PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion 67 Replies latest jw friends

  • Friend


    The question I posed was: Do we as individuals have to belong to the Jehovah's Witness faith to gain salvation?

    You re-worded my question to say something different. You said: Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they are the only ones who will be saved?

    That assertion of yours is not only erroneous but you also identify your own error by saying, "You also quoted JWs in the 20th century again." I repeated your question verbatim then answered it by saying, "The Society teaches that, ultimately we cannot say which individuals will gain salvation because Jehovah has entrusted the judgment into someone else’s hands, namely Jesus." The rest was purely supplemental to the issue of association with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    Based upon the Society’s teachings your question cannot be answered more definitively.

    As for other quotations from Watchtower literature, how many times have you read that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the final judgment of individuals is determined by Jesus? How many times have you read that God has entrusted that judgment with Jesus? How many times?

    In answer to your questions.

    1. Please reword the question. To me it has two meanings.

    2. Jehovah has provided his word for us to examine and upon examination of his word and prayer Jehovah reveals to his followers the truth. As far as judgment being revealed to us as individuals, that is something we will have to wait and see. Unless of course you are a prophet.

    I see.

    Here is question one broken down into two separate questions.

    1(a). Do JWs believe that Jehovah will ultimately judge each of us?

    1(b). Do JWs believe that they will ultimately judge each of us?

    Is that simple enough?

    2. Has Jehovah provided Jehovah’s Witnesses a preview of his judgments for each individual?

    Your answer to this question is nonsensical. I have not asked if Jehovah revealed his judgments to people as individuals. I asked if Jehovah has provided JWs with his judgments of each individual. Can you tell the difference between what I asked and what you answered. You answered a question I have not asked! Does the truth you say is revealed include a preview of God’s ultimate judgment for each individual?

    Last chance for this go round.


  • Friend


    You ask:

    …how do those who will be resurrected according to the WT and the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses gain the opportunity for life?

    Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that persons living and dead gain the opportunity for future life based upon the ransom merits of Jesus Christ’s death. His subsequent resurrection provides hope that that future life is a reality.


  • Frenchy

    Xandit: I have not impugned anymotives to you whatsoever. That you consider my suggestion about asking you C.O. gratuitous suggest to me that perhaps you are a little too much on the defensive here. It was a forthright and merited suggestion. The C.O. represents the Society.
    You asked a question which might be construed as somewhat less than sincere in light of your parenthetical expression concernin the carrying of cards but I let that slip by.
    You asked for a direct quotation from the Watchtower and I gave you exactly that. What was your response?

    I would say that it has to be weighed in the light of Friends quotes and comments.

    Now that you have the direct quote you asked for, you are now trying to qualify it. So it really does not matter whatis presented or shown to you whatsoever. Even clear, direct statements now have to be looked at "in the light of Friend's quotes and comments." I don't respond to any of Friend's posts. I have made that clear to him on this forum. To me, Friend is not an authority on anything nor does what he say carry any weight whatsoever so please don't use him when replying to me. It would be the equivalent of quoting Jimmy Swaggart to the Pope as an authority.
    From what I gather from your post here you find nothing wrong with dichotomies. As a matter of fact, you make an argument for it by association consistency with small minds. The society tries very hard to maintain cosistency, they do it at the expense of the truth sometimes. I guess you are characterizing them here. Are you saying here that contradictions are okay? That it's okay to have two opposing views simultaneously just because you publish volumes of literature?
    As to your statement:

    I suppose it's possible to sein almost any kind of a statement out of the vast body of written material that the Organization has produced but I'd have to say on balance that absolute statements about only Witnesses surviving Armageddon are rare.

    "almost any kind of statement"? I see that your tactics are almost identical to Friend's. By such a statement you set yourself up to disclaim anything that is not condusive to your argument. Now, "anything" that is presented that does not agree with your assessment of things is merely something seined "out of the vast body of material.."
    I am also amused at this statement of yours as well:

    absolute statements about only Witnesses surviving Armageddon are rare.

    Does that mean then that because they are 'rare' we are to pretend that they don't exist? "Abtain from blood" is a rare statement in the Greek Scriptures. Is it ignored? Nope. Does the Society feel that just 'seining' this out of the 'vast body of material' is insufficient to make it a doctrine? Is it discounted just because it's 'rare'? How about the phrase "faithful and discreet slave"? Another 'rare' jewel 'seined' out of the 'vast body of material' that appears thousands of times in what has become the Society's 'vast body of material'.
    You asked for a direct statement and I produced it. Now you disclaim it. I don't see the point in discussing this with you inasmuch as you will not accept what is presented.
    I'm going to start a thread on this subject and show how the most commonly used phrases that are used to show (the public) that we are not prejudiced in this matter are really nothing more that cleverly contrived double talk. Feel free to make your comments. As I have stated earlier, I do not repsond to Friend's posts and I continue not to do so.

    Edited by - Frenchy on 11 June 2000 12:19:23

  • waiting

    Dear Frenchy,

    Your point on "rare" quotes is well taken. I've been given that response before, and didn't know how to respond adequately.

    Your reference to the rareness of Biblical quotes for strong beliefs holds merit. Other churches do this too.

    Look forward to your new thread.


  • Maxee

    Frenchy has given a direct quote from the Watchtower now heres is an extract from an essay called "Why so many false alarms""

    In November 1954, the Douglas Walsh trial was held in the Scottish Court of Sessions, the Watchtower Society tried to establish before the British court that certain of its members were ordained ministers. High ranking leaders of the Society testified, including vice-president Fred Franz and legal counsel for the Society, Haydon C. Covington.

    [bold][italics]eg from court transcripts Haydon Covington being questioned[/italics][/bold]

    Q. Back to the point now. A false prophesy was promulgated?

    A. I agree that.

    Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah’s Witnesses?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. If a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses took the view himself that that prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?

    A. Yes, if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organisation believes one thing, even though it be erronious and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organisation, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organisation would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. Our purpose is to have unity.

    Q. Unity at all costs?

    A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.

    Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?

    A. That is conceded to be true

  • Friend

    The Tale of Two Statements

    Does the following two statements represent a dichotomy or not?

    "Does that mean then that because they are 'rare' we are to pretend that they don't exist? "Abtain from blood" is a rare statement in the Greek Scriptures. Is it ignored? Nope. Does the Society feel that just 'seining' this out of the 'vast body of material' is insufficient to make it a doctrine? Is it discounted just because it's 'rare'? How about the phrase "faithful and discreet slave"? Another 'rare' jewel 'seined' out of the 'vast body of material' that appears thousands of times in what has become the Society's 'vast body of material'."

    "For every sentence even mildly suggesting that we do not hold the view that we are the only ones that are going to make it, there are volumes of statements telling us just the opposite. Those few statements suggesting that we don't have that view are strictly for PR reasons and for ammunition (though it's very weak) to argue with those who point that out."

    Assuming the instances are rare where the Society indicates that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not the only ones who will be saved, I propose the following question:

    Does that mean then that because they are 'rare' we are to pretend that they don't exist?

    Pretending such statements do not exist by dismissing their merit outright is exactly the problem with some of the conclusions on this and other threads. In so doing sometimes direct statements are totally dismissed. If we look carefully at those dismissals we will often find that they are based upon a preconceived conclusion, which would make them circular.


  • waiting

    Hey, Maxee,

    What an interesting court discussion.

    So, unity of the organization is worth disfellowshipping a person for correct thinking - just because the Society hasn't thought of the correct thinking yet.

    Utterly fascinating.

  • Carmel

    So a few thousand "disadent" JWs whispering "the emperor has no clothes" will have to be countered by sending out a court jester to beat them to death with ostrich feathers.


  • Scorpion


    I find it interesting that when you present your case, you ignore what was previously posted at the very beggening of this topic as far as what the Society teaches about salvation. Yes, you are right about the Society saying that Jehovah and his Son are the final judge, but do they really mean that? They also tell its adhearants outside the WT organization there is no where else to go for true joy and salvation?

    The WT is basically saying that God and his Son are the final judge, but if you are not one of us, you will not be saved by God or his Son in the judgement.

    I am sure you see these two things meaning the same by what you have posted so far.

    I see a major contradiction in what the WT is saying. More double talk.

    The above is in answer to your questions.

  • Friend


    I am sure you see these two things meaning the same by what you have posted so far.

    SC, go back and read what I actually have said and show me one sentence where I said the two “things” we have been discussing are meaning the same. All this time you have completely failed to grasp what I have been saying! It is no wonder that your responses and conclusions have so confused this discussion.

    I see a major contradiction in what the WT is saying.

    The thought never occurred to me.(?!)

    Seriously, from an analytical perspective your conclusion is skewed by one thing. You presume that one teaching is genuine and that the other teaching is not genuine. With that initial prejudice you will never be able to reconcile the two, at least not logically. The problem with that prejudice is that, admittedly, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that others beside themselves will survive Armageddon. While that common belief has been yielded by both sides of this debate only one of our two explanations provides a reason for that commonality between people that tend to swallow what the Society says hook, line and sinker. So, the problem with your prejudice on this subject is that it actually goes contrary to what is typically held in common. On the other hand, as I have said repeatedly, my conclusion is in harmony with that commonality.

    You—and others agreeing with your slant—must explain then away two things that are solid; written statements contrary to your conclusions and the common idea held by Jehovah’s Witnesses that others besides themselves will survive Armageddon.

    As for me ignoring anything, I have not. I have kept to the issue at hand. I find it amusing that someone who from the beginning has so misunderstood essential elements of this discussion asserts that anyone else has ignored information.


    Edited by - Friend on 12 June 2000 8:45:46

Share this