Do you know something weird about this verse and JWs? According to official JW teaching, this verse applies to the anointed in heaven and not to the other sheep on earth. How can that be! What on earth am I talking about? Well JWs believe the whole of the New Testament is addressed to the anointed, not the other sheep. The sermon on the mount, where this saying occurs, is no different. So although JWs often cite this verse as if it applies to the other sheep, the logic of their own position is that it is addressed to the anointed, not the other sheep. This was pointed out to WT writers and they issued a "question from readers" article on the subject. That article confirmed that this verse, strictly speaking, addresses the anointed rather than the other sheep. The QFR stated that the anointed are the meek ones who will "inherit the earth" in the sense that they will rule over the earth. The verse is not addressing the other sheep,directly, and they will live on the earth but they will not "inherit the earth" in the sense that the anointed will inherit the earth as rulers. This is a technicality JWs don't point out very often, but it's there in the literature.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
24
"Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."
by pale.emperor innow that im not longer a jw this verse puzzles me.
being born and raised a witness, this verse confirmed to me that jesus was talking about a paradise on earth.
but now that everything the witnesses taught is 99.99% incorrect can somone explain what he was getting at here?
-
-
-
39
In praise of Randall Watters
by nicolaou inexjw's of a certain age will remember randy's site well.
freeminds was instrumental in waking me up along with ray franz's books.
if net soup and armageddon okies mean nothing to you you're probably under 30.. whatever caused randy to post what he did recently is something i can only guess at but it won't be what i remember him for.. randy, i wish you well and thank you for all you've done over the years .
-
-
slimboyfat
Yes I read Randy's website back to front when I first got on the internet in 2000. The history articles in particular were a revelation.
Freeminds, Watctower Observer and JWD - the holy Trintiy of early online apostasy.
Not quite ancient enough to have worshipped the old deity H2O but heard the stories.
-
26
Data for Partakers from 1935-2016. Latest number wasn´t this high since 1954!
by ILoveTTATT2 ini gathered the data for the memorial partakers every year since 1935 (the first year they had data) until now.. the latest figures haven't been that high since 1954!.
this stat looks very bad in watchtower land because the decreasing # of partakers was given, for decades, as proof that the end was near!.
.
-
-
slimboyfat
Exactly. They condemn themselves, overlapping nut cases. (Apologies to nut cases)
-
26
Data for Partakers from 1935-2016. Latest number wasn´t this high since 1954!
by ILoveTTATT2 ini gathered the data for the memorial partakers every year since 1935 (the first year they had data) until now.. the latest figures haven't been that high since 1954!.
this stat looks very bad in watchtower land because the decreasing # of partakers was given, for decades, as proof that the end was near!.
.
-
-
slimboyfat
I'd prefer the graph starting at zero on the Y axis.
Plus the number drops extremely sharply between 1935 and 1940 from around 53 thousand to 23 thousand. Playing devil's advocate, the JWs could argue that many partakers in 1935 later "realised" they were other sheep. So only around 25,000 or so should be counted from this period. That would still leave room for modern anointed, first century anointed, and a trickle in between, as has long been the teaching. Add in a percentage who are wrong or leave JWs and they could still string this out for a long time. Basically until the number partaking itself reaches near 144,000 they'll probably still argue it all makes sense.
The fact the it's increasing when it should be decreasing is a bigger problem that the overall number. They could abandon the teaching, stop publishing the number, or call most partakers liars or crazy. So far they seem to be going with the crazy option and burying their heads in the sand.
-
46
Some apostates are coming across as crazed psychopaths
by jambon1 ini'm not sure whether or not my view on this is correct so please leave your input.
in recent months i've been viewing youtube videos.
again, it might just be my view but there has been an increased amount of random people grabbing a camera and doing vlogs.
-
-
slimboyfat
Haszardisation of apostasy.
My coinage, a reference to the infamous Danny Haszard. He attacked elderly JWs at his door with a pepper spray and made a thread about it on here. I can't find the original thread. Only other threads referring to it.
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/145868/female-danny-haszard
-
46
Some apostates are coming across as crazed psychopaths
by jambon1 ini'm not sure whether or not my view on this is correct so please leave your input.
in recent months i've been viewing youtube videos.
again, it might just be my view but there has been an increased amount of random people grabbing a camera and doing vlogs.
-
-
slimboyfat
The Haszardisation of apostasy, it's nothing new.
-
17
1917 - What REALLY happened?
by neat blue dog inregarding what happened post russell in 1917, if you ask a jw, they'll say it was the fault of the ousted board members who were 'self willed'.
if you ask an ex-jw, they'll say it was a 'power grab' by rutherford.
the latest yearbook elaborates on the situation:.
-
-
slimboyfat
It's a highly tendentious account in the yearbook, but I don't know if there are any factual mistakes. The directors are described as ambitious whereas Rutherford is described as a leader. It's in the eye of the beholder.
-
12
Governing Body Discontinues the New World Translation as 'OLD Light'???
by Ruby 1976 ini just saw this posted on a facebook group.
anyone know if there is any truth to this?.
http://www.exjehovahswitness.com/gb-discontinues-new-world-translation-as-old-light.html.
-
-
slimboyfat
Fake news/parody website, Onion style. See other articles.
-
49
How do you categorise the Society - Cult or High control religion
by UnshackleTheChains ini have often seen many categorise the organisation in different ways.
some say cult, some say high control religion.
cult or high control religion?.
-
-
slimboyfat
In sociological terms JWs are often described as an "established sect". I think that description has merit. From a psychological perspective the term "high control group" might have merit too. I don't have much use for the term "cult", as it tends to be either a lazy media pejorative, or a term used by the state to suppress groups they don't like.
-
14
Lies, and more lies.
by biblexaminer ini have seen some discussions related to the "kingdom" book, and the recent studies, but, i didn't see the one pertaining to the second chapter of the "kingdom" book.
i may have missed it.
if i have ...mea culpa.. chapter 2, paragraph 29 & 33.
-
-
slimboyfat
JWs have such a low bar for what passes as proof that these statements make perfect sense to them.
The fact that anything at all happened in 1914 and they had pointed to the year beforehand, is to them astonishing proof of the accuracy of their predictions.
Just like any vague mention of a round earth in the Bible is astonishing proof that the Bible is scientific.
General prophecies about the destruction of various middle eastern cities are astonishing proofs that the Bible is inspired by God.
The fact that Bible writers appear sometimes to write unflattering things about themselves is astonishing proof of superhuman candour.
That you can build a loose narrative holding different parts of the Bible together is astonishing proof that God must be the ultimate author.
Assemblies involving thousands of people where litter is properly disposed is astonishing evidence that JWs are on the brink of forming a new world society.
And so on.
The only astonishing thing about most of the arguments JWs make for their various extraordinary claims is the incredibly low bar for proof they set themselves.