John 21:23 a new argument for JW's regarding false prophecy promoted being OK

by ILoveTTATT2 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ILoveTTATT2

  I want as many minds put into this as possible.

  There is a new argument among the extreme JW apologists, saying that even the disciples promoted mistakes. They base themselves on John 21:23

  Keep in mind, I am not a believer but I want the answer from a believer's standpoint, please.

  
  

  NWT:

  (John 21:23) 23 In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?”
  

  
  

  Some Bible commentaries:
  
  #1

  Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If. . . .—The mistake of the brethren arose from their not attending to the force of the conditional particle. They took as a statement what had been said as a supposition, and understood it in the then current belief that the Second Advent would come in their own generation. (Comp. 1Corinthians 15:51-52; 1Thessalonians 4:17.)
  
  #2

  Then went this saying ... - This mistake arose very naturally:

  1. From the words of Jesus, which might be easily misunderstood to mean that he should not die; and,

  2. It was probably confirmed when it was seen that John survived all the other apostles, had escaped all the dangers of persecution, and was leading a peaceful life at Ephesus. This mistake John deemed it proper to correct before he died, and has thus left on record what Jesus said and what he meant.

  Then went this saying abroad among the brethren,.... It not being rightly understood by some one or more of the disciples present: it was divulged with a wrong sense annexed to it among other persons; who, though not of the eleven, yet were followers of Christ, children of God, that belonged to the same family, and were, in a spiritual relation, brethren to each other, and to the apostles:

  that that disciple should not die; but should remain till the second coming of Christ, and be found among them that shall be then alive, and be changed. And such a notion not only was among the ancients; but Beza, in his notes on this text, tells us of a strolling wicked fellow, that gave out that he was the Apostle John; and was encouraged by some, particularly Postellus, a Sorbonic doctor, but was afterwards burnt at Tholouse.

  Yet Jesus said not unto him he shall not die, but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? These are the words of John himself, the disciple spoken of, who gives a true and just account of Christ's words, freeing them from the false sense that was put upon them; which shows his ingenuous disposition, his integrity and love of truth; being unwilling that such an error should obtain among the disciples, and pass in the world for truth.

  My question is:
  
  How do we respond to this? Was error PROMOTED AS TRUE DOCTRINE BY THE APOSTLES?
  
  I think there is a tremendous fallacy here... a) the saying was not inspired.b) it was corrected by an inspired writer, John, c) the "brethen" could be anyone, not necessarily the apostles, d) it was a rumor, but it never appeared in the Bible as true doctrine.

  Any other responses to this?

  Thank you!
• 

  Londo111

  The difference was there was no Governing Body…but say there was, they did not proclaim this teaching as spiritual food. If you did not believe this, you would not get shunned.

  The Watchtower likes to portray failed predictions and teaching as the fault of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but nobody blames the “channel”, the Watchtower, or the Governing Body or Watchtower president of the time. It is a top down organization…they take the credit up top, and put the blame on the bottom.
• 

  steve2

  Your question is not as challenging as the OP implies. In fact, it is very, very easily answered.

  The difference is in the methodology - that's it.

  It is one thing for people in positions of responsibility to make mistakes. However, it is quite another to instruct the flock to obediently and unquestioningly follow your private interpretations upon pain of being disfellowshipped if they don't - and then to later - in a fit of self-promotional humility - spin your mistake as light that has now become brighter. Whitewashing has seldom been whiter.

  There is absolutely no evidence thst those loyal followers of Christ who were mistaken in their sincere expectation imposed a moratorium on questioning and effected punishment upon their brothers and sisters who wisely advised caution.
• 

  sir82

  Where is the Bible verse that says that "the brothers" threatened to disfellowship those who did not believe that "saying that went out"? Or that they threatened to disfellowship any who pointed out that they were wrong?

  Hmmm, for some reason I can't find that verse....

  Oh, that's right....it doesn't exist.

  Look, nobody gives a rat's patootie how many times JWs, or anyone else, is wrong.

  What is wrong, immoral, reprehensible, filthy, and sinful, is the WTS's insistence on uniformity backed up by threats of communal shunning. "Believe and obey us, or we will coerce all of your family and friends to treat you as if dead."
  

  That's the disgusting thing.
  

  
  
  
• 

  tim3l0rd

  Even if they had a wrong belief, there is no evidence that this was published, announced in talks, or pushed as something that everyone HAD to believe or be ousted from the congregation. Others could obviously hold a different belief. That would be my argument.

  I've had this conversation with my wife several times now. How can I teach something as truth that cannot be questioned to my bible student even though I know that "truth" could change in a decade, a year, a few months? How is it fair to enforce this policy of absolute unity of doctrine when the doctrines change regularly? All I get is a shoulder shrug.
• 

  iwasblind

  It was not doctrine, it was heresay. Just like many JW's speculate about the paradise or space travel in the future.

  The difference is simple, it was not stated as a doctrine, you could not get disfellowshipped for refuting it, and it was not printed in every single WT like 1914 and the like.
• 

  Magnum

  This has already been said, but it's important, so I'm going to say it again, but in different words. The difference is that the "saying went out among the brothers". It did not come from an organization as an official teaching or doctrine that had to be accepted by the rank and file. IT WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCTRINE OF AN ORGANIZATION.

  The false predictions and other false teachings of JWs have come from the top as official organization teachings that cannot be contradicted by the rank and file without serious consequences.

  For example, it was officially stated in JW publications that the 1914 generation would not die off before the end comes. That was an official organizational teaching. It was not a "saying" that "went out among the brothers". The org was wrong. That generation is dead and gone and there is no end in sight.

  John 21:23 provides them absolutely no argument at all. It does not in any way excuse the org for its more than 100 years of false predictions and false teachings.
• 

  matt2414

  There are at least two major points that can be made here, both of which condemn the JW org:

  1) If the early brothers made a mistake, it was just one mistake. In the org's own words, it wasn't a "practice of sin." On the other hand, how many mistakes has the GB made over the years? A dozen? Two dozen? Four dozen? Am I getting warm yet? There is no comparison in this verse with what the GB has done since the time of Rutherford. Not even close.

  2) If God didn't punish the first century Christians for their occasional wrong thinking and speech, why do the Witnesses disfellowship individuals who they claim are not thinking and speaking in agreement with what the GB says? Why are individuals dealt with so harshly for disagreeing with certain doctrinal points that the GB will eventually change later anyway?

  The governing body has unknowingly opened a can of worms with this verse. They are actually condemning themselves and revealing Pharisaic behavior, just like wolves attacking god's flock.
  
• 

  Stuck in the middle37

  The Mormons still believe in a literal reading of that text. They believe in a 2,000 yr. old man that is still alive somewhere. I had a discussion with them on that subject (text) about a yr. ago.
• 

  Island Man

  I agree with the refutative points you made near the end of your OP. One other point I would add is that this error started before christians were anointed with holy spirit - the "spirit of the truth" - which Jesus said will guide them into all the truth. In contrast, Watchtower errors have always been promulgated by Watchtower leaders professing to be anointed with holy spirit. So Watchtower's comparison of its own errors with that of John 21:23 is not valid.