Satan's Direct Attack

by UnDisfellowshipped 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Just another Watchtower Contradiction!

  The Watchtower, June 1, 2003 Issue, Page 20, Paragraph 11:

  "Gog of Magog is identified as Satan the Devil in his debased condition since 1914. As a spirit creature, he cannot carry out his attack directly, but will use human agencies to do his deeds.

  COMPARE THAT WITH THIS:

  The Watchtower, June 1, 2004 Issue:

  We are also exposed to Satan?s direct attack. Satan is waging war with the remnant of anointed ones, "who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus" (Revelation 12:17)
• 

  1914

  That's why we will not allow education. How a christian dare understand the difference between direct and indirect.
• 

  gumby

  Maybe their simply saying..."when Satan uses human agencies for his means.....it's a direct attack since it came from him". Just like Jehovah uses his son at armageddon to attack people like you who write in big letters. It still comes from Jehovah as a direct attack even though Jesus does all the slaughtering. Face it UD......they have the truth and you know it......and your gonna die in your sins ya heathen bastard!

  Gumby
• 

  heathen

  That's quite a flip flop you found there . As far as I can remember they always thought that satan could use his powers to posses people and such .Satan can't physically kill but he can use other people to carry that out .
• 

  shamus

  Trying to understand that garble sure takes 'holy spirit'. You need holy spirit to make you stupid enough to believe it.

  But what else does anyone expect from the corporation? More nonsense.
• 

  ellderwho

  Interesting find Undis,

  LOL@ Gumbaggedon

  E.
• 

  trumangirl

  Hmm, that's one 2004 WT I don't appear to have. I remember the June 2003 one vividly because I answered up on that para, pointing out that this was a change of thought, that the Isaiaih book had identified the Gog of Magog attack as to come out of the UN. Of course, I didn't mention the reason they were quietly dropping the UN (the NGO scandal), but I was seething at the time. But no-one around me seemed to care, they were as zombie-like as ever at a WT study. I pity them.

  ANyway back to the subject, I would be careful not to jump to the conclusion that the 2004 mag is a change of thought without seeing mor context. It might be that it is their usual warnings about Satan, just that they usually say "indirect" attack or "machinations". Don't know why they're saying "direct attack" here.

  May we see more of the surrounding text please?
• 

  NeonMadman

  and your gonna die in your sins

  Interesting. When I read this, I thought, "There?s a completely Biblical expression that is never used by the JW's - I wonder why?"

  (For the record, it's found in John 8:24: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.?)

  Then the reason occurred to me: first, they don?t believe that one?s destiny is determined at death; they advocate a ?second chance? theology in which one earns salvation by their works after being resurrected. And second, the ability to die IN one?s sins also implies a situation in which one could NOT die in their sins, i.e., to have full forgiveness (which, of course, is what Christ taught).

  It?s amazing to me still, the way they invent their own language to present concepts that are not found in the Bible, while ignoring Biblical language because it doesn?t fit their organizational dogma.

  Just some musings; my apologies for taking the thread off topic.
• 

  gumby

  Just some musings; my apologies for taking the thread off topic.

  Oooooooh sure you are! Now see what you went and done! You stopped UD's handywork, ya bastard!

  Gumby
• 

  NeonMadman

  Oooooooh sure you are! Now see what you went and done! You stopped UD's handywork, ya bastard!

  MUAAAHHHHH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!

  (twirls end of mustache between fingertips)