Jehovah`s Witness/The truth
Hello and may He who is the Alpha and Omega bless you. My question is how can you claim to be in ' the truth ' when your organisation has proved itself to be a false prophet and a liar.You joined the Beast the United Nations, then when found out, beat a hasty retreat.You have gone through several dates for the Lords return, 1874, 1914,etc etc, now 1914 seems to be fading away..You taught that our Lord died on the Cross, not using semantics, but the Bible re the blood sprinkled on the mercy seat.You teach that you are united, yet your treatment of Romanian JW's has caused them to break away re the higher authorities. Without stating that you are moving further into the light please show both myself and the readers of this , how you are not a false , highly controlled sect.
Thank you for your questions and allowing me the opportunity to reply.
I can see that you have done a lot of research on the internet about Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems as if you have only found negative reports about us. The most basic reply that I will give is that those reports are grossly exaggerated. Only a part of the story is given.
As far as the United Nations is concerned, the WTS never joined or aligned themselves with the UN. What they did join was the Department of Public Information (DPI). For a detailed explanation please go to the following web site and follow all the links there. There were never a UN NGO. There is a difference in the two groups of NGOs
The person putting this site together has gathered a lot of information on the criteria that the UN have put on being an NGO and he shows the changes that took place after 1991 that did not apply back in 1991. On the original form no signature was required. The UN made changes to policies AFTRER 1991 that the WTS wee not aware of. When the changes were brought to their attention, they stopped being a DPI NGO.
It is true that in the early days the WTS did teach that Jesus died on a cross just like all the other “Christian” religions. That was because that is the word used in the KJV which is what we were using at that time. The very foirst instance I couod find of a change in understandimnhg and a leadingb to the truteh aboiut wjhat Jesus died on was in the Golden Age (now Awake) magazine of February 28 1934 page 336. This was evidentrly dfrom some resach someone had done. The small article said this as it quotes from another source
What Is the Cross?
GUY THORNE, on page 25 of his book, When It Was Dark, says: "What is that cross to which all Christians
bow, It was the symbol of the water god of the Gauls, a mere piecc of their iconography. The Phrenician ruin of Gigantina is built in the shape of a cross. The Druids used it in their ceremonies. It was Thor's hammer long before it became Christ's gibbet. It is used by the pagan Icelanders to this day as a magic sign in connection with storms of wind. The symbol of Buddha on the reverse of a coin found at Ugain is the same cross, the fylfot of Thor. The cross was carved by the Brahmans a thousand years before Christ, in the caves of Elephanta. I haye seen it in India with my own eyes, in the hands of Swa Brahma and Vishnu. The Yishnu attributes as many virtues to it as the most pious Roman Catholic. There is the very strongest evidence that the origin of the cross is phallic. The crux ansata was the sign of Venus. It appears before Baal and Astarte."
Then in November 4 1936 page 72 was this article
How the Cross Superstition Originated
The Scriptures state that Jesus was nailed to a xylon (tree) or stauros (mistranslated "cross"), not to a T-shaped cross. The Brooklyn Union explains that "the cross did not become the symbol of Christianity until four centuries after the death of Christ". The original symbol was a composition of the Greek letters X, P and I (chi, rho and iota), representing the "Chri" of the word "Christ". Thus the device seen displayed so widely is all a humbug, historically.
The Companion Bible, published by the Oxford University Press, contains an article proving that the form of cross adopted by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy is really a form of worship of the Babylonian sun-god. Homer uses the word stauros to signify an ordinary stake or single piece of timber, and this is always the use of the word in the Greek classics. There is nothing in the Greek New Testament to even imply two pieces of timber. Constantine was a sun god worshiper and did not become a "Christian" until a quarter of a century after he saw his alleged vision of the cross in the heavens.
The fact that what he saw, and what was afterwards adopted by the Roman Catholic cult, was a pagan symbol is verified by coins of Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar as well as by coins of the days of Constantine, and numerous scholars have borne united testimony to the fact that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle. Nothing taught by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy can be accepted as the truth.
The first mention I could find in our official teaching magazine, the Watchtower, was in 1937 August 1 page page 232
“23 But one says, 'How about the statue showing Jesus Christ being crucified on the cross? Should not we have that kind of statue in our place of worship? Jesus was not crucified on a cross. God's law provided that the accursed sinner shall be hanged upon a tree. The Catholic priests know this, because their Bible so states. (See Galatians 3:13, Douay Version.) (Deut. 21: 22, 23) Jesus died in the place in stead of a sinner, and therefore as a sinner, although holy, pure and undefiled; and his death complied with God 's law, and therefore must take place by his being nailed to a tree, and the facts show he was so nailed to the tree. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. "-Gal. 3: l3.
So yes as we learnt more about the origins of the cross and that the Greek word wrongly translated as “cross” (stauros) simply means a wooden pole, it does not mean cross nor is there any text that suggests that stauros might mean cross. In view of these findings, we adjusted our thinking to come in line with the what the original writers were saying, and to reflect the actual meaning of the word stauros. There continues to be much dispute among scholars as to just what Jesus died on. We stay by the basic Biblical meaning of the word. The main problem with the idea of the cross is the way so many (not all) churches venerate the cross. It has become an object of worship or viewed as a talisman by many.
We are not afraid to admit when we are wrong and make the necessary changes to further come in line with Biblical truth
The “mercy seat” was not actually a seat. It was the cover that was over the chest part of the Ark of the Covenant. On this cover were the two cherubs whose wings stretched forward to toward each other. The High priest would sprinkle the atonement blood onto this covering. Some have wrongly claimed that the priest used did this in a “cross” on this cover. There are a couple of Hebrew word translated as sprinkled. One is זָרַק = zaraq, meaning to scatter (used at Exodus 24:6 rendered as sprinkled) and נָזָה = nazah, meaning “to spirt, i.e. besprinkle (especially in expiation)” (used at Leviticus 6:27 translated as sprinkled)
So no, the High Priest did not do a cross sign with blood on the alter. It was a random sprinkling or splattering of the blood on the alter and the Ark of the Covenant cover.
”...yet your treatment of Romanian JW's has caused them to break away re the higher authorities...”
The WTS did not treat them in any way that was disrespectful. The JWs in Romania had lost contact with the rest of the WTS under the Nazi and communist regime. During that time they had received many publications that were smuggled into the country. From what I have read it was from the early 1960s until about 1989 that they had no real contact at al but continued on the best way they could. That was nothing that was the fault of the WTS. The individuals in Romanians got upset over an adjustment in understanding of Romans 13:1”Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions.” (NWT)
The WTS did not treat them any different to any JW in any other country, but because they had been under the tyranny of the n Nazi then communist ideologies, they found it unpalatable to think that the Bible would actually teach that we need to be in subjection to these human governments. Our view is that we obey these the human governments in all manner of things and do what they tell us to do, up to the point where what they want us to do is something contrary to Gods law. God allows them to be here for our general benefit. Their not accepting that does not make us united, it makes them as separate religious entities.
You also say ..
”...when your organisation has proved itself to be a false prophet and a liar....”
The organisation has not proved itself to be a false profit. It has never prophesied anything at all. What it has done is offer explanations of previously written prophecy. Please take the time to read the following articles
They do not answer everything but they do give a lot of details
Please feel free to follow up if need be.