It is opposed to the will of God. Sometimes it is a conscious opposition and sometimes it is an unconscious opposition. But, Satan's system of things is ALWAYS not in line with the will of God which is actually what makes it Satan.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Peace & Security or Sudden Destruction?
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Thank you for putting it so succinctly Savagewind,
In regards to Cornelius, I think it interesting how this extra-scriptural narrative “added” by the WT is accepted as "fact" by its members. The Roman army at that time was a voluntary force. Cornelius was a Centurion which means when he joined he would have had to spend at least 20 years in the military. He could not simply get baptized and walk away without being considered a deserter and facing the death penalty.
Also, the Watchtower apparently forgets the soldiers and John:
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
“Do not take money by force or false accusation,” he said. “Be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
“Do not take money by force or false accusation,” he said. “Be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Obviously if John is telling them “Be content with your wages” he’s not telling them they need to be concerned about their chosen occupation and he’s definitely not telling them they need to quit the military. It’s their conduct and not their occupation that concerns him. Their were many in the army who abused their station by preying on non-Romans.
In any event, it appears URAVIP2ME has withdrawn and simply refers us to the Watchtower website. I think we all appreciated her input but the assertion as initially put forth by @metis on this thread still stands.
In regards to the Wild Beast it’s pretty obvious the Watchtower has a glaring error in need of correction unless they really do believe there was no political or world government opposed to God at the time of John's Revelation. The whole idea of the wild beast being “world political governments opposed to God” is nonsensical prima facie.
@nPeace has copy and pasted quite a few quotes from WT articles telling us that the Wild Beast = governments opposed to God, but he doesn't seem to understand that no one is questioning him on this. As I explained to him earlier I am looking for a rational, coherent reason or basis for this assertion, in light of the fact the Wild Beast "is not" at the time of John.
And as I am about to explain once again to Npeace, I've researched WT articles and cannot seem to get any rational reason from a JW whatsoever, except for the fact "the WT wrote it down so it must be so".
Oeste
Well-Known Member
I did "skim" through it because
1. It did not answer my question and
2. I previously read and studied the material you posted
3. It was clear, but only in the sense of #1, above.
2. I previously read and studied the material you posted
3. It was clear, but only in the sense of #1, above.
It means the WT’s analysis…that the wild beast is a composite which represents world political governments that are opposed to God…is grossly incorrect.
You can't check off one criteria and ignore others nPeace. How can you tell us the Wild Beast represents governments opposed to God when the bible tells us the Wild Beast "is not" at the time of John's vision? Nothing you posted has addressed this. You are not going to find an answer in WT publications. Neither the question nor the answer are there. You will have to think critically using prayer and your God-given intellect if you wish to reason it out.
The Wild Beast has not made himself known in my lifetime, so I would not know, but based on scripture it will be extremely harrowing time. In fact, no flesh would be saved had God not cut the days short (Matthew 24:22)
Can you answer my question now? It’s extremely simple. Since scripture tells us the wild beast “is not” at the time of John’s vision, why would the WT tell us this represents world governments opposed to God? Does the WT teach there were no world governments opposed to God during the time of John?
Remember @nPeace, I'm not claiming I have Divine revelation directly channeled from Jehovah. Your Governing Board does. As such, any claims of truth stemming from your Organization deserve our attention, and with it, our utmost scrutiny.
Right now the Watchtower version of the Wild Beast is not passing scrutiny. Please explain why it should. It should be based on something a little more than some copy and paste WT periodicals. Explain in your own words why the WT explanation makes sense and why and how it should pass our cognitive/critical muster. How could the angel be telling John that the Wild Beast he just saw represented "world political governments opposed to God" that "was" but now "is not"?
nPeace
Veteran Member
I answered. You just admitted you skimmed the post. So maybe you don't want the answer? I don't know.
Would you like me to skim your posts?
1. Because you skimmed mine
2. You had the answers given to you, when you became a Witness
3. I don't appreciate when people do #1 above
How can someone say something was, and mean it never has been?
Oeste
Well-Known Member
You responded but there were no answers to my questions in your response. Non-answers like the one you proffered speak volumes.
I’m not seeing the correlation. You copied and then pasted WT material that I read and studied previously. Since I have studied it previously a skim is all that’s necessary, unless you changed the WT quotes during your cut and paste.
If you made some subtle changes that I wasn’t aware of, please let me know because I’m not seeing it. Otherwise please explain your rationale. Kindly explain how skimming quotes previously read means I "don't want an answer."
You can sail, coast, float, glide or slide through my post nPeace. What possible difference does it make?
So no, I do not mind if you skim my posts. Skim to your heart’s content. What I do mind is when you skip something, like answering the questions put forth on this thread.
I don’t understand why you would be concerned with how quickly someone reads your post especially when it consists primarily of WT quotes we’ve read before. Can you elaborate?
Are you looking for an escape clause @nPeace? Perhaps one you mistakenly believe allows you to shun my questions like you wrongfully do with @savagewind?
Wouldn’t that be great? But Alas! I never became a Witness.
Now that we’ve got that out the way, can you answer the question?
Why would it concern you? Are you confusing skimming with skipping nPeace???
Let’s be clear: Skimming is what I did with your post, skipping is something you just did when you couldn't answer my questions, and snubbing is something Witnesses do here with @savagewind. Skimming, skipping and snubbing are not the same! You can avoid skipping my questions by answering them. Whether or not you wish to skim through them is up to you.
Honestly nPeace, if you’re so easily offended because you think I read your post too quickly, how much more do you think others feel when you snub? One wonders how a Witness could even think to bring such a charge at the very same time they themselves engage in a practice toward @savagewind that is so much worse.
I am sure we all wonder the same, especially to those who ask such questions. But before you restate my question into something I didn't say, can we please get back to my original, unanswered question?:
I'm not looking for you to create a strawman that you can later knock down @nPeace, just an answer to the above question. We all see through a glass darkly, so if you don't have an answer now that's fine. You can always get back to us when you have one or perhaps leave it open for another Witness to answer.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Don't mind the font size too much.You responded but there were no answers to my questions in your response. Non-answers like the one you proffered speak volumes.
I’m not seeing the correlation. You copied and then pasted WT material that I read and studied previously. Since I have studied it previously a skim is all that’s necessary, unless you changed the WT quotes during your cut and paste.
If you made some subtle changes that I wasn’t aware of, please let me know because I’m not seeing it. Otherwise please explain your rationale. Kindly explain how skimming quotes previously read means I "don't want an answer."
You can sail, coast, float, glide or slide through my post nPeace. What possible difference does it make?
So no, I do not mind if you skim my posts. Skim to your heart’s content. What I do mind is when you skip something, like answering the questions put forth on this thread.
I don’t understand why you would be concerned with how quickly someone reads your post especially when it consists primarily of WT quotes we’ve read before. Can you elaborate?
Are you looking for an escape clause @nPeace? Perhaps one you mistakenly believe allows you to shun my questions like you wrongfully do with @savagewind?
Wouldn’t that be great? But Alas! I never became a Witness.
Now that we’ve got that out the way, can you answer the question?
Why would it concern you? Are you confusing skimming with skipping nPeace???
Let’s be clear: Skimming is what I did with your post, skipping is something you just did when you couldn't answer my questions, and snubbing is something Witnesses do here with @savagewind. Skimming, skipping and snubbing are not the same! You can avoid skipping my questions by answering them. Whether or not you wish to skim through them is up to you.
Honestly nPeace, if you’re so easily offended because you think I read your post too quickly, how much more do you think others feel when you snub? One wonders how a Witness could even think to bring such a charge at the very same time they themselves engage in a practice toward @savagewind that is so much worse.
I am sure we all wonder the same, especially to those who ask such questions. But before you restate my question into something I didn't say, can we please get back to my original, unanswered question?:
I'm not looking for you to create a strawman that you can later knock down @nPeace, just an answer to the above question. We all see through a glass darkly, so if you don't have an answer now that's fine. You can always get back to us when you have one or perhaps leave it open for another Witness to answer.
The reason I mentioned, I don't like the skimming of posts, is because, when someone says they shimmed your post, and yet say that you didn't answer their question, when you did, it can be very annoying.
It's similar to when one is having a conversation with another, and the other person asks a question, but then it seems they are not listening to the answer. So they respond as though the person said nothing.
Now, please see An Awesome Mystery Solved — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
It says, in part...
Clearly identifying the scarlet-colored wild beast of Revelation 17:3 as the League of Nations, N. H. Knorr went on to discuss its stormy career on the basis of the angel’s following words to John: “The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction.” - Revelation 17:8a.
“The wild beast . . . was.” Yes, it had existed as the League of Nations from January 10, 1920, onward...
Are you saying this does not answer your question... How so?
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Thanks for getting back to me @nPeace. Here are the two main problems I see with this interpretation:
Violation of “was” @ Revelation 17:3
The angel is talking with John in the 1st century. When it says “The wild beast that you saw was…” he’s talking to John and not N.H. Knorr living in 1942. If the Wild Beast is the League of Nation then what John saw would not be around for another 1800 plus years.
If the beast is still future, then the angel should be saying “The wild beast you saw will…” because the beast he saw , the League of Nations, is not “was” but “is yet”. In other words, the Wild Beast, if it is the League of Nations, can never be considered by John to have been in the past but only in the future. The beast could never be a “was” to him or to the angel speaking with him in the moment. It would be something yet to be. This holds true whether the wild beast is the League of Nations or the United Nations.
The argument would be more valid had the verse read: The wild beast that you saw will be, but will be not, and yet will ascend out of the abyss.
Violation of “is not” @ Revelation 17:3
Secondly, if the wild beast is not the League or United Nations, but the “political government systems opposed to God” then at what time could the angel say to John the beast “is not” when he’s living in a government that crucified Christ? There is simply no way the angel can declare that the Roman government “is not” in the 1st Century AD.
nPeace
Veteran Member
The only violations that seem to be committed, are the ones found in your posts Oeste.
1. Revelation 1:1-3, 9-11
1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near.
9 I John, your brother and a sharer with you in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance in association with Jesus, was on the island called Patʹmos for speaking about God and bearing witness concerning Jesus. 10 By inspiration I came to be in the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a strong voice like that of a trumpet, 11 saying: “What you see, write in a scroll and send it to the seven congregations: in Ephesus, in Smyrna, in Pergamum, in Thyatira, in Sardis, in Philadelphia, and in Laodicea.”
What John sees, is evidently not occurring in the first century, but in the Lord's day.
Since you "previously read and studied the material", then I don't have to tell you when the Lord's day began.
I'll save my hands and time.2. Read my post again - the one you skimmed...
Was the League of Nations. Is not the UN... yet, until... I'm not going to extract for you a second time. You'd be giving me double work, when all it would take is to simply read, what I took my good time to arrange for you, and post, only to have you say, "I previously read and studied the material."
The question is, Did you understand what you read? There is a difference, you know.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Why does the Watchtower confuse the “Lord’s Day” with “The Day of the Lord”?
The “Lord’s Day” and the “Day of the Lord” are separate and distinct events. John is quite familiar with the Old Testament and “Day of the Lord” is NEVER mentioned or referred to as the “Lord’s Day”. It is ALWAYS stated as the “Day of the Lord”.
If John were referring to the “Day of the Lord” he would have called it “Day of the Lord”. Why would he call it anything else? Instead, we are to believe that John misspoke, mistakenly referring to the “Day of the Lord” as the “Lord’s Day”!
The Lord’s Day is simply Sunday. It is the Day our Lord rose from the dead (John 20:1). This is completely different from the “Day of the Lord” which can refer to the Time or Day of Judgment.
Remember, John is addressing a Christian and not Jewish audience. Sunday is the day Christians traditionally gathered, not to create a new Sabbath, but as a day of thanks, prayer and sharing in celebration of our Lord’s victory over death (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2)
John did not misspeak but the Watchtower certainly misinterprets the term “Lord’s Day” with “Day of the Lord”. But the WT doesn’t stop there. Instead it goes the extra mile, citing Hans Bruns, a German theologian with past ties to German Christianity (a racist, anti-Semitic German Protestant group) in an effort to bolster its argument.
Of course, an effective way to show "Lord’s Day" = "Day of the Lord" is simply to show us where the term “Lord’s Day” is used in scripture prior to the crucifixion of Christ. Obviously, if the term “Lord’s Day” was used by the prophets prior to the crucifixion, it can’t possibly be a reference to Sunday and the Watchtower’s argument is greatly strengthened.
But we cannot find such a reference anywhere, and that’s because the term “Lord’s Day” is used after the crucifixion at Revelation 1:10 to refer to the day of our risen Savior. So the switcheroo occurs in the Watchtower but not our bibles.
I have no doubt John is seeing future events, but I’m pretty sure he and the angel did not literally time travel into the future to observe an actual Wild Beast ascend out of a New York City abyss. They remained on the island of Patmos.
Am I mistaken with the Watchtower's position on this, or are they claiming John actually traveled into the future?
Since John had a revelation concerning the future, but was not actually in the future, the League of Nations (Wild Beast) cannot be spoken of as something that “was” because at the time of the vision it didn’t exist yet.
Since you "previously read and studied the material", then I don't have to tell you when the Lord's day began.
See above. It appears the WT had to search far and wide to find support for such an aberrant interpretation and I find their sources more disturbing then compelling.
So the Wild beast was the League of Nation but is not the United Nations. So what is it then? And why “was” it the League of Nations when both John and the Angel are living in the 1st Century AD?
I know this takes time...it takes time to reply as well and it's not easy to do when you're trying to run a business. I disagree with but appreciate your responses.
The question is, Did you understand what you read? There is a difference, you know.
I’m really making an effort to understand how the WT position on this makes sense.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Well Oeste you say you have read and studied the material, and I just tried explaining something basic to that material, which you don't seem to understand, and still don't appear to, since you are repeating a question I answered twice already. So what would you like me to do? Do you want me to believe what you do?
I gave you the scripture in Revelation. If you don't understand or agree with what you read how many years ago? I don't know. Do you think that I will change that for you?
John was given a Revelation into the future. If you think that future is 1 AD, okay then. If you don't understand from what you read and studied before, as to why the Lord's day cannot be 1 AD, and what the Lord's day is, just say so, and I will show you where you can read and study the material again, to see if you get your answer.
Would that be helpful, do you think?
Psalms 146:3
Oeste
Well-Known Member
You’ve responded to the question as best you could but it’s still unanswered. I don’t consider this your fault as much as I do the Watchtower’s. You’re only going to be as good as the material they give you. I think for many Witnesses the correct answer is “because the Watchtower says so”. And when the Watchtower says something completely different next week, it will still be the correct answer regardless of how fervently they believed otherwise the week before.
The result is that every 20-30 years you’ll tell us we shouldn’t believe or take seriously whatever you told us 20-30 years before. I can’t imagine any biblical prophet telling us prior biblical prophets can no longer be believed, but that’s exactly the “truth” your Organization puts forth because they are all subject to the precepts of the Governing Board. (Deuteronomy 12:32; Colossians 2:22; Mark 7:7)
For example, I’m still not sure whether your Organization believes Adam will be resurrected. Sometimes he’s resurrected and sometimes he’s not depending on which WT publication you read. The same is true regarding the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Russell taught virtually all mankind would be resurrected. Rutherford taught the opposite.The "1914 generation", an non-scriptural term invented from whole cloth by the Watchtower Organization is still another ongoing and confusing debacle.
You're intelligent nPeace. Learn how to go beyond "proof texts" into areas of textual criticism. Protect yourself from being "tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching..." (Ephesians 4:14).
If you believe the bible is the word of God then you already believe as I do. However we have major areas of disagreement.
For example, I believe Christian unity comes through Christ, whereas you believe it comes through an Organization.
You believe you should follow the Organization even when you believe it wrong, and "wait for Jehovah to provide correction", something that runs counter to everything the bible teaches. The Jewish people were never asked to follow Israel until God corrected them. They were always asked to follow God.
Tagging along until "Jehovah corrects us" is exactly how the Jews ended up in Egypt and under bondage in Babylon. There were plenty of opportunities for someone to step up and remind Israel's kings when they were in error. It's when no one did that Jehovah took "corrective" action and it was severe. The message has always been to follow God and not blind allegiance to an Organization.
No, you won’t change it for me but the Watchtower will certainly change it for you. The stuff I "read how many years ago" are things you no longer believe and the things you tell me are "true" now I'm pretty sure you’ll no longer believe later.
However I believe discussions like this may help those predisposed to accept WT arguments at face value to take a second look.
For example, anyone reading this rather cleverly written WT article from JW.ORG would be inclined to believe that N.H. Knorr had a prophetic vision about the formation of the United Nations before it was formed:
Neither before this nor at some later date—but right at that critical time—did Jehovah interpret to his people the full depth of meaning of the vision! At the New World Theocratic Assembly, N. H. Knorr could declare, in line with the prophecy, that “the wild beast . . . is not.” He then asked the question, “Will the League remain in the pit?” Quoting Revelation 17:8, he answered: “The association of worldly nations will rise again.” That is just how it proved to be—in vindication of Jehovah’s prophetic Word! Source: An Awesome Mystery Solved!
Do you see the obvious problems with this article? N.H. Knorr reads a bible verse in front of one of your Assemblies and the Watchtower declares it was done “in line with the prophecy, that “the wild beast…is not.”
This assumption is totally unsupported and unsubstantiated yet the reader is asked to accept it. Why? Because it appears in the pages of the WT! How on earth does the WT fit N.H. Knorr into bible prophesy? Was it explained at the Assembly, because I'm not seeing it in the article.
But it doesn’t stop there…
Not only was N.H. Knorr’s reading of Revelation 17:18 “in line with the prophesy” but now Knorr’s declaration “The association of worldly nations will rise again” is somehow “vindication” of Jehovah’s Word!”
The article forgets to mention that the United Nations had already been formed…it was conceived at the State Department in 1939, declared in January 1941, and had at least 45 countries by the spring of 1945…long before the September ‘45 announcement by Knorr.
So it seems to me if anyone was declaring something to “vindicate” Jehovah’s Word, it was the U.S. State Department for conceiving the UN in 1939, or perhaps President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill for announcing it on December 29, 1941, but definitely not N.H. Knorr.
Incorrect.
I didn’t say the future is 1 AD. I stated John was in the 1st Century AD when he had the vision, and since he was in the 1st Century, the League of Nations cannot be the Wild Beast that “was” because it didn’t exist yet.
Can you show us where I or anyone else stated the Lord’s Day was 1 AD???
Of course you can’t. I specifically stated the Lord's Day was Sunday, and not 1 AD.
But this is par for the Watchtower… creating false narratives (strawmen) that can be knocked down. URAVIP2ME did the same with Cornelius. I think it becomes so automatic for some Witnesses (in order to defend WT doctrine) that they really don’t realize when they do it.
I’ve read and studied your material already nPeace. I’ve interacted with you on this forum. You have provided no more rational basis that the Wild Beast = League of Nations/United Nations than the Watchtower. You say “read the material” and this should be explanation enough, even though the material gives no more explanation then to say “The Watchtower says so”. This becomes even more implausible when we consider what “The Watchtower says so” today may not be what “The Watchtower says so” tomorrow.
So let me ask you and any JW reading this again: Does the Watchtower believe John and the angel time-traveled into the future to see a Wild Beast emerging out of an abyss in New York? Perhaps we can start there.
If this is so I have a few more questions to ask, and I don’t think I’m going to find them “already asked” at the bottom of a page in the Watchtower.
If this is not so, then please explain, in your own words, how the Wild Beast “was” in the First Century AD when it doesn’t even exist yet.
It would be helpful if the Watchtower had logical underpinnings to its eschatology. Nothing in your literature explains how the League of Nations “was” in the 1st Century AD. Until it does it will not be helpful.
I agree it has plenty of info on how the League could be said to be “was” if the angel were talking to John in 1945. But that’s not where they are. They are in the first century and it’s an obvious and fatal flaw within WT eschatology.
Besides, it would not be necessary to teleport to 1945 or thereabouts to see a Wild Beast ascending out of an abyss in New York because this is a spiritual and not visual vision. No one reported a Wild Beast peeking out of an abyss in 1945. This also leads us to believe John stayed right where he was, in the first Century AD, and that the Wild Beast was still future and could not possibly be "was", or in the past.
But to directly answer your question: if the only reason the Wild Beast = the League of Nations is because we can read a Watchtower article that says so, then I would say “No”, it’s not going to be helpful.
Nor would it be helpful if you point to a reading by N.H. Knorr at a WT Assembly to verify this interpretation.
It’s even less helpful if we point to WT articles quoting German theologians from the Nazi era, and of course, it only becomes bizarre when I hear Witnesses argue a blasphemous Wild Beast, which is at war with the lamb, is now an arm of God.
What would be helpful, I think, is if the Watchtower developed a sound exegesis and exegetical theology. This doesn't mean they'll develop a theology that agrees with me, but it does mean they'll develop something that more consistent and defensible. There is an added benefit that it won't have to be embarrassingly changed every 20-30 years or when someone new ascends onto the Governing Board. Unfortunately, I just don’t see that happening anytime soon.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Whoa!
After all, they aren't telling me something different to the basic doctrines of Christ, namely that 1. Jesus Christ is not God Almighty who came down to earth, to die; 2. We do not have an immortal soul that goes on living after death - which 3. will, if bad, be roasted forever in a burning pit, or 4. will go to heaven if it is good; 5. There is no heaven or hell destination, but 6. only 144,000 go to heaven to be kings and priest with Christ, while 7. multitudes now living will not die, but will live into the coming new world under Christ's reign, and 8. will welcome the millions who will be resurrected to life in paradise; 9. The holy spirit is not a person; 10. All of Jesus' followers must preach the message of the good news of God's Kingdom, to people of every nation and language; 11. Christ's followers must be united in love, and 12. be no part of the world - hence to share in wars does not demonstrate unity and love, and separation from the world...
There is more, but I think 12 is a good number to round it off at.
Yes. the GB may not understand prophecy precisely, and their expectations may not turn out as expected, and as things become clearer they adjust to what the light reveals, but that is expected if one is humble and does not claim to be perfect, nor infallible.
Seems Christ like to me, so based on these, I think there is good reason to be led along by those who closely keep to God's word.
As Jesus said, (Matthew 24:28) . . .Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.
Can't produce it? Then everything you just said there is a lie. Not a small one, at that.
I believe if I looked further back, the same would be true.
You said... Russell taught virtually all mankind would be resurrected.
Virtually all does not mean all, so if you are interpreting his words to include Adam, that would be wrong.
How did Rutherford teach the opposite, since virtually all does not mean all?
Again... Evidence?
Can't produce it? Then everything you just said there is a lie. Not a small one, at that.
I do not know of anytime when the organization taught that Adam would be resurrected, so unless you can show an article... you know what...
I know why you think what you do, so I guess we have similar views yet opposite... if you get what I mean.
I do not believe that Christian love comes through an organization unless of course you are talking about God's organization - heavenly and earthly.
However, the only way, in my view, any organization can be completely united in love, is by it's members being obedient to God's word. So, I believe it goes like this...
The members of the body are all one, because they are joined to the body and work together. (1 Corinthians 12:12-27)
The head of the body / congregation is Christ. (Ephesians 5:23)
The head of the Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
So, the way I see it, any earthly organization, that is united in love, and unity, based on Jesus' teachings, would be God's organization on earth - united by his word.
Is that what you meant I believe, then you would be right. Otherwise, no.
No, I don't believe I should follow the Organization even when I believe it wrong.
What kind of absurdity is that? Could you please stop making up stories. Thanks.
Let me just say, that if this is your clever way of shifting the topic completely off it's rails to focus on JWs, you have just won points for cunning. I hope you know what the first cunning tactic led to, and who was the first to master it. Genesis 3:1
Anyway, give it your best shop, but stop with the slander please.
Mennonites Search for Bible Truth
ONE morning in November 2000, some missionaries of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Bolivia glanced out the window of their small home and saw a group of plainly dressed men and women standing nervously at the gate. When the missionaries opened the gate, the visitors’ first words were, “We want to find the truth from the Bible.” The visitors were Mennonites
Mongolia
When Bolortsetseg, a newly baptized sister in Mongolia, heard that a relative had died and that his widow was grieving deeply, she sent her all our publications printed in Mongolian. Evsanaa, the widow, read them in one night. The following day, she telephoned Bolortsetseg and asked her to come over right away to talk. Taking another sister along, Bolortsetseg visited Evsanaa, who had prepared a long list of questions. She eagerly listened to the answers from the Bible.
Do you know why they do that?
Who else do people see going throughout their towns and villages sharing a Bible message with all, and using the Bible to answer questions, without resorting to crazy analogies to try to explain confusing doctrines?
Seems to me you aren't being honest. "The stuff" is what?
Please mention all "the stuff" I used to believe that I no longer believe.
You don't know? Well you have kept to the pattern.
No evidence? Can't produce it? Then everything you just said there is a lie. Not a small one, at that.
Or do you? Let's see it.
Yes. Since the GB of JWs has proven themselves to be the faithful and discrete slave... of course.
After all, they aren't telling me something different to the basic doctrines of Christ, namely that 1. Jesus Christ is not God Almighty who came down to earth, to die; 2. We do not have an immortal soul that goes on living after death - which 3. will, if bad, be roasted forever in a burning pit, or 4. will go to heaven if it is good; 5. There is no heaven or hell destination, but 6. only 144,000 go to heaven to be kings and priest with Christ, while 7. multitudes now living will not die, but will live into the coming new world under Christ's reign, and 8. will welcome the millions who will be resurrected to life in paradise; 9. The holy spirit is not a person; 10. All of Jesus' followers must preach the message of the good news of God's Kingdom, to people of every nation and language; 11. Christ's followers must be united in love, and 12. be no part of the world - hence to share in wars does not demonstrate unity and love, and separation from the world...
There is more, but I think 12 is a good number to round it off at.
Yes. the GB may not understand prophecy precisely, and their expectations may not turn out as expected, and as things become clearer they adjust to what the light reveals, but that is expected if one is humble and does not claim to be perfect, nor infallible.
Seems Christ like to me, so based on these, I think there is good reason to be led along by those who closely keep to God's word.
As Jesus said, (Matthew 24:28) . . .Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.
This is not true, of course. Evidence?
Can't produce it? Then everything you just said there is a lie. Not a small one, at that.
Far as I know, for the last 60 years, Adam was dead and forgotten, without any hope of being resurrected.
I believe if I looked further back, the same would be true.
You said... Russell taught virtually all mankind would be resurrected.
Virtually all does not mean all, so if you are interpreting his words to include Adam, that would be wrong.
How did Rutherford teach the opposite, since virtually all does not mean all?
Again... Evidence?
Can't produce it? Then everything you just said there is a lie. Not a small one, at that.
I do not know of anytime when the organization taught that Adam would be resurrected, so unless you can show an article... you know what...
Hopefully you are not trying to flatter me. If not, thanks.
I know why you think what you do, so I guess we have similar views yet opposite... if you get what I mean.
You seem to be correct in the first part of your statement, but you are far from right, in the latter part.
I do not believe that Christian love comes through an organization unless of course you are talking about God's organization - heavenly and earthly.
However, the only way, in my view, any organization can be completely united in love, is by it's members being obedient to God's word. So, I believe it goes like this...
The members of the body are all one, because they are joined to the body and work together. (1 Corinthians 12:12-27)
The head of the body / congregation is Christ. (Ephesians 5:23)
The head of the Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
So, the way I see it, any earthly organization, that is united in love, and unity, based on Jesus' teachings, would be God's organization on earth - united by his word.
Is that what you meant I believe, then you would be right. Otherwise, no.
What? Oeste, are you simply making up stuff about me?
No, I don't believe I should follow the Organization even when I believe it wrong.
What kind of absurdity is that? Could you please stop making up stories. Thanks.
Let me just say, that if this is your clever way of shifting the topic completely off it's rails to focus on JWs, you have just won points for cunning. I hope you know what the first cunning tactic led to, and who was the first to master it. Genesis 3:1
Anyway, give it your best shop, but stop with the slander please.
Blind allegiance to an organization, is not an honest way of describing JWs. In my experience, it is usually jealous, and misled "Christians" who tend to paint that picture. While sincere people seek out JWs on the street, on their website, and at their Kingdoms Halls, when they want an answer to their Bible questions.
Mennonites Search for Bible Truth
ONE morning in November 2000, some missionaries of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Bolivia glanced out the window of their small home and saw a group of plainly dressed men and women standing nervously at the gate. When the missionaries opened the gate, the visitors’ first words were, “We want to find the truth from the Bible.” The visitors were Mennonites
Mongolia
When Bolortsetseg, a newly baptized sister in Mongolia, heard that a relative had died and that his widow was grieving deeply, she sent her all our publications printed in Mongolian. Evsanaa, the widow, read them in one night. The following day, she telephoned Bolortsetseg and asked her to come over right away to talk. Taking another sister along, Bolortsetseg visited Evsanaa, who had prepared a long list of questions. She eagerly listened to the answers from the Bible.
Do you know why they do that?
Who else do people see going throughout their towns and villages sharing a Bible message with all, and using the Bible to answer questions, without resorting to crazy analogies to try to explain confusing doctrines?
This is not true, again.
Seems to me you aren't being honest. "The stuff" is what?
Please mention all "the stuff" I used to believe that I no longer believe.
You don't know? Well you have kept to the pattern.
No evidence? Can't produce it? Then everything you just said there is a lie. Not a small one, at that.
Or do you? Let's see it.
There you go. Thanks for confirming your agenda. Carry on.
Attachments
nPeace
Veteran Member
I believe you possibly may be sincere in your beliefs, and criticism of Jehovah's people, so I'll say thanks for voicing your concerns.
Let's take a closer look at those words.
Paragraph 5, it is...
“The wild beast . . . was.” Yes, it had existed as the League of Nations from January 10, 1920, onward, with 63 nations participating at one time or another. But, in turn, Japan, Germany, and Italy withdrew, and the former Soviet Union was dropped from the League. In September 1939 the Nazi dictator of Germany launched World War II.* Having failed to keep peace in the world, the League of Nations virtually plunged into an abyss of inactivity. By 1942 it had become a has-been. Neither before this nor at some later date - but right at that critical time - did Jehovah interpret to his people the full depth of meaning of the vision! At the New World Theocratic Assembly, N. H. Knorr could declare, in line with the prophecy, that “the wild beast . . . is not.” He then asked the question, “Will the League remain in the pit?” Quoting Revelation 17:8, he answered: “The association of worldly nations will rise again.” That is just how it proved to be - in vindication of Jehovah’s prophetic Word!
The different colors are supposed to make it easier to understand.
The Bible, nor the GB of JW, never did mention who the seventh king was. There was no way the brothers could know who it would be... until it materialized - was identified. By looking at the identifying marks the brothers could say, "This is it." and explain why.
The GB like keen alert watchmen on their watchtower, were on the look out. So...
Neither before this nor at some later date - but right at that critical time - did Jehovah interpret to his people the full depth of meaning of the vision!
What does this mean?
It is saying, that at that point the brothers understand what was happening - how the prophecy was being fulfilled, and they attributed that understanding to Jehovah - the revealer of secrets.
In other words, as they usually do, they praise Jehovah for every understanding they believe to be in harmony with the scriptures. Even if they have a misunderstanding, they still praise him when things become clearer - light gets lighter and lighter.
Why do they do this? Because they believe themselves to be humble slaves of God, allowing themselves to be used by him to carry out his will - because they are doing his will.
So...
At the New World Theocratic Assembly, N. H. Knorr could declare, in line with the prophecy, that “the wild beast . . . is not.”
Again, keeping to what was written - a comeback, or rise is expected, so...
With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the League lay like a cadaver, awaiting burial.
He then asked the question, “Will the League remain in the pit?” Quoting Revelation 17:8, he answered: “The association of worldly nations will rise again.” That is just how it proved to be - in vindication of Jehovah’s prophetic Word!
In 1946 “its properties and its heritage of hope and folly,” as writer Bendiner puts it, were handed over to a successor, the United Nations.
The GB has alway said this...
Other prophecies are fully understood by servants of God only after their fulfillment.
In other words, they do not expect that a reader will fully understand every Bible prophecy before their fulfillment They may understand some details of some prophecies, but even then may have to wait until events unfold to realize the prophecy's fulfillment.
This is what I understand the article to be saying.
It did not forget to say anything.
Your information appears to be a little... should I say...twisted, perhaps to to make your agenda look righteous, but its not.
I think accuracy is important, if one is trying to discredit an article. Don't you agree?You said:
United Nations - Wikipedia
When war broke out in 1939, the League closed down and its headquarters in Geneva remained empty throughout the war.
1942 "Declaration of United Nations" by the Allies of World War II
The earliest concrete plan for a new world organization began under the aegis of the U.S. State Department in 1939. The text of the "Declaration by United Nations" was drafted at the White House on December 29, 1941, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Roosevelt aide Harry Hopkins. It incorporated Soviet suggestions, but left no role for France. "Four Policemen" was coined to refer to four major Allied countries, United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and Republic of China, which emerged in the Declaration by United Nations. Roosevelt first coined the term United Nations to describe the Allied countries. "On New Year's Day 1942, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, Maxim Litvinov, of the USSR, and T. V. Soong, of China, signed a short document which later came to be known as the United Nations Declaration and the next day the representatives of twenty-two other nations added their signatures." The term United Nations was first officially used when 26 governments signed this Declaration. One major change from the Atlantic Charter was the addition of a provision for religious freedom, which Stalin approved after Roosevelt insisted. By 1 March 1945, 21 additional states had signed.
So really, when was the UN formed? Was it 1939, 1941, 1942, or 1945?
History of the United Nations
The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.
United Nations/Founded
October 24, 1945, San Francisco, California, United States
View attachment 27327
In 24 October 1945, at the end of World War II, the organization was established with the aim of preventing future wars. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; there are now 193. The UN is the successor of the ineffective League of Nations.
The UN Declaration was only signed on 1942, the same year N.H. Knorr made the announcement.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I simply misunderstood what you were saying about 1 AD. That's all.
I believe John was... you call it time travel... I call it transferred by vision. Maybe they mean the same thing, but that's "small potatoes". The important thing is... Yes John was transfered to the future by vision, as John himself says - to the Lord's day.
If he was already in the Lord's day, there would be no need for him to say, he came to be.... and heard a voice say to him.
If this is not so... If what is not so? Do you mean the question about being in the future? Based on my answer above, the answer I gave to this question has not changed. The Lord's day in Revelation, is not 1 AD, from my understanding.
Okay. Thanks for expressing your views.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Like every JW’s I’ve studied with you appear to confuse “discrete” with “discreet”. We’ll save that discussion for later.
But how did they “prove” themselves? By being consistently unfaithful to their own teachings, one year or decade into the next? Or did they” prove” themselves by indiscreetly announcing who will or will not be resurrected? Or is it both…they “prove” themselves by correcting Jehovah’s initial communications with them and trumpeting in their publications how they corrected Jehovah’s former truths to the world?
Discussing these doctrines sounds tempting but only if one enjoys shooting fish in a barrel. I’ll take #7, since this is perfect for our sidebar discussion.
At the time of Jesus’s supposed favorable inspection of their Organization (1919), the Watchtower started a lecture series titled “Millions now living will never die” and published a book in 1920 with the same title.
Where are these millions now? Are they alive??
Of course not…they’re dead and there are less than a million people over the age of 100 currently living worldwide. I think we can safely put that into the false prophesy category.
The May 15, 1984 Watchtower issue assured us that the 1914 generation would not pass away. So what happened? The generation and everyone on the cover…passed away.
Once again we place this old “cherished belief” into the wood pile of false prophesies.
That should do it for now. Besides, we still have to square away this Wild Beast = the League of Nations/United Nations/ which is an “arm of God” thingy.
We agree totally on this. The problem is that they presented their own misunderstandings as "truth", or "food" from Jehovah, then had the audacity to criticize any guest that partook and became spiritually ill after they ate!
When someone presents their own words as those flowing from the mouth of God they have sinned and need to apologize and repent.
Hasn’t God told us already:
This is what the Lord Almighty says:
“Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you;
they fill you with false hopes.
They speak visions from their own minds,
not from the mouth of the Lord. Jeremiah 23:16
“Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you;
they fill you with false hopes.
They speak visions from their own minds,
not from the mouth of the Lord. Jeremiah 23:16
Why do Witnesses continue to listen to a prophet the Lord Almighty has told you not to listen to? Worse, why do you constantly ask us to do the same?
The WT filled their sheep with false hopes about 1914, 1925, 1940 and so on, and while we have our blessed hope of resurrection through Christ, there is absolutely no mention of these dates is scripture! When a prophet speaks for God, the prophet is to speak only what God tells the prophet to speak and never their own expectation or vision.
Look, had they announced 1914 as a personal “expectation” rather than God given “spiritual food” that they were distributing “at the proper time” no one would have faulted them. But they made up stuff from whole cloth and tossed it on the table for their sheep to eat. This is the classic mark of a false prophet.
It was clear to EVERYONE but Jehovah Witnesses these dates were nonsense but you believed your "light" when it told you these dates were true. Not every light is a light of God which is why God asks us to "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1). Your Organization had to make "adjustments" because of the calendar, and not because of any "light".
Nothing of the sort can be expected from a prophet of God.
Don't confuse false with Godly prophets nPeace. Both come in all shades and flavors of humility, and both are "fallible". What separates false prophets from the pack is that they lie.
Here is what the BIBLE REALLY TEACHES on the subject:
21 And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'--
22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18)
22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18)
So we don’t look at whether a prophet is “humble”. We don’t even look so see if the prophet is “fallible”. In fact, we EXPECT our prophets to be “fallible” unless it’s Jesus speaking the prophecy! Instead, we look to see if the prophesy came true and if it did not, that person is a FALSE PROPHET no matter how “humbly” the false prophecy is uttered or how “fallible” the prophet is.
The WT predicted the fall of all earthly governments in 1914 nPeace. It didn’t occur, not because the earth repented, thus avoiding God’s rightful wrath in accordance with scripture (Jeremiah 18:18), but simply because the prophesy was never true to begin with. Neither was the promised resurrection of 1925.
If you're channeling truths from a source that "keeps changing itself into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14) then these things are certainly expected, otherwise they are not expected at all.
I see nothing "Christ like" about a "humble" false prophet.They are pretentious and audacious.As far as being "fallible" we all are. That does not give us license to blaspheme (speak irreverently) and cook up our own food, then compound the lie by telling our sheep it's from the table of God.
Yes, we all make mistakes, but unless they've apologized and repented they are still in their error.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Of course it's true.
There's always some “truth” your Organization published that we're asked to no longer believe now. In fact, WT “truth” changes so much that the WT now refers people to jw.org, where its “truth” can be constantly changed or “updated”. I provided ample evidence above, with the “Millions Now Living Will Never Die!” debacle and I'll provide even more evidence below.
However, I would like to use the same measuring rod you used previously and show us where in scripture we can expect false prophecies to come from the “humble and fallible” prophets of God. Evidence?
Can’t produce it? Then everything you just said there is a lie. Not a small one, at that.
Where does God ask His prophets to make "adjustments' that contradict, embellish, or change His word?
Can’t produce it? Then everything you just said there is a lie. Not a small one, at that.
Where does God say a "humble" prophet is not a false prophet? Ditto if he's "fallible"?
Can’t produce it? Then everything you just said there is a lie. Not a small one, at that.
You believe this of course but it's more stuff that's simply isn't true! If you go back far enough, we were assured Adam was going to be resurrected. Now we're assured he's not. Ample evidence is below.
I am well aware that "virtually all" does not mean "all" and as I'm about to show, your Organization interpreted this to include Adam.
Who said “virtually all” means "all"??? Wasn’t it you? It certainly wasn’t me.
You’re creating a straw man to knock down nPeace. I stated Russell taught “virtually all” mankind would be resurrected. You then say “virtually all” does not mean “all”, then proceed to knock down “all” as if I had said it!
That is a classic strawman.
I’m not sure why you’re asking me to produce evidence of something I never claimed, but I admit I was giving the WT a benefit of the doubt by stating “Russell taught ‘virtually all’ mankind would be resurrected.” You immediately conflated “virtually all” with “all” to construct a strawman you could knock down. You then cunningly ask me for “evidence” of this strawman that you yourself created.
But when looking for straw men we can never count out the Watchtower. So “Yes!”, at one time this strawman was alive, well and living in the Watchtower! There was no need for me to give the WT the “benefit of doubt” as we’ll see immediately below
Of course I can show articles, and that’s because virtually everything you teach is subject to change. Your teachings on Adam are no different:
The death of Christ secures for Adam and all of his race one full opportunity for salvation and no more. The majority have died in heathenish darkness without any opportunity; and many in Christian lands have disregarded their opportunity, as did the people of Capernaum. All must be brought to a full knowledge of their privileges in Christ and then all rejecters will be destroyed." Watchtower 1920 Oct 15 p.316
So yes, Russell did teach “all” and we have the Watchtower to thank. At one time Russel taught ALL would be resurrected but Rutherford taught something vastly different!
In all fairness, Rutherford never claimed that Russell had lied, or that Russell's prior truth wasn’t truth. So the only thing we can glean from these opposing truths is that all of dead mankind was worthy of resurrection in 1920 but by 1939, with the publication of the Watchtower’s “Salvation”, some of the dead had done something so vastly wrong it made them unworthy of resurrection.
Unfortunately the Watchtower never comments on what these dead people did between 1920 and 1939 that no longer made everyone eligible for resurrection, but I would appreciate any insight you can provide.
I think we should take careful note that Rutherford held fast to the original teachings held by the Organization during the time of their Jesus approved inspection:
"Under this new covenant the whole human race shall have the opportunity to come back to God through Christ the mediator" The Harp of God p.328) - Rutherford
However he apparently went apostate by 1939, taking the Organization with him:
"It has been held by many that the Scriptures guarantee that 'all must come back from the dead' at Christ's return and during his thousand-year rule. (Studies in the Scriptures, Series Five, pages 476-486). That conclusion does not appear to have support in reason or in the Scriptures" Salvation(1939) p.224 - Rutherford
Oeste
Well-Known Member
There’s nothing insincere here nPeace. If I didn’t think you intelligent I certainly wouldn’t waste much time responding to your posts.
I have a relative who is brain damaged. She has never spoken, cannot see, cannot walk, feed or bathe herself, and is in constant need of attention 24 hours a day. Yet here we are, using computers or tablets, typing on keyboards, intelligently discussing our disparate views of scripture.
We are blessed.
Yes, similar views yet opposite. I know some of my responses may lead you to believe that I "hate Jehovah Witnesses". I do not. I have relatives that are JW's that I love deeply.
Neither do I doubt the majority of JW’s love God, it’s their doctrines (and some practices) that I disagree with. So I appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with Witnesses like you during a Study or through forums like these.
My “you” was not meant to be you singular, but “you” plural. That is, referring to Jehovah Witnesses. If a Witness believes a teaching should be adjusted they are told “to be patient and wait on Jehovah for change”. In fact, you are told the following:
"Come to Jehovah's organization for salvation" Watchtower 1981 Nov 15 p.212
"Jehovah’s visible organization can use you, but can get along without you too. But you cannot get along without it.” Watchtower 1950 Jan 15 p.26
"Jehovah’s visible organization can use you, but can get along without you too. But you cannot get along without it.” Watchtower 1950 Jan 15 p.26
If any stories are being made up, they are being made by the Watchtower.
I’m just pointing out what I see as Watchtower policy.
I don’t mind an occasional sidebar like we’re having here, but I’ll be quite happy to go back on topic with the Wild Beast and United Nations.
I certainly do, a good thing to keep in mind when we read deceptive articles, like the 2010 WT article where they tried to change the name of a prior talk from “Millions now living WILL never die” to “Millions now living MAY never die”. Perhaps it was a misprint, but many took it as an attempt to change history in order to save face ( see the Feb 2010 WT study edition).
Of course, one way to be sure is to see if WT published a later correction. To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of any correction. If you’re aware of a later correction, please post it here.
I find any “slander” against the Watchtower is generally self-inflicted so it’s not up to me to stop.
What “prophet” is brazen enough to add their own words to what God tells them, or has the audacity to “correct” the words God spoke through them because they consider themselves, of all things, “humble and fallible”?
Quite simply, if God spoke the words there is nothing to correct, and if God did not speak the words there is nothing to say. If your GB feels it’s too “fallible” to follow this simple rule then it’s up to other Christians in your Organization who are not so “fallible” to do so.
What an interesting story! I really liked this part:
Facing Trials for the Truth
A few days later, the church elders came to the home of Johann’s family with an ultimatum for the interested ones: “We heard that Jehovah’s Witnesses visited you. You must forbid them to return, and unless you hand over their literature to be burned, you face expulsion.” They had had just one Bible study with the Witnesses, so this presented a formidable test.
“We cannot do as you ask,” replied one of the family heads. “Those people came to teach us the Bible.” How did the elders react? They expelled them for studying the Bible!
A few days later, the church elders came to the home of Johann’s family with an ultimatum for the interested ones: “We heard that Jehovah’s Witnesses visited you. You must forbid them to return, and unless you hand over their literature to be burned, you face expulsion.” They had had just one Bible study with the Witnesses, so this presented a formidable test.
“We cannot do as you ask,” replied one of the family heads. “Those people came to teach us the Bible.” How did the elders react? They expelled them for studying the Bible!
It reminds me of Jehovah Witnesses faced with expulsion from WT judicial committees. Not for “leaving Jehovah”, but for coming to different conclusions after studying their bible with Christians!
I think this happens in virtually every church all over the world. You would be hard pressed to find a church that doesn’t offer counseling to the grieved.
Of course! It’s a Christian duty born of love.
There are Christians evangelizing all over the globe spreading the message of Christ. While exact numbers are hard to come by, there are an estimated 619 million evangelicals worldwide. Virtually every church on the planet has an evangelical component. It’s how they grow. Why do you think there are over a billion Christians worldwide?
The great part is that they do this without resorting to crazy analogies like the Wild Beast is the "League of Nations" or the "arm of Jehovah".
Oeste
Well-Known Member
I’m glad you asked.
By “You” I mean Jehovah Witnesses. I don’t know how long you personally have been one, but if it’s been more than a few years then of course I’m going to find “stuff” you no longer believe in. I recall attending and sitting at Assemblies. I liked the plays, but quite a few JW’s seemed more excited at the prospect the GB might reveal some “new light” which would “correct” or replace something that God had correctly or incorrectly told them before.
Also, I can certainly find more “stuff” I was told was a God given truth that you no longer believe yourself.
But I’m not going to list them “all”. It’s simply a needless errand, unnecessarily broad of scope that you can perform on your own.
I do. I think it shows an Organization who "have kept to the pattern":
Sodom Resurrected:
"The Scriptures distinctly tell us that the Israelites and the Sodomites will be sharers in that work of restoration, restitution." Watchtower 1920 Oct 15 p.316
Not Resurrected:
"He was pin-pointing the utter impossibility of ransom for unbelievers or those willfully wicked, because Sodom and Gomorrah were irrevocably condemned and destroyed, beyond any possible recovery." Watchtower1954 Feb 1 p.85
Resurrected again:
"As in the case of Tyre and Sidon, Jesus showed that Sodom, bad as it was, had not got to the state of being unable to repent … So the spiritual recovery of the dead people of Sodom is not hopeless" Watchtower 1965 Mar 1 p.139
Not Resurrection again:
(Rev. 20:14) It means the death from which there is no resurrection. They will be burned up root and branch, as completely gone forever as the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which Jehovah God burned up by a rain of fire and sulphur from heaven, never to be rebuilt. It is destruction in Gehenna in which God destroys both body and soul (any right or possibility of living)." Watchtower 1967 Jul 1 p.409
Resurrected again:
"Moreover, God’s undeserved kindness and care are so great that he will bring back the people of Sodom by a resurrection, with opportunity to learn and turn around to the way of life, even as his Son stated." Awake 1974 Oct 8 p.20
Not Resurrection again:
"Consequently, in addition to what Jude 7 says, the Bible uses Sodom/Gomorrah and the Flood as patterns for the destructive end of the present wicked system. It is apparent, then, that those whom God executed in those past judgments experienced irreversible destruction." Watchtower 1988 Jun 1 p.31
Split the difference: Some get resurrected, some don’t
“This is also illustrated by what happened to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their inhabitants. Jude indicated that these cities were everlastingly destroyed. (Jude 7; compare 2Pe 2:6.) However, Jesus’ words recorded in Matthew 10:15 show that at least some of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah will receive a resurrection.” Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1 p.616 (Released Jun 17, 1988)
No one there gets resurrected again:
"Those who are judged unworthy of a resurrection are pitched into “Gehenna,” or “the lake of fire.” (Matthew 5:22; Mark 9:47, 48; Revelation 20:14) Among these would be the first human pair, Adam and Eve, the betrayer Judas Iscariot, and certain ones who died when God executed judgment upon them, such as the people in Noah’s day and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah." Watchtower 2005 Jul 15 p.31
jwfacts.com
Conclusion:
1.The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (whom the WT assures us “ceased to exist” long ago) are constantly doing something that gets them resurrected, not resurrected and resurrected just as quickly again. Or…
2. They are simply making “stuff” up as they go along, recklessly unfaithful to their former teachings, besmearing the former inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah with indiscreet pronouncements they will not be resurrected when in actuality they will, or by attempting to bring reproach upon the Divine Name by proclaiming Jehovah will resurrect them when in actuality He will not.Or
3. It's all fake news! The Watchtower never said or published these things, and it's all a plot by Satan and/or Christendom to bring reproach upon "Jehovah's Organization".
2. They are simply making “stuff” up as they go along, recklessly unfaithful to their former teachings, besmearing the former inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah with indiscreet pronouncements they will not be resurrected when in actuality they will, or by attempting to bring reproach upon the Divine Name by proclaiming Jehovah will resurrect them when in actuality He will not.Or
3. It's all fake news! The Watchtower never said or published these things, and it's all a plot by Satan and/or Christendom to bring reproach upon "Jehovah's Organization".
Based on the evidence (their “pattern”) I consider 1 or 2 a fair conclusions but not 3. What do you think and why?