVICE... and His Son a teacher of servitude... I am YOUR servant. Whatever I CAN do for you, I WILL do. Because... I WANT to. Because HE loves you... and so I love you."

    Our humility, therefore, comes from what HE teaches us, not what we have in ourselves. That is what is meant when it states, "Go... SUBDUING... in the midst of your enemies." It is his chosen ones that my Lord is subduing... teaching love... and peace. Because those who rule as part of HIS kingdom... MUST rule in and with love, peace, joy, faith, kindness, mildness, goodness, long-suffering, and self-control. MUST. Because neither he... nor the Father... will have it any other way.

    I hope this helps and again, peace to you!

    Servant to the Household of God, Israel, and ALL those who go with... and a slave of Christ,

    SA, who wonders at the dichotomy of man, who says that one who has received an anointing should be hush about it for the most part, and Christ, who said, "Do NOT hide your light under a basket..." and "What I whisper to you in the dark, SHOUT from the rooftops..."

Share this