Good point James
When it comes time for the GB of the JWS to self identify themselves, there always a shell game of evasiveness.
Here are 5 reasons that the FDS is imaginary
by Terry 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
thetrueone
Btt.
-
neverscreamagain
When I first read the acknowledgement that perhaps some of the Memorial partakers were emotionally or mentally troubled (crazy), I immediately thought are they really saying this, dont they realize the implications of what they are saying. OK, so which ones of the current or previous GB's fall into this category? I would safely conclude that all are to say the least sociopathic given that no concern is given to the consequences of their legislating people's lives. They obviously fail to ever think anything through, or simply dont care.
-
james_woods
They obviously fail to ever think anything through, or simply dont care.
Both, but mostly the don't care part. They are kings for life and can do and say anything they want.
Seriously, I would not be surprised if someday a formalized "good annointed" versus "bad annointed" status is marked (at least in secret) for partaking JWs. This will probably coincide with the inevitable decision to stop announcing the number of partakers if it keeps growing.
Ironically, good versus bad annointed decisions will obviously fall upon the body of elders and the CO, who are almost all not annointed.
This is actually being done today - but just not formally recorded that I know of.
-
Terry
I'm sure the implication redounds to Ray Franz that it is possible for an "anointed" GB member to be___unbalanced!
How embarassing for them that neither holy spirit, Jesus nor Jehovah identified Ray Franz and called him out for dismissal! Franz left of his own
accord on good terms. Otherwise, they certainly would not have sent him a check!
The "special" nature of the GB is reduced to a feckless state in light of so great an Apostate infiltrating and leaving on his own terms.
-
james_woods
The "special" nature of the GB is reduced to a feckless state in light of so great an Apostate infiltrating and leaving on his own terms.
I have long suspected that there were a couple (or three) other contemporary GB members who actually agreed with Franz but did not have the guts to make a stand.
Remember the famous statement by one of them that Franz was right scripturally? To which Al Schroeder reportedly replied - yes, but he is WRONG according to "Watchtower LAW"...
-
BluesBrother
Does Matt 24 actually say that this is a prophecy that a F & D Slave would be there? or is it a rhetorical question balanced by the "Evil slave" in the next verse?
Can we be sure that the concept of 144k only going to heaven is really taught in Scripture ? Or is that a J W invention?
We are told that in 1918 they were adopted, but they did not , at that time, even know who the slave was to be !
-
thetrueone
I wonder what kind of acute scrutiny one goes through in the process to keep out those deemed as crazy anointed ones
for selection of the GB.
Wouldn't being psychopathic be a valuable asset for this position ?
-
Ding
The WT presidents don't agree on who or what the FDS is.
Russell claimed to be the FDS personally and individually.
Rutherford said he was wrong, that it's a group of 144,000.
Today, the GB doesn't know or care who they are... doesn't keep a list... doesn't listen to them...
-
Terry
Matthew 24
New International Version (NIV)
Matthew 24
The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times
1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
The above scriptures verse 1 and verse 3 are like separate scenes in a movie.
Verse 1 locates the action directly in front of the Jerusalem temple. The impression is given that Jesus is sight-seeing and clueless as any tourist visiting the Holy Land might be. The disciples call his attention to the various aspects of the buildings.
As a response to what must have been admiration and awe for the temple's features and architecture, Verse 2 :Jesus shuts down the topic by changing the subject to a future condition of total destruction.
No indication is given that anybody said anything at this point because the scene abruptly changes to :
Verse 3.
In Verse 3 it is some time later in a separate location when Jesus is in a solitary situation. He is approached by disciples.
What is odd about this?
The writer (Matthew) breaks the bold statement about Destruction away from the natural response it would certainly elicit at that moment!
Matthew artificially creates a GAP!
Are we to accept that such an unexpected statement about the most important building in all of Judaism would not have caused a huge argument? Amazement? Demands for clarification? Might not a crowd gather, etc?
But, no!
The RESPONSE is artificially made to follow in a literary framing device....later. Jesus is all by himself and is approached specifically as a STAGED moment for a very odd series of questions, indeed!
How do we know this is STAGED?
Look at the language which is self-conscious of the literary contrivance of the PRECEDING VERSE!
It is spoken AS THOUGH the disciples know what Matthew has just written!
Imagine it is hours later and Jesus is alone and you walk up to him in a group.
Is it not the most natural thing to say: "Lord, remember earlier when we were at the temple and you said it would be destroyed?"
But, no!
There is no attempt at this because the writer has artificially created a STAGED MOMENT.
Why?
It is the AUTHOR putting words into the mouths of disciples quite clearly!
This is what is called an "insertion".
The disciples had no reason to think Jesus was GOING AWAY in order to RETURN, did they? In fact, they hardly ever understood anything Jesus said!
So, why would they start a sentence by saying: “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
This is some later scribe who has been taught a doctrine about Jesus 2nd coming who is putting words in the characters' mouth!
Why would any disciple even THINK for one minute they would need a SIGN? Or, that much later at the END of the AGE Jesus would return?
It is all bollocks!
No such conversations or prophecies were uttered by Jesus. It is the later writers who INSERTED the prophecy AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem RETROFITTING its complete destruction into an awkward "conversation" to make Jesus appear to have KNOWN in advance!
Once you reread the entire scenario AS WRITTEN it becomes very awkward and contrived and phony.