Posts by AnnOMaly

73

WHAT WOULD YOU WANT YOUR GRAVE STONE TO SAY?

by new boy in

jw
friends

i always liked what richard dryfress said in the movie "alaways", when he found out he was dead---"wow!!

!-----what a jerk i turned out to be"!!!!.

my mother's head stone says---------"i told you i was sick"!!

AnnOMaly

I would like a realistic-looking hand jutting out from the dirt, preferably a motion-sensor one that would wave at any passers-by.

Either that or a tree would be nice.

No words.

40

20 years ago..a talk concerning field service..sisters crying..eyes opened

by confusedjw in

well i can't recall now which public talks it was - one of my first - and it dealt with field service / preaching.

so i thought i would interview several people in the congregation about service and their thoughts and feelings on the subject, expecting something very different than what i got.

to my shock (i was an over zealous young buck who thought the sun rose and set on the wt) three sisters burst into tears as they told about their feelings of inadequacy and guilt over field service.

I remember once - many many years ago - we had the CO and his wife over for lunch. My husband and I hadn't been married long. No kids. They suggested that we could be well placed to pioneer, maybe with a long-term goal of going on the circuit work. Basically it was a kind of "The Organization Needs YOU!" pep talk. I remember just starting to cry uncontrollably. I can't remember what I said in explanation. The CO and his wife didn't know what was going on with me. Neither did I. (I think that was the last time we invited any COs and their wives over for lunch.)

A couple of years later, I was doing a spell of auxilliary pioneering and one day I could feel the pressure welling up with each passing door. I was relieved every time nobody was home. At one point, I got to the door, rang the bell, waited, and tears started to fill my eyes. I snappily said to my husband, "I have to go home." He started to say something about finishing the next few doors and I said through clenched teeth, "NOW!" And so we went home. I didn't know why I was like that.

I now know why. I have the kind of personality that finds confrontational cold-calling on strangers very stressful. There are people who are natural 'salespeople' who can sell sand to the Arabs, who love striking up conversations with anybody they meet. I am not one of those people. Let me get to know people first socially, before embarking on discussions on topics like religion - and only if it comes up in conversation. Give me a keyboard or paper and pen. But don't ask me to knock on doors, uninvited, to talk to strangers. It's not 'me.'

57

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 3-20-05 WT Study (complete article)

by blondie in

comments you will not hear at the 3-20-05 wt study

(february 1, 2005 issue date)

review comments

AnnOMaly

Confusedjw

The *real* message - DON'T QUESTION GOD / DON'T QUESTION US.

I was thinking the same!

tijkmo

And all the reasoning goes out the window when you compare the genesis account with...judges 19 :22 -

I raised that with one of the elders - especially about v.24 where the host's intent was clear: it was better that his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine were raped than the guest. In this case, the mob - not pagans, btw, but Benjaminites under the Law Covenant - took the concubine and abused her to death. So Lot's intentions in offering his daughters to the mob could very well have been the same (instead of the sugar-coated alternatives - I didn't say that last part to him). The elder made some vague remarks and changed the subject.

27

little flock

by peacefulpete in

just a comment for the new ones here.

the wt has attatched great doctrinal significance to the words "little flock" in luke 12:32. what however does the context tell us the author was intending?

luke 12 opens with a crowd of curious people gathering and trampling each other and jesus turns to his 12, his friends and disciples, and addresses them with private counsel.

AnnOMaly

I guess it's an early example of 'simplification.'

5

Marmite Ad terrifies Children

by El Kabong in

jw
friends

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050316/80/fed94.html (i can't get this to show up as a link using firefox, maybe someone can help?).

.

but, man...i got to try this stuff!!!!.

AnnOMaly

Banned that?

Kids see spilled guts everyday when they play video games. They'd yawn at this commercial!

27

little flock

by peacefulpete in

just a comment for the new ones here.

the wt has attatched great doctrinal significance to the words "little flock" in luke 12:32. what however does the context tell us the author was intending?

luke 12 opens with a crowd of curious people gathering and trampling each other and jesus turns to his 12, his friends and disciples, and addresses them with private counsel.

AnnOMaly

Hi Justin, all

Did Russell consider the Great Multitude to be part of spiritual Israel? Based on the article "The Great Multitude" in the March 1916 Watch Tower (Reprint No. 5846), I would say Yes. That article includes both classes in "the Church" - and the Church or congregation is spiritual Israel.

That is interesting. Yes, both classes are 'spiritual .' That's confirmed in the ZG (1918) which discusses Revelation and Ezekiel.

This is how the classes are summarized:

ZG (1918) p.100-106 [Rev. 7], 224, 225 [Ezek. 40-48]

Heavenly classes :

?Little flock? = Priests, Bride, divine nature, in Most Holy

?Great Multitude? = Levites, serve in inner court, lower spirit nature like angels, virgin companions

Earthly classes :

Perfect human nature - Jewish ?ancient worthies/princes' and 'servants of the city? or ?sons of the ancient worthies'

Humans who progress to perfection over the 1000 years ? resurrected Hebrews and resurrected non-Hebrew ?strangers'

It looks like the secondary spiritual class was gradually edged further and further away from the inner sanctum after Russell died. Notice what V-III says on p. 204 - talking about Ezek. 40 and the outer court of the temple:

"It was seven steps above the outside, but was lower than the pavement of the inner court (I-H), which is utilized by the royal priesthood. This picture shows the position of the 'great multitude'. Ever and anon someone advances the conclusion that the 'great multitude' will not be a spiritual class. The prophecy of Ezekiel shows that such conclusion is erroneous. The fact that their position is seven steps higher than the outside shows that they must be made spirit creatures."

So the 'great multitude' was no longer in the inner court. That was exclusively the domain of the priestly class, the 'little flock.' Of course, the 'great multitude' was eventually thrown out into the Gentile outer courts and had to stay there until the recent Questions from Readers revised it and moved them a courtyard in again.

What I also find intriguing (from what I?m picking up as I go along) is the similarity between this BS/JW ?classes of Christian? idea and 2 nd century Gnosticism ? especially the ideas of Valentinius. He believed that mankind was divided into 3 groups:

The ?pneumatics,? pre-determined, spiritual, enlightened elect Christians who would immediately reach perfection at death;

The ?psychics? who were orthodox or ordinary faithful Christians who didn?t have the advanced spiritual advancement of the elect and tended to work for their salvation ? a lesser salvation than the elect;

The ?hylics? who were the materialists, the heathen, soulless and animalistic with no hope of salvation.

There?s some similarity with Manichaeism too ? another Gnostic sect. However they mixed in elements of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism with Hellenistic Christianity. They had a two-tier system ? the elect and the hearers. The elect were very strict and led ascetic lives. They were full-time missionaries and were successful in propogating their religion. The hearers financed the work of the elect and were allowed to lead a relatively normal life.

Any of this sound familiar? There really is nothing new under the sun!

27

little flock

by peacefulpete in

just a comment for the new ones here.

the wt has attatched great doctrinal significance to the words "little flock" in luke 12:32. what however does the context tell us the author was intending?

luke 12 opens with a crowd of curious people gathering and trampling each other and jesus turns to his 12, his friends and disciples, and addresses them with private counsel.

AnnOMaly

Hi Narkissos

I'm not very familiar with Russell's doctrines

Me neither. I'm trying to put some pieces together myself on this.

did he suggest elsewhere a sort of "second-class" salvation for people associated with the WT?

I don't know. Yes, it was Rutherford who really promoted the org=salvation idea, but I'd like to find out any Russellite roots to it.

Hi Justin

The great multitude was expected to be a secondary heavenly class similar to angels, but one did not enter the race for life with the expectation of belonging to this secondary class. It would only be in the resurrection that one would know for sure what the final outcome was. In the meantime, all were anointed, all were spirit-begotten and partook of the Memorial emblems.

Now I'm puzzled. Did the 144k and 'great multitude' together constitute the 'real spiritual Israel?' I have a feeling the 'great multitude' weren't. But they'd have to be to get to heaven and serve in the spiritual temple, right? But it's only the 144k who are seen as Israelites. And the 'great multitude' - according to Rutherford later (before the GM and OS classes were merged into one earthly class) - were not royal priests who could enter the inner court. I'm going to have to look at this ...

27

little flock

by peacefulpete in

just a comment for the new ones here.

the wt has attatched great doctrinal significance to the words "little flock" in luke 12:32. what however does the context tell us the author was intending?

luke 12 opens with a crowd of curious people gathering and trampling each other and jesus turns to his 12, his friends and disciples, and addresses them with private counsel.

AnnOMaly

Hi hmike

I agree with you that Jesus was not prophesying that there would only ever be a little flock in the kingdom - he was merely using an affectionate term.

But if you see Scripture as types, anti-types, dispensations and so on, it would be kind of 'logical' to connect the little flock of 'real spiritual Israelites' of Luke 12:32 with the limited number of 'real spiritual Israelites' of Rev. 7:4.

The members of the 'royal household' came out from various churches - their baptisms in those churches were valid, and religious 'organization' was a dirty word. It was only after Russell died and Rutherford took over and revised, expanded, changed Russell's teachings beyond recognition and developed an organizational structure with him as dictator, that salvation was dependent on associating with the 'royal class.' This was because the organization, run by those of the 'royal class,' was like the antitypical (here we go again!) 'city of refuge' that the bloodguilty lesser classes had to run to to escape the antitypical Avenger of Blood's wrath. And so, this is partly how the ideas about the 'little flock' and 144K evolved and became a fundamental JW doctrine.

27

little flock

by peacefulpete in

just a comment for the new ones here.

the wt has attatched great doctrinal significance to the words "little flock" in luke 12:32. what however does the context tell us the author was intending?

luke 12 opens with a crowd of curious people gathering and trampling each other and jesus turns to his 12, his friends and disciples, and addresses them with private counsel.

AnnOMaly

Hi Narkissos

What Russell probably didn't imagine is that his own brand of "genuine Christians" would be eventually separated into two classes, one of them only being identified as the little flock.

LOL.

I was under the impression that the secondary heavenly class were neglectful Christians who would never be of the 'royal house' sharing rulership with Jesus. They could serve in the 'royal house' but were not 'royalty' - even though they were 'spirit-begotten.' I thought that it was only the 144k who made up the 'real spiritual Israel' according to the BSs. As far as I'm aware, they never considered the 'great crowd' as 'real Israel.' I could be wrong ...

27

little flock

by peacefulpete in

just a comment for the new ones here.

the wt has attatched great doctrinal significance to the words "little flock" in luke 12:32. what however does the context tell us the author was intending?

luke 12 opens with a crowd of curious people gathering and trampling each other and jesus turns to his 12, his friends and disciples, and addresses them with private counsel.

AnnOMaly

Hi hmike

That's quite a stretch. Where did that interpretation come from? I don't understand how it's justified.

Russell's interpretation of Luke 12:32 as well as other scriptures is down to the 'dispensational premillenniallist' way of understanding the Bible. Included in that view is the belief that historical and narrative passages in the Bible are symbolic of another truth in a future dispensation or period of new revelation by God.

So, to Luke 12:32. The Jewish dispensation - Jesus was speaking to a large crowd of unbelieving or undecided Jews (nominal Israel). His faithful disciples (also Jews) were few - a little flock (real Israel). Bringing those types forward to the Gospel Age, the Christian dispensation, Russell saw a similar dichotomy between the world of nominal Spiritual Israel (nominal Christians) - of which there were many - and a 'little flock' of real Spiritual Israel (genuine Christians).

I hope I've described Russell's idea correctly.

These are his words:

Volume 2 - The Time is at Hand STUDY VII THE PARALLEL DISPENSATIONS ... While we will not in this chapter or volume enter into a detailed examination of the typical features of God's dealings with Israel, as set forth in the Tabernacle, and Temple, and ordinances and sacrifices, etc., we do now invite close attention to some of the marked and prominent outlines of correspondency between the Jewish and Christian dispensations as type and antitype; for all that the Christian Church actually experiences and accomplishes, the Jewish Church prefigured. And many of these features of correspondency are parallel not only in character, but also in their relative time of occurrence. Even in their national history, and in the history of many particular individuals of that nation, we find correspondencies marked by the Scriptures. ... In both cases there have been a Nominal Israel and a Real Israel, in God's estimation, though to men they have appeared as one; the nominal and the real not being clearly distinguishable until the end or harvest time of their respective ages, when the truth then due and brought to light accomplishes the separation, and makes manifest which are of the real and which of the merely nominal Israel. Of the fleshly house Paul said, "They are not all Israel which are [nominally] of Israel" (Rom. 9:6); and our Lord recognized the same fact when of Nathaniel he said, "Behold an Israelite indeed , in whom is no guile," and also when in the time of harvest he separated the real from the nominal, and called the former valuable wheat, and the latter mere chaff-- though, comparatively, the wheat was only a handful, and the chaff included nearly all of that nation. In a similar proportion, and under a similar figure, the nominal and the real members of Spiritual Israel of the Gospel age are pointed out; and their separation, too, is in the time of harvest-- in the end of the Gospel age. Then only the wheat--a comparatively small number, a "little flock"--will be separated from the masses of nominal Spiritual Israel, while the great majority, being tares and not real wheat, will be rejected as unworthy of the chief favor to which they were called, and will not be counted among the Lord's jewels. Rom. 9:27; 11:5; Luke 12:32; Matt. 3:12; 13:24-40
http://www.ctrussell.us/members/egrabner/ctrussell/ctrussell.nsf/22284ee7f683acc9862566bd000b278c/2cf51b631faae08a8625645200830145!OpenDocument