Jehovah`s Witness/Wouldnt the current JW belief in 1914 make Jesus a Liar?
Hello Brother Derrick, I see the madness continues. Pray all is well with you. First forgive me for not following up with part 2 on the issue of blood. Franky, your article said it all and there was no need for me to do it.
I find something very interesting. Russell believed that Jesus began an "invisible presence" in 1914. Later, Rutherford changed this to "Heavenly reign". This would mean that in 1914, Jesus was given "authority" over all things and ruled as prince beginning to put all enemies under his fathers feet.
However, scripture paints a very different picture of when "authority" was given. Let us look at Matthew 28:16-20. For this we will use the New World Testaments translation:
However, the 11 disciples went to Gal′i·lee+ to the mountain where Jesus had arranged for them to meet.+ 17 When they saw him, they did obeisance,* but some doubted. 18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.+ 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations,+ baptizing them+ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.+ And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”*+
The NWT translates the Greek word "exousia" as authority. This would be correct just as "power" as seen in the KJV. In context, Jesus was saying he had been given "all authority" in Heaven and in Earth, giving his first command to the chosen of "GO" and then telling them the mission work.
So if scripture to interpret scripture; then it is clear that all power or authority was then given Him, and his rule began at that point. We also know the sitting at the "right" is symbolic of position, especially when dealing with Royalty. Sitting at the "right" hand, would identify Jesus as Prince. He, being given "all authority" would then make him "ruler". Note the scripture is clear...he was given "All power" as KJV translates, "All authority" as the NWT translates.
More interesting, is he makes a further statement in vs 20:"And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”*+
This would mean that Jesus would be ever present. Seeing we know he ascended to Heaven and ceased his earthly life, we know He was now Spirit, Invisible, but cleary announcing he will be ever present.
The 1914 date would make Jesus's statements a lie. For He is claiming all "authority" of Heaven and Earth at this point..whereas by Witness theology, he would not have had authority until 1914. His statement of presence would have been a lie, because according to old Witness theology, he would have left and not returned until 1914. He statement to his follower was that he was never leaving them and would be ever present.
When David was chosen king, he returned to the fields as a shepherd..it was not until the time of his reign, that he received "all authority" to rule. This is the same with other characters of the Bible.
So we know by scripture, that it is at the time that "authority is given" that rule begins. Not thousands of years later, after having the authority.
So we find by scripture itself, the JW theology is product of "eisogeses" and formulated to fit a particular doctrine, instead of being of "exegesis" and harmonizing with scripture and scriptural prophecy.
Just wanted to share and see what your thought are on this one.
God Bless and Keep you,
Rev. Darryl Murphy
Hello, Brother Murphy. How are you? I hope you are doing well.
Yes, its the same old stupid stuff, from seemingly stupid people. But it has taken a new low, as of late. As you have seen, my wife has now been the target of attack, and I simply wasn't going to put up with that. So, the perpetrator has had to be kicked around some more, and exposed for practicing his latest method of deceit....Being a Baptist and a JW at the same time.
Truthfully, I was wondering what had happened with your follow up on the blood transfusion issue. I would still like to see your thoughts. That article I sent, is one that I wrote years ago, and had it posted on my web page, when it was still in operation. I did put a lot of time and effort into it, and tried to cover all of the main arguments that JWs try to raise, in convincing people that they should die rather than receive blood.
You know, Brother Murphy, there is an interesting contradiction I see with these people. On the issue of Hell, they scream about how unjust the Bible's teaching is, and tell us that God isn't cruel like that. Well, of course He isn't cruel...He's loving. So much so, in fact, that He gave His only begotten Son to hang on a cross in our place, and shed His own blood when we SHOULD have been punished, and paid our debt for us. And they think its "cruel" for God to sentence a person to Hell, for slapping Him in the face, and rejecting His offer of salvation, which was not deserved by any means. It was a free gift, offered to us, without merit of our own. But if God sentences a person to be eternally lost, who rejected the only way to have his sin paid for, they think that is "cruel".
But these same people, will try to convince you that Jehovah expects you to let yourself die, or even your child to die, even if the life could be saved with a blood transfusion. And why? Because of a dietary regulation against eating the blood of an animal. While they can sit and eat a rare steak and say "But Jehovah is reasonable"
, and then apparently believe He becomes quite UNREASONABLE when a human life is on the line.
And also teach that the salvation of a child who dies, can somehow be dependent on the righteousness of the parents. I quote....
"Children are affected by the course of their parents, and parents are warned that their iniquity is visited on their offspring unto the third and fourth generation. (Ex. 20:5, 6) Parents are commanded to instruct their children in God's way, and if in these last days parents refuse to heed the divine instruction and warning they bring destruction upon themselves and their small children at Armageddon. (Deut. 6:6, 7; Eph. 6:4) According to justice God can leave such children dead, for, as Ezekiel showed, all die in their iniquity."
Watchtower 1950 Nov 15 p.463 Questions From Readers
""By all the evidences this system of things is hastening to its final confrontation with the God of justice at Armageddon. Parents and children who fail to gain the "mark on their foreheads," that is, an adequate appreciation of God's moral standard, are sure to suffer. Parents will be held accountable for their children, and children will suffer for the failure of their parents."
Watchtower 1968 Feb 1 pp.83-84
But they tell us God is "cruel", for punishing those who willfully reject Jesus Christ, and treat his blood as "an unholy thing" (Heb. 10:29), but they believe in a God that expects you to withhold blood from a dying child, and that your child might just be destroyed at Armageddon, if you don't shape up and get on board with the WT.
Brother Murphy, I would still like to see your thoughts on the blood issue. You always bring some very interesting and thought-provoking points to the table.
Now, as for the Greek word and its meaning, I'm afraid I won't be much help to you there. But in looking it up for myself, I see that you are correct as to its meaning. I dare say you are much more knowledgeable in that field. The only thing I might point out here, is that Russell actually held to the notion that he had gotten from Adventist N.H. Barbour, that Christ's "invisible presence" actually had begun in 1874. Russell did believe that 1914 would mark the end of the Gentile times, the Battle of Armageddon, and a rapture to Heaven. It is today's teaching by the WT regarding 1914, that is in direct contrast to the Scripture that you just shared.
And you are absolutely correct with this statement....
"So we find by scripture itself, the JW theology is product of "eisogeses" and formulated to fit a particular doctrine, instead of being of "exegesis" and harmonizing with scripture and scriptural prophecy."
That is spot on! And for those who may not be aware of the meaning of these 2 terms, let's define them
Eisegesis- "the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas"
Exegesis- "an explanation or critical interpretation of a text, which is actually DRAWN OUT of the text itself"
In layman's terms....Its a case of drawing out the meaning that is already IN the text, vs. adding one's own meaning to the text, which isn't there. And you're correct...that is precisely what the WT does...superimposes its own meaning into the text.
All one has to do, is to compare what is taught today about 1914, with what Russell taught about it, and see how it has changed. In fact, the date of 1914 really cannot be supported with ANY type of Scriptural EXEGETICAL process.
I really don't have a great deal to add, to what you have brought out here. There is clearly a contradiction between what the WT teaching regarding 1914 is, and what the passage in Matthew 28:16-20.
But Brother Murphy, we have to remember....This particular passage in Matthew 28, just doesn't "set right" with Rando. He said so himself. So, he may go all to pieces with what you have just pointed out. I expect he will get busy trying to re-translate the passage, as he has already done in verse 19.
But yes, I do believe you have pointed out a glaring contradiction between the passage in the Bible, and the WT teaching. And it seems they have received "new light" so many times on 1914, that we may just have to wait and see as to how long before they receive more "new light".
I still remember this one, back from 1995, when one of their long-held beliefs about 1914, was removed from emphasis, and that was the teaching that the generation of 1914, would be the FINAL generation on earth before the end.
AWAKE! Magazine, prior to November of 1995, said this on the masthead....
"Why AWAKE! Is Published ...Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."
But beginning with the November 8, 1995 issue, the reference to 1914 was removed, to read this way....
"Why AWAKE! Is Published ... Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things."
So, something that was taught dogmatically for years, is discarded from one issue of Awake! to the next, as "old light".
How much better it is to just read, believe, and trust in the inspired Word of God, than to put confidence in the ever-evolving teachings of man!
Thank you, Brother Murphy. I will not attempt to add anything else to what you have said, because all one has to do, is to contrast the WT teaching, with the teaching of the Scriptures.
God bless you and your family,