by Doug Mason 37 Replies latest watchtower bible
If reasoning with a Jehovah’s Witness on the Watchtower Society’s interpretations of the Kingdom of God, Parousia, the Cross, Blood, and so on is unlikely to break the WTS’s mental stranglehold, what then is its “Achilles’ Heel”?
http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Watchtower_s_Achilles__Heel.pdf
Doug
Doug, you just get better and better !
I have only had a quick look through, but will read it properly later. It is really very well presented,and no doubt will be useful to many JW's seeking to find the truth about their religion.
Thanks once again for your hard work.
marked
Doug,
Congratulations on a well-reasoned article. I find a couple of objections about it, but overall, very clear, concise and to the point.
Eden
my question: where, in what locality does the murder of Stephen fit in, where Paul is supposed to have been assisting?
was there not colusion before the schism between the north&south groups?
if the accounts can be considered genuine? if there are not, we have more than a herd of elephants.
thank you.
Wait...
So the phrase "GOVERNING BODY" now appears in the New World Translation?
Apparently it does. I havn't bothered to get a copy, but I think on another thread it was said that the phrase is in the bit at the top of the page that explains the main content of the text below.
They have not yet had the gall to insert the words actually in the text, but it is only amatter of time.For example:
"Go therefore and make disciples, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Governing Body, oh, and the Son and the Holy Spirit".
That must have a nice ring to it, to the 8 Popes of Warwick.
EdenOne,
Thank you for your assessment.
If you wish, let me know where I have problems.
Doug
prologos,
There are, as you rightly point out, many other elephants. As you say, questions are therefore raised about the accuracy or otherwise of other accounts in Acts. I only hinted at these when I commented on the biased objectives of the writers of Acts.
I shall think further on addressing the broader issue. With this Study, of course, I needed to confine the scope.
Have you read the other books of Acts that were circulating at the same time but did not make it into the NT canon?
I am not aware of any unity between Antioch and Jerusalem at any stage. I don't recall the page number, but "Crisis of Conscience" recalls a speech by Fred Franz about the Antioch and Jerusalem; there used to be a recording of that speech "somewhere" on YouTube. I have transcripts of parts of that speech on my computer which I could email you.
I see nothing in Paul's genuine writings that suggests any unity with Jerusalem. At one stage I was tempted to show that while the Acts 15 decree wrote about staying away from blood, Paul insisted that his followers drink Jesus' blood (1 Corinthians 11:23ff). And he said that he received that instruction directly (in a vision) from Jesus - thereby bypassing Jerusalem.
In a direct answer to your question regarding Stephen and Paul's involvement - let's say there is doubt. Another example is the differences between the missionary journeys and the accounts of them as given by Paul. Many Bible scholars disregard Acts.
The GB's claim to fame fades without Acts.
Doug
I agree that Paul didn't submit to a "Governing Body" in Jerusalem, but then I don't think anything in Acts claims that he did. That's just GB spin. I don't see all these inconsistencies Doug claims between Paul's accounts and those in Acts. For example, although Paul said to the Corinthians that it's fine to eat meat offered to idols because idols have no real existence, he also said that they should refrain from eating such meat if it would cause a brother with a weaker conscience to stumble. Maintaining this sort of harmony between Jewish believers and Gentile believers at Antioch may well have been the reason for those instructions, given the statement at Acts 15:21.
Be that as it may, I don't see the book of Acts as being the WT's "Achilles' heel," and I doubt that trying to debunk the book of Acts is going to do anything to bring down the WT.
Do JWs really believe everything the GB says because of what is written in Acts 15 or any other part of the Bible for that matter?
The GB may cite various scriptures but I don't think those are the real reason JWs believe whatever the GB tells them. It seems to me that JWs follow the GB because they have been indoctrinated over and over to believe that they speak for God and because all of the important people in their life have been indoctrinated to believe the same thing. Anyone who disagrees is DFd and cut off from everyone he cares about.
The organization takes on a life of its own and it no longer matters what the Bible says or even what the organization itself said was truth just a few years ago. Whatever the GB says today is "the truth" and whatever the GB says in the future will be "the truth" even if it is totally different.
My point is that most JWs have surrendered their minds and wills totally to the GB. Attacking the credibility of Acts 15 won't change that. To examine any of the foundations of this devotion to the GB (whether in the Bible or in WT literature) is seen as rebellion against Jehovah himself, meriting annihilation. Most JWs take pride in never questioning anything the GB tells them and consider this unswerving loyalty to be the ultimate virtue.
