by jonahstourguide 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
I remember that there is a wt reference somewhere, perhaps in the Memorial talk OUTLINE, that according to wt writers,
the BREAKING, crumbling of the hard bread HAS NO symbolic meaning, but is merely the means to distribute it conveniently to many partakers.
@Bobcat, yes... I was starting to look for the reference that changed that understanding, but got swept away with absolutely astounding references that said outright that the other sheep are not members of the body of Christ and are not sons of God. This is a topic that they've been resolute on for a very long time and is said quite often in the Watchtower, those in more recent decades it phrases it something along the lines "The limited number of Christians chosen by Jehovah to be associated with Christ in the heavenly Kingdom government undergo “a new birth” as spirit-begotten sons of God." (w12 3/15 p. 21 par 4.) This subtle phrasing makes it easy to miss that not every JW is a son of God or a member of the body of the Christ.
So, their line of reasoning has been all along:
Christ only had the 11 present (they maintain Judas left), thus showing that only those qualified to rule as kings with Christ would be permitted to partake of the emblems. And only those who partake are considered sons of God and members of the body of Christ.
w51 1/15 p. 444-49 has an article that explains the whole Judas thing where they feel that yes, he partook of the Passover meal, but not the Lord's meal. Their reasoning comes down to the fact that Jesus gave Judas the dipped morsel, whereas the loaf that was broken was not dipped.
Personally, I don't think that matters at all. Whether Judas was present or not is immaterial to all those who proclaim to follow Christ, even if they are not of the 144,000. Jesus gave the directive in John 6:53 for everyone to partake, and he said that unless you do, you cannot have life in yourself. He never, ever limited eating to the 144,000. He didn't limit it to the "little flock" either. No such prohibition is place on it anywhere in the scriptures. To say that the "great crowd" cannot partake is putting them in the same class of people as Judas Iscariot.
Sorry, this was off topic. I had to rant a little. Back to our regularly scheduled program...
@ leaving.
No I don't believe you are off topic as, due to reason and scriptural references,
you have no choice but to ask as you have.
You have succinctly expressed my and no doubt other thinking
searchers' thoughts. The light seems to be getting fuzzier.
Is it the new energy saving globes or what ?????
jtg
Prologos:
Jonahs:
Leaving:
Take Care
The problem with that 1954 W quote is that they drew conclusions from Paul's words.
Paul wrote in the context to which he intended. He was not writing in a manner to answer our questions.
And then there is the assumption that Paul actually knew what he was writing about. Just because Paul saw Jesus in a vision and angels acted upon him does not mean that everything that he thought and wrote was correct.
And the problem with associating the breaking of bread to the not breaking of his bones, is irrelevant. Breaking of bread was to give it to each person.
And back in the days of the 1954W, they assumed things because it was taught prior; and those things were taught prior, not because it was true, but because it seperated them from other religions.
Their changing and adopting a new understanding is not bad thing. It is like the supreme court looks at a law and facts in one point of view, then a later supreme court reverses that because it looks at it in a broader sense. Both are right, but the later is more right because it has more information.
Two things that are the exact opposite cannot both be right. You don't say this is black and then later this is white and get the satisfaction of saying both were right.
The WT changed its stance from one of black to one of white. One was wrong or both are still wrong, they are not both right. They live in absolutes and don't get the pleasure of switching like That.
The mistaken belief was still the truth. It was a wrong truth!
It was a "cherished error." One that must have been believed in for salvation. What a bunch of watchtards. So up until 1954 the WTBTS gurus were teaching something incorrect as truth, if they are correct now, that is.. A complete opposite belief is not "truth" getting clearer.
So are there older publications with differing views? I bet most JWs think that the current interpretation has always been taught. After all the WT gurus are God's channel.
DD
At one time, God’s servants felt that because Jesus broke the bread but none of his own bones were broken, the bread meant “the body of the Christ,” the congregation of anointed ones.
Let me Add what's missing:
At one time, WE TAUGHT THAT .... but now WE TEACH SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
We used to actually think that because none of Jesus' bones were broken, the bread that Jesus broke meant "the body of the Christ" which is the congregation of anointed ones, because everyone knows that this teaching is "BROKEN."
marked
