Jonadab,
"Would spreading the belief that the world would end at a certain date based on the measurements of a pyramid be considered false prophesying ?"-----deddaisy
"First of all, I would ask your definition of 'prophesying'. "-----------Jonadab
Webster's Dictionary 1995:
prophesying: 1. To foretell or predict (future events). 2. To foretell (something) by divine inspiration.
Secondly, was it false? Yes it was.----------Jonadab
Third, was it intentionally false, intended to mislead? No.-------Jonadab
I know there are congregations out there that have done a lot of harm, but at the same time the truth is still the truth and at the end of the day 1+1 still equals 2. -------Jonadab (on private e-mail).
Jonadab, no organization ought to cause harm and claim to have divine rights to do it;
"false" is false. Whether it was intentional or not is irrelevant when deciphering the definition of "false prophesying." Therefore, you agree, that "spreading the belief that the world would end at a certain date based on the measurements of a pyramid" could indeed be held as false prophesying. Whether or not it is considered "intentional" false prophesying is not of importance when pertaining to "God's earthly organization" being guilty of it.
My meaning pertaining to "apostate literature," is literature which is used to show one that the teachings of one's religion are false. Do you agree with this definition? If so, then how can you conclude that JW literature, when in the hands of householders, is not "apostate literature?" When speaking of Russell, who by the way you agree was an apostate to the religion he was raised in, you said:
"To hold to what he had understood in his day would be like him holding to the false religious teachings that he came to reject after his progressive study of scripture. It is not logical to think that he would do otherwise."---------Jonadab
I could not agree with you more on this point Jonadab. But then, I am not the one that "shuns" those that conclude with your statement above, you are. And you find it perfectly legitimate that Russell, by examining and denying his former religion, was somehow inspired, while your former "brothers" are shunned for taking the same steps. You also said:
"The question now is, Should a person stick with a religion that does not conform to Bible teaching?"----Jonadab
Well I certainly feel that one must conform to what one believes to be truth. As far as conforming to "Bible teaching," well Jonadab, you know as well as I that the teaching is in the interpretation. You rarely find two witnesses to the same accident that see the same thing. So how a group can alienate anyone who does not hold to what they see as the meaning of a work as extraordinary as the Bible is questionable in itself.
Romans 16:17: I appeal to you, brethen, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties,
in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.
If my father would have heeded this scripture, he certainly would have avoided JWs and remained a Lutheran. But then if everyone heeded the Bible, there would be no Lutheran religion. Ditto for the Witnesses. -------deddaisy
If the early Christians had heeded this scripture there would have been no apostasy in the first place-------Jonadab
This, Jonadab, does not explain Russell's apostasy. Christ was not an apostate. Why do you feel that Jehovah would've found it necessary to have his earthly organization set up by an apostate of any religion? Someone who, according to the Bible, is going against God ?
Webster's Dictionary 1995: apostate: a person who commits apostasy.
apostasy: renunciation or abandonment of a previous loyalty, as to one's religious faith. The Bible seems quite contrary. "
Turn away from what is false, but avoid those that do turn away from what is false, unless of course they are turning away from what we have determined to be false." The question is then, who decides what is false? Is this a personal decision, or is this a question that is answered by a group of men in New York City ? Cheers, Gerry
