Transcription of interview with Rabbi Michael Berenbaum regarding German JW's in the concentration camps

by Saintbertholdt 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Saintbertholdt

  Hi prologos,

  I have this idea that if Jehovah's Witnesses were subjected to the same treatment as during the Nazi era, they would not be as resilient as the witnesses then. The reason is because the reliance on the individuals conscience was allowed more during the 1930's-40's than is allowed today. They had a sense they were taking a stand themselves by their own volition where today the laws of the organization prescribe the smallest minutia, resulting in robotic followers. When confronted with real horror and the difficult choices of survival, today's witnesses would only then start to deeply think about their religion and its implications.

  Also in Germany only about 7000 witnesses entered into the camp system. These were the actively preaching witnesses who were arrested. About 15000 witnesses became inactive between 1933 and 1935 due to the Nazi ban and were therefore essentially left alone. So you ended up with the most devout witnesses in the camp system, hence their steadfast stand. If it were to happen today I would expect that about 5 million of the current 8 million followers would sign a compromising document (using the German statistic as a guide).
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  Hi CalebInFloroda,

  You wrote: Finally the Witnesses currently teach anti-Semitic doctrines, and many of these have remained in effect since before the 1930s. They advance a supersessionist ideology, demanding that Jewish converts assimilate to Western culture, and as they have told me directly believe that G-d has rejected the Jews as a people because they rejected and killed Jesus.

  I think that because Berenbaum has studied Jehovah's Witness history he is aware of the change in doctrine in 1932. He knows that previously the organization taught that the Jews would be reconciled with God and that they did not have to convert to Christianity. He argues that the old doctrine was theologically consistent and perhaps hints for a return to that doctrine. From the transcript:

  "If you for example say that the Jew can live with integrity with his God and that God spoke to the Jews; and if you then said that God furthermore spoke on to Christians with a new covenant, a new Testament, a new view, then you could be theologically consistent, which says to the people to whom the first word of God was spoken: It endures and continues and they should take it forward; To the people in whom the word of God came for the second time they can live with that word but they need not say that Judaism itself has no more function to perform."

  
  
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  Hi CalebInFloroda,

  As a footnote: I have a rather heretical Jewish idea which I put to you: Could it not be argued that the Jewish messiah has in fact come? As you probably are aware there are Jewish schools of thought that think that the Jewish messiah is a class of people and not an individual. Could the argument not be made that the Jewish generation of the second world war in Europe was in fact the Messiah class? After all in the post war era the recognition of the attempted extermination of the Jews directly led to the nation state of Israel in 1948. Also the INDUSTRIAL process of extermination of the Jews by the Nazis will forever stand as a warning for the entirety of humanity to never repeat such an atrocity again.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  I am URJ (Reform Judaism), and as such I am one of those Jews who don't formally subscribe to the concept of a personal Messiah. We hold that prophecies of the Messiah in Tanakh are personifications describing the promised Messianic Age. In line with this it is the Messianic Age that we are still waiting to come, but I have no arguments with Jews who believe otherwise.

  As to the comments you posted regarding the JW view of the Witnesses regarding the Jews, I was not arguing with the talented Rabbi was wrong (who I happen to admire very much as a matter of fact). I was instead offering a counter argument that could validate why some individuals might not agree with Rabbi Berenbaum. It is Jewish custom to open every view to critical analysis, and that is what I was doing.

  However, it has been the Roman Catholic Church and not Jehovah's Witnesses who have radically changed their views on the Jews. With Vatican II the Catholic Church denounced proselytizing of Jews, Replacement Theology (Supersessionism), and teaches that the covenant relationship of the Jews with G-d are not only still valid but irrevocable. The Pontifical Biblical Commission in a recent study on the Jewish people in the Christian Bible has stated that the current division of Church and synogogue is not only unscriptural in the eyes of the Holy See but should have never happened in the first place. Recent comments from Pope Francis have reiterated that proselytism of the Jews and any type of anti-Semitism is forbidden among Catholics. And Hebrew Catholics are allowed to retain Jewish customs, including the wearing of kippah and observance of Jewish holidays.

  While as a Jew I am not endorsing Catholicism, it must be admitted that these changes are a far cry from the current views of the JW and foreign to the direction the Governing Body seems to be currently taking.

  Not that I think the JWs are incapable of such change. In fact it is because I know that they are that I do not share as positive a view of the Watchtower as some might.
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  Hi again CalebinFloroda

  Not that I think the JWs are incapable of such change.In fact it is because I know that they are that I do not share as positive a view of the Watchtower as some might.

  I think the chances of the Watchtower ever reverting to a pre-1932 doctrine regarding the Jews is pretty slim. The reason is mainly because it goes against the 'new nation' doctrine of Rutherford when he introduced the Jehovah's Witness name change. The idea being that the new nation replaced the Jewish nation as most favored by God. A revert would cause major theological problems and revisions within the JW dogma, something for which the current Governing Body is ill-equipped.

  As you probably are aware Russell used to hold talks specifically for Jews called consolation meetings where he espoused the idea of the reconciliation of the Jews with God and their restitution by the re-establishment of the Jews in Palestine. Up until 1931 Rutherford upheld that doctrine and there was even a Watchtower article in that year that re-affirmed the doctrine. One year later and there's a total 180 degree turnaround. It must have confused Jews who had heard about the Bible students stance and I suspect even caused the Nazis some confusion.

  I was instead offering a counter argument that could validate why some individuals might not agree with Rabbi Berenbaum. It is Jewish custom to open every view to critical analysis, and that is what I was doing.

  I have no problem with that at all :)

  With Vatican II the Catholic Church denounced proselytizing of Jews, Replacement Theology (Supersessionism), and teaches that the covenant relationship of the Jews with G-d are not only still valid but irrevocable.

  I do not understand how the Catholic Church can be so progressive in some aspects of their theology but still cling to backward ideas such as the banning of Birth Control. Perhaps pope Francis has a trick up his sleeve.
  
  
  
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  I gather Pope Francis is doing what he can. I have close ties to the Catholic Church because of the work I have done with some of their Biblical scholars. Apparently the conservative voices in the Church can be very difficult to deal with, and many are resisting any type of change, some even being highly critical of the Pope, even on his comments regarding the Jews.

  Sadly, however, even Pope Francis cannot change doctrine or produce new ones, so I don't see changes on birth control or other matters coming soon, not unless he can find a loophole that proves an underlying doctrine of the Church is being compromised by current beliefs.

  I have learned from these same Catholic friends that contrary to belief a pope cannot make up new doctrines, neither is a pope infallible. Instead their doctrine is that a pope can only define a debated doctrine as dogma (i.e., state that the doctrine has indeed always been part of the Catholic deposit of faith since its founding), and that when a pope does this specific act of declaration, the declaration itself is infallible.

  But such an infallible statement occurs only after years of research with input from clergy and layperson, theologian and average Joe. And there have only been two infallible teachings pronounced by a pope over the past 2000 years. Dogmatic pronouncements of this type only ensure that a doctrine is authentically Catholic and doesn't allow for new ones. So I am not sure how Pope Francis will deal with the upcoming synod in the United States where the issue of divorced and homosexual Catholics will be considered.
• 

  rip van winkle

  JF Rutherford could've had JWs use "Theocratic Warfare" to avoid the Nazi camps--

  but then we wouldn't have their personal stories of courage against the Nazis and wholehearted belief in Jehovah's organization all these years later.
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  CalebInFloroda

  Sadly, however, even Pope Francis cannot change doctrine or produce new ones, so I don't see changes on birth control or other matters coming soon, not unless he can find a loophole that proves an underlying doctrine of the Church is being compromised by current beliefs.

  There is one loophole I'm aware of: Its called special dispensation.

  The church has invoked it for divorce which used to be a mortal sin. So although you can't get divorced in the catholic church, you actually can. You pay a fine and a Diocesan Tribunal counsel nullifies your marriage and you're good to go.

  So I wonder if Francis could not use the same type of idea: Allow the special dispensation to avoid 'hardship' on the marriage union by avoiding unwanted pregnancy by using contraception. One would have to write a letter to the local priest requesting the special dispensation, after all it has to seem 'special'.
  
• 

  Saintbertholdt

  Hi rip van winkle,

  JF Rutherford could've had JWs use "Theocratic Warfare" to avoid the Nazi camps--

  True. Lying was already defined by Rutherford in 1936 as :'A lie is a false statement made by one to another one who is entitled to hear and to know the truth'. So if you were not entitled to the truth e.g. the Nazi state, it was not a lie to be untruthful. Also by 1940 there was correspondence to the Watchtower HQ referring to the 'Rahab technique'.

  Rutherford wanted martyrs it would seem. Also after his incarceration in 1918 he became disillusioned with all governments (including the US) and that's why he actually preferred a hard line to placation.

  
  

  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  For what is is worth, the Rebbe stated his view. There were many Rabbis and observant Jews in Jerusalem when God abandoned them to their enemies during the destruction of the second temple. In fact, it was in observation of God's Law ("Every male of yours shall appear before me 3 times a year..) that observant Jews were in Jerusalem celebrating the Passover in 70 AD. God especially waited for Jerusalem to be filled to the brim in obedience to his written law, so as to trap as many as possible inside Jerusalem and have the Romans massacre them.

  .."Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;…lLuke 21:21

  New American Standard Bible
  "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. Mathew 21:43

  JW should be allowed to practice their religion the same way the "Jews" freely enjoy practicing theirs. Jews should not assault, spit at , maim or harm or injure, vandalize personal property or try to prevent JW from practicing their religion as they have done in the past. It would seem that the Jews after being victims of the Nazis who were so intolerant of Jews .would especially show tolerance to others. They do not.

  http://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/israel/raanana-high-court-case/