It has nothing to do about feeling chosen or ruling in heaven, but rather many feel it's a command for all Christians, that by partaking you are accepting Christ as their saviour! John 6-
Why doesn't the wt discuss the real reason many partake?
There is no wt discussions, Discussions would be to propose options, and then freely weight in on the pro and cons. Wt tells you what questions are allowed, and answers sanctioned.
John 6 ? no partaking, no everlasting life, no resurrection.
cup of the new covenant? forgiveness of sin. not elevator to heaven.
immortality comes after giving up everlasting life.
wt wants no discussions, disgusting. Unity ueber alles. over the bodies of the sheep.
not selling, just saying.
P.S. nw: many partake in secret, because they still believe in the merit of the ransom, but do not want to have the sacred occasion, wine under the full moon, marred by wt error on the matter, or be classified as mentally ill.
I had to read your OP a couple of times before it dawned on me you were asking about Christians in general and not the JW`s.
Not your fault I`m getting a bit slow and ditherey in my old age.And its very true what you say.
Christendoms members partake for the reasons you stated ("Accepting Christ as their saviour" )
JW members partake thinking they are going to rule with JC over all of the earth. ( All about power and Ego )
A good thread ,I look forward to others comments.
I guess there are two answers .
Agreed , Mainstream Christians partake because Jesus said to, and they have no concept of "other sheep" and an earthly hope.
In the dubs, more are partaking because of delusions of grandeur, pride, thinking themselves special or better than the others. If they came in from a church perhaps they never lost their wating to go to heaven.
Whatever, it shows it has nothing to with the H.S. calling them
Bobcat : I read the links you provided. It seems to me that the WT do frame their arguments well . This is the study WT for internal discussion by believers. They all believe in a Paradise earth and most want to live in it. The writers know their target audience.
An article in a public edition about who should partake would no doubt be different.
Or was that the point you were making and I am too thick to pick it up?
You got it right BB,
The WT avoids ever mentioning the real reason many are partaking: They (the partakers - at least some of them) are coming to the realization that it has nothing to do with a heavenly calling or being anointed. It has everything to do with Jesus commanding it to be done in remembrance of him, what he did. For the WT, this thinking is a poison to them because they have linked partaking to ruling. So that the more who partake (for the right reason), the more diluted their authoritarian position becomes. You can see their angst in the WT lesson yesterday.
The WT scrupulously avoids mentioning that particular option. They don't want it even discussed. They "frame" the argument by establishing the two sides to the argument: (1) The WT way, or (2) the mental problems or past erroneous religious beliefs. Those are the two sides to this problem that WT wants the R&F to see. As far as the WT is concerned, you are either on one side of the argument or the other. There is no third option. At least not as far as the WT is concerned. And the WT wants it to stay that way.
And they don't want the R&F asking those who partake for their reasons. Such questions risk letting the cat out of the bag and getting the R&F to start thinking. To start discussing this option without WT controlling the discussion will only lead to more people coming to the correct conclusion.
Surely they know that some are taking up this point of view. And you would think that if they saw this as just another erroneous position, that they would compose an article to refute it. But they don't. They scrupulously avoid even mentioning it (as the OP wondered, and as that 'framing' tract I linked to instructed). The WT not mentioning this particular idea is an evidence (from silence) that they are purposely using this strategy to keep that particular idea away from the R&F.
It's not all that different from the religious leaders in the 1st century not wanting anyone to converse with Jesus or his disciples. They were trying to contain the damage to their position. (Jn 11:47-50)
By NT standards, the GB have already condemned themselves as opponents of Jesus. (Rev 21:8; 22:15)
I recall reading in "30 years a watchtower slave", schneil wrote that the reason they came up with 2 hopes is that in the early 30,s they were approaching 144.000 members and had to come up with another lie to cover their literal interpretation that they all were anointed and going to heaven. Otherwise, the sheer number of Bible students would exceed 144,000, proving them wrong again.
Betheliesalot that is something that I was getting more and more uncomfortable with as the years passed. How could we believe that the Son of God who performed miracles and even raised the dead, followed by a group of followers who were eye witnesses to this, and also performed miracles and raised the dead, not manage to convert even half of the anointed 144000 in the first few centuries? Especially when 5000 became believers right at the outset, and went out preaching?
How many 1000s or tens of thousands died at the hands of the Roman Empire, refusing to compromise their faith? LESS than 144000 by the time we reached the 20th century??? Are we better preachers than Jesus and the apostles, and Paul.....?
Good grief, they have been taking the proverbial
If all were to partake why then Jesus didn't invite everyone and not just a few chosen ones