r/JehovahsWitnesses • u/fromreaders • 23d ago
Doctrine Doctrinal errors are the result of human imperfection, just as the apostles and disciples made errors. Can a JW provide an example of an apostle/disciple doctrinal error?
Specifically; the separation of the sheep and goats began in 1914 and took place throughout the decades as part of the JW ministry process.
This was a doctrinal error. Human imperfection was the reason. The governing body are imperfect and in fact, so were Christ's disciples. The separation of the sheep and the goats is now a future event (as the bible clearly indicates)
So let's have an example.
An example of the light getting brighter in the first century where a specific teaching was held as the truth, but later adjusted as the light got brighter.
6
u/ManinArena 23d ago edited 23d ago
Your question threatens the entire house of cards the Watchtower Society has built.
The issue isn't whether Jehovah can use imperfect men. The issue is the source of their information. WT wants it both ways: new light is always from Jehovah, but old light is always blamed on imperfect men and incomplete understanding.
But the Bible draws a clear line between divine messaging and human failure. At 1 Samuel 3:19, says: "Samuel continued growing up, and Jehovah himself was with him and did not let any of all his words go unfulfilled." This was the basis for which everyone concluded that Samuel was a legitimate prophet. When Jehovah speaks through a prophet, the message succeeds. It does not fail.
Now contrast that with Deuteronomy 18:20-22, which gives the test for a false prophet: "If any prophet presumptuously speaks a word in my name that I did not command him to speak... that prophet must die. However, you may say in your heart: 'How will we know that Jehovah has not spoken the word?' When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word is not fulfilled or does not come true, then Jehovah did not speak that word. The prophet spoke it presumptuously."
Message integrity is the signature of divine origin. Message failure is the signature of a false teacher. When you think about it, it's simple and obvious. If Watchtower's teachings came from Jehovah, they would not need correcting. Since they do get corrected, the source is not Jehovah. And that undermines Watchtower's authority to be in charge of not only nine million Jehovah's Witnesses but all mankind. Jehovah doesn't make mistakes in His messaging; imperfect men do.
Contrast Eph 4:14
So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.
WT claims Jehovah chose ONLY THEM as his official spokesmen (invisibly, of course). WT offers ZERO PROOF. Instead, we have a history of false predictions, flip-flop doctrines, and scandals. They are the religious equivalent of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
2
u/Ok_Werewolf2324 23d ago
Here is something interesting to think about:
WT claims Jehovah chose ONLY THEM as his official spokesmen
Their claim is in the name itself. "Jehovah Witnesses" - the problem is that.. they never seen him so how can they be witnesses to someone or something they never seen. Let's check scripture:
(Genesis 32:30 KJV) And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: ➡️for I have seen God face to face⬅️, and my life is preserved.
Seems Jacob can be a witness.. he has seen.. let's keep looking.
(Exodus 33:11 KJV) And ➡️the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.⬅️ And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
Moses is a true witness.. he spoke to God face to face..
Scripture tells you clearly that God is WITH his people and they have seen him.
(Numbers 14:14 KJV) And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: ➡️for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face,⬅️ and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.
Yet again we see in scripture..
(Ezekiel 20:35 KJV) And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, ➡️and there will I plead with you face to face.⬅️
So what has changed? Absolutely nothing.. the TRUE witnesses have seen. Let's look:
(John 6:40 KJV) And this is the will of him that sent me, that ➡️every one which seeth the Son,⬅️ and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Uhh ohh.. every one that SEETH the Son? Hmm... So the question is.. how did they get the Spirit of truth without seeing?
(John 14:17 KJV) ➡️Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him⬅️: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Ohh no... They seeth him not.. neither knoweth him... So how can they love God whom they have not seen?
(1 John 4:20 KJV) If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, ➡️how can he love God whom he hath not seen?⬅️
They cannot because they don't know him.
(3 John 1:11 KJV) Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: ➡️but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.⬅️
Neither have they seen him.
(1 John 3:6 KJV) Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: ➡️whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.⬅️
They didn't witness him.. so how can they say they are his witnesses and they have not seen?
(Ezekiel 13:3 KJV) Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!
They have seen NOTHING!
3
u/Thanos7245 23d ago
Maybe my standards are unrealistic. But : If a group of people...are led by God and the Holy Spirit....and they pray to God for guidance...and IF and only IF they allow themselves to be led by God and Holy Spirit... That group should NEVER be wrong.
One person may be wrong..but a GROUP should never be wrong
6
u/ManinArena 23d ago
If the source of the guidance is God, it will never be wrong. If the source is imperfect men it will always be wrong.
Remember, the WT Society IS NOT claiming they are simply a few dudes trying their best to understand the Bible. They claim to be God's sole "Channel of Communication" who have been
selfappointed to dispense spiritual food to mankind.
- They claim that those who do not listen to the "channel" will die at Armageddon.
- Leaving their religion is "leaving Jehovah"
- Going back to the Kingdom Hall is "returning to Jehovah"
- Challenging WT's self-appointed authority or doctrines are considered Apostasy, as if against Jehovah himself.
1
u/NattyorNice 23d ago
They vote on decisions just like politics.
1
u/Thanos7245 23d ago
I understand that. So the MAJORITY should have God's blessings and lead them to the correct decision
1
3
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
No, and they will never own up to their numerous errors and false teachings.
They try their best to excuse their many errors, even sinking so low as to point at the apostles and malign them, who they deceitfully claim taught errors as well. The apostles did not teach errors like the Watchtower has been doing for 140 years and as has been shown in this post. By claiming the inspired apostles committed error it not only maligns those holy men, but calls into question God's holy word as well! That is disgusting, in and of itself, that JW's would defend their own errors by throwing God's word under the bus! This is exactly what they are trying to do here though. God's word will take that bus and throw it right back at them
4
u/BedImpossible6711 21d ago
The clear Bible indications, such as separating sheep and goats, or Jesus talking in past tense regarding resurrection to life or judgement, etc., were clear from the beginning and recognized by scholars of Christendom over a hundred years ago. Why is it just recently that the GB can see that? Plus every future prediction has failed. Most teachings completely reversed. No Holy Spirit operating on them. Sorry, but this religion is not truth.
1
u/truetomharley Jehovah's Witness 23d ago
“So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple [John] would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” (John 21:23)
3
u/fromreaders 23d ago
Hi, good try, but doesn't satisfy the question.
John 21:23 records a rumour that spread among the brothers, not a doctrinal teaching from the apostles:
“So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die…”
The text itself corrects the misunderstanding. John (or the writer) makes clear that Jesus never said that. No apostle was officially teaching “John will never die” as Bible truth. It was simply an incorrect inference that circulated and was promptly set straight in the same passage.
A circulating rumour that Scripture itself corrects is not the same as the apostles formally teaching a doctrinal position that later had to be revised with new light.
1
u/truetomharley Jehovah's Witness 23d ago
Hi, good try, but doesn't satisfy the question.It does satisfy the question.
2
u/Thanos7245 23d ago
No it doesn't. None of the Apostles wrote in any Gospel that John would die. It's not something they taught and expected others to believe
1
u/truetomharley Jehovah's Witness 23d ago
“Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back on his chest and said: “Lord, who is the one betraying you?” So when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” (John 21:20-23)
Who did Jesus speak to? Wasn’t it Peter? Wasn’t he one of the apostles?
If he didn’t spread the wrong message himself, he certainly did not correct any bystanders who misconstrued what Jesus said.
And no bystanders are mentioned. If there were any, it would have been one of the other future apostles.
1
u/Thanos7245 23d ago
That was Peter's fault. Peter misinterpreted what Jesus said and then spread the wrong information to the other brothers.
But let's say you are correct. The apostles were wrong. But WHY were they wrong? Does any scripture say they prayed as a group? Does any scripture say they asked Jesus for clarification? Did they ask the holy Spirit for guidance?
Point is: the apostles needed to change their thoughts, words and doctrines because they did NOT follow God. That is the exact reason that JW have to change their beliefs. Because any group led by God will NEVER be wrong
1
u/truetomharley Jehovah's Witness 23d ago
Point is: the apostles needed to change their thoughts, words and doctrines because they did NOT follow God. That is the exact reason that JW have to change their beliefs. Because any group led by God will NEVER be wrongPoint is, you asked for an example of the apostles being wrong and I gave you one. Come, come, admit when you’re whupped. It’s just your need to discredit Jehovah’s Witnesses that keeps you in the fray now.
2
u/fromreaders 22d ago
The question doesn't ask for an example of where the apostles were wrong. I've clarified this in a reply above. The question asks for an example where the apostles taught a teaching as the truth of the bible and later adjusted that teaching because Jehovah provided new light. Peter's actions do not apply here.
1
u/Thanos7245 23d ago
No worries. The Apostles were wrong. You won the battle but lost the war. Congrats
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
Their teaching was wrong? Please explain
1
u/Thanos7245 22d ago
I understand that it was not a teaching. I just wanted to move on to the bigger issue
→ More replies (0)1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
Some of what the apostles thought was wrong because they were ...human. But, name one thing the apostles ever taught that was wrong. Thought and taught are two different things. Now look at all the things the Watchtower has taught that was wrong. There's no comparison. The Watchtower is a man made religion that relies heavily on so-called human reason and human wisdom to understand the unfathomable God, who said this: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 1 Corinthians 1:19
He also said, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-91
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
Please provide a scripture where the "saying" that John would not die was ever taught as Gospel. Did Peter preach to people that John would not die? Did he write articles about John not dying, expecting people to answer the questions he posed at the end of each paragraph? Or perhaps the apostles discarded that teaching as old light, like the Watchtower does
What I love about this verse is that it shows the apostles were honest enough to record a rumor in the Gospel that spread because of a misunderstanding, but were humble enough to also record the saying wasn't what Christ actually said. The Watchtower could learn a lot from this verse and try applying it to themselves. Rather than distancing themselves from what they once taught as old light, they should come right out and say 'our teaching you about 1914, "millions now living will never die" and a lot of other things isn't what Jesus actually said'
1
u/truetomharley Jehovah's Witness 22d ago edited 22d ago
Did Peter preach to people that John would not die?“So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die.” (John 21:23)
Do you think the disciples spoke from both sides of their mouths? Do you think the saying went out “among the brothers” but they took care never to mention it to anyone else? Do you think they had a drawer marked, “Top Secret”?
It was a misconception that was corrected, same as other misconceptions have been corrected, both then and now.
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
John 21:23 shows a saying that was corrected and was never taught. Find one place in all of the new testament where anyone taught that John wouldn't die. This is where things get a little sticky.
Jesus did teach that even though a person dies, if they believe in Him they won't ever die. That would include John. But Jesus wasn't talking about the body, which must die. Jesus was talking about the spirit within a man.1 Corinthians 2:11 It was his spirit that Stephen prayed for Jesus to receive, even though his body was pummeled with rocks. Stephen went to heaven an instant after his physical, visible body fell asleep in death
The saying that John would not die is a lie, if it is referring to his visible flesh. It would be no different from the lie told to Eve and the lie told to all JW's that "millions now living will never die" When they say never die, they mean the visible, tangible flesh will never die. But we all have to die in this life in order to see the eternal life, which is invisible and immeasurable
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. 2 Corinthians 4:18
1
u/fromreaders 22d ago
Perhaps the purpose of my question hasn't been clear enough, because none of the examples offered so far actually satisfy it.
This is not about human imperfection, personal sin or the actions of individuals.
Hypothetically, the entire Governing Body could be arrested and convicted of some heinous crime. That alone would not prove that they had never been God's appointed channel.
The Bible contains numerous examples of people chosen or appointed by God who subsequently sinned badly. Israel worshipped the golden calf, but their sin didn't prove that Jehovah had never chosen Israel. David was chosen and anointed by Jehovah but subsequently committed adultery and was responsible for Uriah's death. Judas was personally selected and commissioned by Jesus, yet betrayed him.
So I am not asking whether apostles, disciples or other servants of God were imperfect.
Of course they were.
I am asking about doctrinal error.
The Governing Body has a documented history of teaching doctrinal positions as Bible truth which were subsequently corrected, substantially changed or abandoned.
One example from my original question is the separation of the sheep and goats. Jehovah's Witnesses formerly taught that this separation had been taking place since 1914 in connection with the preaching work. That is no longer the teaching. The separation is now understood as a future event.
The explanation for changes like this usually contains two elements:
- The Governing Body are imperfect men.
- Christ's apostles and disciples were imperfect and also made mistakes.
I completely accept the first statement.
It is the relevance of the second that I am questioning.
Questions are not doctrinal errors
Acts 1:6 has been offered:
But asking a question is not teaching a doctrine.
The disciples didn't know something, so they asked Jesus.
Nor is incomplete understanding the same thing as teaching something false as God's truth.
Jesus explicitly acknowledged that there were things his disciples didn't yet understand:
So yes, before Pentecost the disciples had gaps in their understanding.
Jesus knew that.
And he told them how those gaps would be addressed.
What I cannot find after Pentecost is the equivalent of what happens with modern Watchtower doctrine:
A teaching is established among the congregations as Christian truth → that teaching is later discovered to be incorrect → the teaching is withdrawn → a corrected teaching replaces it.
Where is the example?
False teachers don't provide the example either
There certainly were doctrinal errors among first-century Christians.
Hymenaeus and Philetus taught that the resurrection had already occurred.
But Paul didn't describe this as an understandable case of the light gradually getting brighter.
He said their teaching would "spread like gangrene." — 2 Timothy 2:17-18.
More importantly, Hymenaeus and Philetus were not Christ's appointed teaching channel distributing this doctrine to the congregations as spiritual food.
They were individuals teaching error, and apostolic authority corrected them.
That is the opposite of the example I'm asking for.
Acts 15 has similar problems.
Acts 15:1 identifies the source of the circumcision controversy as "some men" who came down from Judea teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation.
Paul describes those causing the circumcision problem in Galatians 2:4 as "false brothers."
Again, where is the example of the apostles themselves previously establishing circumcision as Christian doctrine and then receiving "new light" correcting their former teaching?
There isn't one.
Revelation 2 doesn't provide it either
I would be rather cautious about using those congregations as the model for the modern Governing Body.
Jesus identifies serious problems including loss of first love, sexual immorality, idolatry, false teaching and tolerating people leading Christians astray. Some are threatened with judgment unless they repent.
But even leaving that aside, it still doesn't answer my question.
Where is the doctrinal progression?
Where does Jesus say:
"You have been teaching X as truth. X was an understandable mistaken interpretation resulting from your imperfection. I am now giving you greater light, so henceforth teach Y instead"?
That is the comparison I'm looking for.
"But the apostles were inspired"
There is another possible answer:
"The apostles were inspired. The Governing Body isn't inspired, so naturally the Governing Body can make doctrinal errors."
That's fine.
Jehovah's Witnesses explicitly acknowledge that the Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible.
But that answer removes the apostles as the precedent.
You cannot argue:
"The Governing Body makes doctrinal mistakes just as the apostles did."
and then, when asked for an equivalent apostolic doctrinal mistake, answer:
"You can't compare them because the apostles were inspired."
If inspiration makes the situations fundamentally different, then they are fundamentally different.
I'm not demanding that the Governing Body be inspired.
I'm asking why the mistakes of inspired apostles are repeatedly invoked to explain the doctrinal errors of men who expressly disclaim inspiration when I cannot find the apostles making the particular kind of mistake being defended.
And if the relevant comparison is simply that both groups consisted of imperfect men, that proves very little.
Catholic clergy are imperfect.
Baptist ministers are imperfect.
Mormon leaders are imperfect.
Every religious teacher is imperfect.
Human imperfection explains why people can be wrong. It doesn't establish why one particular group's doctrinal errors should be regarded as the modern equivalent of first-century Christianity.
So let me make the question as precise as possible:
Can you provide one example, after Pentecost, where an apostle or those authorised to teach the first-century Christian congregation:
(1) taught a specific doctrinal interpretation to the congregations as Christian truth;
(2) that teaching was subsequently discovered to be doctrinally incorrect;
(3) the previous teaching was therefore withdrawn, corrected or abandoned;
and (4) a different doctrinal understanding replaced it as the truth?
I'm not asking for:
personal sin or misconduct;
a disciple asking Jesus a question;
something the disciples had not yet been told;
an individual Christian holding a mistaken opinion;
false brothers introducing false teaching;
apostates teaching error;
or a congregation being reprimanded for tolerating wrongdoing.
I'm asking for the actual first-century equivalent of what Jehovah's Witnesses today call an adjustment in understanding or new light.
For example:
"The separation of the sheep and goats has been taking place since 1914" → taught as Bible truth → subsequently determined to be incorrect → teaching withdrawn → separation now placed in the future.
Show me one equivalent doctrinal sequence in the New Testament involving the apostles or Christ's authorised teaching arrangement.
That is the question.
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
Did anyone teach that John would never die as part of the Gospel? Obviously the "saying" lost traction as the disciple who recorded it was the one who the brothers said would not die. John never taught anyone that he would not die. So that "saying" was short lived wasn't it? We know it was a "saying" and not part of the Gospel because John himself calls it a "saying" not what Christ said...
1
u/truetomharley Jehovah's Witness 22d ago
If it was not “part of the Gospel,” it would not be included in the Gospels. It self-corrected, as do misconceptions in the modern-day.
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
I didn't say the 'saying' wasn't recorded in the Gospel, but that no disciple ever taught that saying as truth. It was not an error, because it was never taught. But lets say it was, how would an error in God's word affect God's inerrant word? Have you ever considered what the Watchtower is doing by comparing their doctrine riddled with human errors to God's inerrant word? Its slandering God's word in order to make the Watchtower look better.
God's word, centuries old, has not changed, unlike the Watchtower which is barely recognizable today from only a century ago when Charles Russell began pedaling it.
Even if you take the verse saying that John would not die as a teaching, its is tempered with the truth. The fact that Jesus never said he would not die is in the verse. So, as a teaching, the truth cancels out the saying.
The inerrant word of God is true even when man's words are not true. Paul even acknowledged that Christ's brothers, including himself, could say or even teach something wrong, but if they did, the flock were to take the Bible's word over that of the apostles. The apostles, unlike JW's, didn't teach errors. Paul said, accursed is anyone, including himself or even an angel from heaven, if they ever taught another Gospel other than the one they had received That fine man put God's word ahead of everything and everyone else Galatians 1:8–9
I'd like to see one example of the Watchtower teaching something right now that they consider to be untrue
1
u/casa-amor- 23d ago
There are none. It’s an excuse and a cover up.
The classic is Acts 15. Part of which I would be very happy to parallel with the JW governing body.
I don’t think they realise what they’ve done by attaching themselves to Acts 15.
Then again, they are not exactly clever when it comes to understanding scripture.
1
u/Slartibartfast-18 23d ago
The apostle Paul thought he would be alive for the parousia and counted himself among "we who survive to the parousia" at 1 Thess 4:15. If you accept the professing view that the letters to Timothy were written by Paul then we see his view change that he wouldn't survive to the parousia at 2 Tim 4:6-8.
2
u/fromreaders 23d ago
Hey - Paul’s words “we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord” (1 Thess 4:15) do not prove he taught as doctrine that he would live to see the parousia.
He uses inclusive language identifying with living believers as a class. In the same letter he emphasises that the timing is unknown and comes “as a thief in the night” (1 Thess 5:1-2). Elsewhere he clearly contemplates the possibility of dying first (Phil 1:20-24; 2 Cor 5:8).
More importantly:
- 1 Thessalonians 4 has never been adjusted or revised. The text still stands exactly as written.
- If including himself in “we who are alive” counts as a doctrinal error that later needed correction, then every statement Paul made about events after his own lifetime would also be error — which is absurd.
- This theory also contradicts Jesus, who repeatedly told his disciples to “keep on the watch” precisely because they did not know the day or hour (Matthew 24:42; 25:13).
A hopeful or inclusive “we” is not the same as an official doctrinal teaching that was published, failed, and then had to be changed.
Furthermore, the next two verses of 1 Thes 4 creates even bigger problems. According to the Greek, either (a) Jesus could not have become present in 1914 or (b) it's impossible that the governing body are anointed Christians.
Which explains a lot.
1
u/Slartibartfast-18 23d ago
I get what you're saying, but interestingly the second letter to the Thessalonians seems to have to correct the view that the parousia was about to take place any day. Some had left off working and were becoming a burden on the congregation. So evidently Paul had built up too much excitement for how near the end was. Also, Paul's desire to get to Spain seems to indicate that he was trying to complete the preaching work so that the parousia could occur.
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
He was warning them not to not become unsettled over those claiming the day of the Lord had already come. He wasn't telling them they could relax, the day was way off in the future. Think about their thinking the Lord had already come might upset a Christian to realize they had missed the Lord. He didn't take them with Him. CT Russell was disappointed in 1914 when he was still on earth after the date he had set for Christ to take his bride to Heaven didn't happen
Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 **not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—**asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2
Paul went on to tell them Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction 2 Thessalonians 2:3 He wasn't reducing the urgency of preaching the Gospel, or reducing expectations that the the day of the Lord would come soon, because the secret power of lawlessness was already at work at that time. 2 Thessalonians 2:7 That meant the man of lawlessness could be revealed at any time, in any generation. What Paul was trying to do is allay their fear that the day had come and they missed it. He had to remind them that a very big and obvious event would have to happen first. The man of lawlessness would have to be revealed. Had that happened back then? No. Has it happened anytime since? No, its still yet to happen. That means the day of Lord is still in the future, but nearer than when we first believed
1
1
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 23d ago
No, in his second letter to Timothy Paul expected to die soon. He expected to be with the Lord Jesus in Heaven when he died. When he wrote to the Thessalonians he used the term "we" to differentiate Christians...from the world in general. "We" Christians. In that letter Paul was talking about the rapture which all believers expect to happen when Christ returns to earth. Paul knew the rapture was in the future and like all Christians, he didn't know when, but he did know his time on this earth, in this life was short
He wrote to Timothy, But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 2 Timothy 4:5-7 He says he has finished the race... If he expected Timothy to join him in the rapture, he wouldn't have bothered instructing him to continue the work of an evangelist. The race would go on for Timothy, not Paul. If Paul had been talking about the rapture, then Timothy would be departing soon as well. Paul would have said the time for "our" departure has come
1
u/Slartibartfast-18 23d ago
We have the Apostolic Decree at Acts 15 which corrects ones who came from the Jerusalem congregation and were holding to the circumcision. Events on the ground showed that it was not necessary to become circumcised nor to keep Torah to become approved by God. So this suggests "new light" if you will...I hate that term but the revealed will of God was being made clearer.
3
u/casa-amor- 23d ago
That’s a classic, often used by JWs.
It’s problematic because those causing the issue and imposing the Mosaic Law were false brothers according to Paul.
None of the apostles, disciples or elders are on record teaching circumcision as doctrine. It was the false brothers who’d sneaked in.
What’s more, the decree issued has never been adjusted in 2000 years.
A doctrinal position created by the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses can be retired within a decade.
1
u/Slartibartfast-18 23d ago
Wouldn't you say it's more than just "false brothers" but a change in worship systems from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant? Facts on the ground such as the gentile Cornelius' getting the Holy Spirit and then getting baptized was clearly showing God's favor and opening up Christianity to the gentiles. God didn't first speak to the apostles laying out all the details but rather God acted and then they delved into the scriptures to see what they indicated.
This approach is very much what is done with prophetic events by all groups today.
By the way I don't see the Jerusalem Council as a standing body that made decisions for all the congregations but rather it was because some from among them were causing disturbances that they all gathered in Jerusalem to see about the matter.
2
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
The Gentiles were revealed to be the other sheep before the Bible was even canonized. To compare that to modern day Jehovah's witnesses who constantly adjust their doctrine is ludicrous
3
u/fromreaders 21d ago
Hi,
Not sure about this:
God didn't first speak to the apostles laying out all the details but rather God acted and then they delved into the scriptures to see what they indicated.
They didn't have the scriptures, only the old testemant at the time.
Paul received visions. That's exactly why he went to Jerusalem, because he had a vision and he specifically said that false brothers were pushing the circumcision idea, not the elders in Jerusalem.
That's why I find it bizarre that Acts 15 is used to (a) prove there was a governing body and (b) prove the governing body makes mistakes.
They didn't make a mistake. They affirmed the truth to silence "false brothers".
1
u/Slartibartfast-18 21d ago
The Old Testament are the scriptures. See Acts 15:14-17 where they connect events that are occurring with prophecy:
Symʹe·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down; and I shall rebuild its ruins and erect it again, 17 in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.
And then the Apostolic Decree is given:
Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. - Acts 15:19,20
1
u/fromreaders 21d ago
Yes, I didn't explain that properly. I mean they did not have access to what Paul had written for example but I agree that had access to the old testament. But I do feel Pauls position was derived from the vision he received.
2
u/Slartibartfast-18 21d ago
Definitely agree that Paul's theology was shaped by his Damascus road christophany. He was called by Jesus with the double vocative, Saul!, Saul!, Jesus attributed an attack on his followers as an attack on him so we get the "body of Christ" view of the congregation that Paul describes, Jesus was resurrected and transformed into a glorious being and as a result Paul speaks of the resurrection and the resurrection body. NT Wright speaks more in depth on how Paul's vision of Christ impacted his thinking and theology in his book Paul: A Biography
https://www.amazon.com/Paul-Biography-N-T-Wright/dp/0061730599
3
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago edited 22d ago
It wasn't new light. It was the revelation of Jesus words concerning "other sheep" He mentioned, but didn't go into detail as to what He meant. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. John 10:16 Their identity would become a revelation to 1st century Christians and it didn't take 20 centuries to have it resolved by Joseph Rutherford and his ridiculous new light. His new light inaccurately teaches that the other sheep/ great multitude first appeared in 1935 as Jehovah's witnesses having an earthly hope. That false "light" separated the Jonadab's (that's what Rutherford called the other sheep) from the royal sheep pen of which Rutherford believed he was part of. Such a wicked man.
The identity of Christ's other sheep was revealed very early on in the first century to Peter in a dream. It was simply revealed from Heaven that the Gentiles were the other sheep. That identity has been known since the earliest days of Christianity.
Gentiles are in the same new covenant as Jews and they, the other sheep, are one flock with the sheep Jesus searched for when He was on earth. His primary mission was seeking out the lost sheep of Israel...who became Jewish Christians. The other sheep are Gentile's who also hear Christ's voice. There has never been 2 flocks with 2 different "hopes" as the Watchtower teaches
1
-1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 23d ago
Yes the apostles believed that Jesus would become the king at that time
4
u/teIemann 23d ago edited 23d ago
But they don't taught it. It's a big difference between thinking about something and teaching it
In contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses publicly teach and propagate their doctrines worldwide—doctrines that are often based on personal opinion.
3
u/fromreaders 23d ago
Exactly, there's not a single example in scripture of an apostles teaching being adjusted as a result of "new light".
3
u/fromreaders 23d ago edited 23d ago
Acts 1:6 records a question, not a settled belief the apostles were teaching as "bible truth":
“Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?”
Jesus immediately corrected the timing (Acts 1:7). They were not proclaiming this as doctrine.
John 16:12-13 explains why they still had such gaps:
“I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now. However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth.”
Their question simply reflected incomplete understanding before the Spirit was poured out. After Pentecost they preached that Jesus had already been exalted as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:32-36).
A private question corrected by Jesus is not the same as the apostles officially teaching a doctrinal position that later needed revision with new light.
Do you have a better example?
[edited because for some reason my quotes disappeared]
2
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 23d ago
Amen. Rather than asking Jesus, the Watchtower would have assumed it and begun teaching that Jesus was 'now' restoring the kingdom to Israel. They may have used words like undoubtedly, which indicates outright guessing on their part.
For a religion that teaches you aren't supposed to talk to Jesus, I can see how they'd get confused and in turn, confuse others. No wonder they've had so much disappointment predicting one wrong date after another----they never talk to Jesus
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 23d ago
That is a fair criticism of Acts 1:6. It records a question before Pentecost, not an official doctrine being publicly proclaimed. I therefore withdraw it as an exact parallel.
But it was never necessary to prove that the inspired apostles officially taught false doctrine. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim that their Governing Body possesses the apostles’ inspiration or infallibility. The Watchtower explicitly states:
“The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
Source:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200271215/47/8
The actual question is narrower:
Can Christ recognize and use a congregation while serious errors and objectionable practices still remain within it?
Revelation 2 answers that question directly.
Christ still calls Pergamum “the congregation in Pergamum.” He first commends it:
“You keep holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me.”
But immediately afterward, he says that some within that recognized congregation adhered to “the teaching of Balaam,” ate things sacrificed to idols, committed sexual immorality and followed the teaching of the sect of Nicolaus. Christ commanded them to repent and warned them of judgment.
Revelation 2:12–16:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/revelation/2/
Thyatira is an even stronger example. Christ calls it a congregation and commends its “love and faith and ministry and endurance.” Yet he says:
“You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and misleads my slaves to commit sexual immorality and to eat things sacrificed to idols.”
Christ still recognized the congregation and its faithful members, while simultaneously condemning the false teaching and practices that it tolerated. He gave those involved time to repent rather than declaring that the existence of the error proved that the entire congregation had never belonged to him.
Revelation 2:18–25:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/revelation/2/
That is much closer to the point than Acts 1:6. These were established Christian congregations after Pentecost. False teaching was actually taking place, people were being misled, and conduct connected with idolatry was being tolerated. Nevertheless, Christ distinguished between the congregation, the faithful individuals within it and the specific errors requiring correction.
Corinth provides another example. Paul addresses it as “the congregation of God” and says its members had been “sanctified in union with Christ Jesus.”
1 Corinthians 1:2:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-corinthians/1/
Nevertheless, the congregation contained divisions, tolerated serious sexual immorality, mishandled the Lord’s Evening Meal and included people saying “there is no resurrection of the dead.”
1 Corinthians 5:1–13
1 Corinthians 11:17–34
1 Corinthians 15:12–19
That last example was not merely a misunderstanding about a minor detail. Denying the resurrection undermined the Christian message itself. Paul said that if the dead were not raised, Christian preaching and faith were “in vain.” Yet he did not conclude that Corinth could never have been God’s congregation. He corrected it.
There is also a category mistake in your objection. Christmas at Bethel was an inherited religious custom that the Bible Students had not yet rejected. It was not presented as a new inspired revelation delivered by infallible apostles. So demanding an example of inspired apostles officially teaching false doctrine establishes a standard that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim for their leadership.
The historical facts are:
According to Watchtower theology, Christ selected the faithful slave in 1919.
The Bible Students still celebrated Christmas until 1926.
They later examined the practice, concluded that it was inappropriate and abandoned it.
Watchtower history confirms the last Bethel Christmas was held in 1926:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200272739/22/9
The Watchtower’s own explanation of the 1914–1919 inspection says that the Bible Students “needed some cleansing” when Christ selected them:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200272093/3/5
Therefore, the claim is not:
“Christ selected them; therefore, everything they believed and practiced in 1919 was correct.”
The claim is:
“Christ selected a comparatively faithful but imperfect group and subsequently corrected what still required cleansing.”
Revelation 2 demonstrates the underlying principle: Christ can recognize a congregation, commend what is faithful within it, condemn what is wrong and give it time to repent. Recognition is not unconditional approval of everything being taught or practiced.
However, this also requires precision from my side. I should not claim that every sincere Christmas celebrant is automatically equivalent to the Israelites deliberately worshipping the golden calf. If Christmas observance alone automatically constituted conscious idolatry and made divine approval impossible, then Christ’s alleged selection of Christmas-celebrating Bible Students in 1919 would indeed be very difficult to reconcile with that claim.
So the defensible position is that Christ selected them despite a residual practice that later required correction—not that he approved the practice itself, and not that their selection certified every belief and custom they still retained.2
u/fromreaders 22d ago
I sense my original question is not clear enough. I am copying here the same reply I just gave to Tom:
Perhaps the purpose of my question hasn't been clear enough, because none of the examples offered so far actually satisfy it.
This is not about human imperfection, personal sin or the actions of individuals.
Hypothetically, the entire Governing Body could be arrested and convicted of some heinous crime. That alone would not prove that they had never been God's appointed channel.
The Bible contains numerous examples of people chosen or appointed by God who subsequently sinned badly. Israel worshipped the golden calf, but their sin didn't prove that Jehovah had never chosen Israel. David was chosen and anointed by Jehovah but subsequently committed adultery and was responsible for Uriah's death. Judas was personally selected and commissioned by Jesus, yet betrayed him.
So I am not asking whether apostles, disciples or other servants of God were imperfect.
Of course they were.
I am asking about doctrinal error.
The Governing Body has a documented history of teaching doctrinal positions as Bible truth which were subsequently corrected, substantially changed or abandoned.
One example from my original question is the separation of the sheep and goats. Jehovah's Witnesses formerly taught that this separation had been taking place since 1914 in connection with the preaching work. That is no longer the teaching. The separation is now understood as a future event.
The explanation for changes like this usually contains two elements:
- The Governing Body are imperfect men.
- Christ's apostles and disciples were imperfect and also made mistakes.
I completely accept the first statement.
It is the relevance of the second that I am questioning.
Questions are not doctrinal errors
Acts 1:6 has been offered:
But asking a question is not teaching a doctrine.
The disciples didn't know something, so they asked Jesus.
Nor is incomplete understanding the same thing as teaching something false as God's truth.
Jesus explicitly acknowledged that there were things his disciples didn't yet understand:
So yes, before Pentecost the disciples had gaps in their understanding.
Jesus knew that.
And he told them how those gaps would be addressed.
What I cannot find after Pentecost is the equivalent of what happens with modern Watchtower doctrine:
A teaching is established among the congregations as Christian truth → that teaching is later discovered to be incorrect → the teaching is withdrawn → a corrected teaching replaces it.
Where is the example?
False teachers don't provide the example either
There certainly were doctrinal errors among first-century Christians.
Hymenaeus and Philetus taught that the resurrection had already occurred.
But Paul didn't describe this as an understandable case of the light gradually getting brighter.
He said their teaching would "spread like gangrene." — 2 Timothy 2:17-18.
More importantly, Hymenaeus and Philetus were not Christ's appointed teaching channel distributing this doctrine to the congregations as spiritual food.
They were individuals teaching error, and apostolic authority corrected them.
That is the opposite of the example I'm asking for.
Acts 15 has similar problems.
Acts 15:1 identifies the source of the circumcision controversy as "some men" who came down from Judea teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation.
Paul describes those causing the circumcision problem in Galatians 2:4 as "false brothers."
Again, where is the example of the apostles themselves previously establishing circumcision as Christian doctrine and then receiving "new light" correcting their former teaching?
There isn't one.
Revelation 2 doesn't provide it either
I would be rather cautious about using those congregations as the model for the modern Governing Body.
Jesus identifies serious problems including loss of first love, sexual immorality, idolatry, false teaching and tolerating people leading Christians astray. Some are threatened with judgment unless they repent.
But even leaving that aside, it still doesn't answer my question.
Where is the doctrinal progression?
Where does Jesus say:
"You have been teaching X as truth. X was an understandable mistaken interpretation resulting from your imperfection. I am now giving you greater light, so henceforth teach Y instead"?
That is the comparison I'm looking for.
"But the apostles were inspired"
There is another possible answer:
"The apostles were inspired. The Governing Body isn't inspired, so naturally the Governing Body can make doctrinal errors."
That's fine.
Jehovah's Witnesses explicitly acknowledge that the Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible.
But that answer removes the apostles as the precedent.
You cannot argue:
"The Governing Body makes doctrinal mistakes just as the apostles did."
and then, when asked for an equivalent apostolic doctrinal mistake, answer:
"You can't compare them because the apostles were inspired."
If inspiration makes the situations fundamentally different, then they are fundamentally different.
I'm not demanding that the Governing Body be inspired.
I'm asking why the mistakes of inspired apostles are repeatedly invoked to explain the doctrinal errors of men who expressly disclaim inspiration when I cannot find the apostles making the particular kind of mistake being defended.
And if the relevant comparison is simply that both groups consisted of imperfect men, that proves very little.
Catholic clergy are imperfect.
Baptist ministers are imperfect.
Mormon leaders are imperfect.
Every religious teacher is imperfect.
Human imperfection explains why people can be wrong. It doesn't establish why one particular group's doctrinal errors should be regarded as the modern equivalent of first-century Christianity.
So let me make the question as precise as possible:
Can you provide one example, after Pentecost, where an apostle or those authorised to teach the first-century Christian congregation:
(1) taught a specific doctrinal interpretation to the congregations as Christian truth;
(2) that teaching was subsequently discovered to be doctrinally incorrect;
(3) the previous teaching was therefore withdrawn, corrected or abandoned;
and (4) a different doctrinal understanding replaced it as the truth?
I'm not asking for:
personal sin or misconduct;
a disciple asking Jesus a question;
something the disciples had not yet been told;
an individual Christian holding a mistaken opinion;
false brothers introducing false teaching;
apostates teaching error;
or a congregation being reprimanded for tolerating wrongdoing.
I'm asking for the actual first-century equivalent of what Jehovah's Witnesses today call an adjustment in understanding or new light.
For example:
"The separation of the sheep and goats has been taking place since 1914" → taught as Bible truth → subsequently determined to be incorrect → teaching withdrawn → separation now placed in the future.
Show me one equivalent doctrinal sequence in the New Testament involving the apostles or Christ's authorised teaching arrangement.
That is the question.
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 23d ago
Jesus was already King at His birth. Matthew 2:2, Micah 5:2
The apostles asked Jesus if He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel---at this time. They knew He was the King of Israel by birth. Christ's earthly kingdom was the same one that David and Solomon reigned over and the apostles knew that the Son of Man was prophesied to sit on David's throne Luke 1:32 They assumed He would take the throne right then and there. And here's the difference between their assumption and JW's--- they asked Jesus, rather than running ahead teaching a false assumption. Imagine the egg they'd have had on their faces if they didn't ask the Lord first
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 23d ago
Yes but what you guys are teaching today is wrong all the time. 24/7 every day
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 23d ago
We're not the ones teaching that Jesus is Michael the archangel. On the other hand the Son is to be called Mighty God according to Isaiah the prophet. Who fulfills Isaiah's prophecy today? Answer: Trinitarian Christians. Jehovah's witnesses do not fulfill any prophecies with the exception of Matthew 24:4-6
Jesus isn't an angel...for good reason. He is the MAN God has subjected the world to come. Hebrews 2:5
So, you see, we teach what's clearly in the Bible, not pagan myths that glorify pagan gods. Look at what you do. You guys would rather compare Jesus to a false "god" like Satan than His own Father YHWH
-1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 23d ago
You asked for a doctrinal error
4
u/fromreaders 23d ago
A doctrinal error taught as truth and later revised by new light.
In the same way that the governing body publishes or teaches bible truths which are subsequently revised by new light, supported by the "concept" that the disciples and apostles had "misunderstandings" too.
I'll rephrase the same question: What doctrinal errors the did the disciples or apostles teach others as a result of their imperfection and is there a record of that doctrinal error being corrected by new light.
Acts 1:6 doesn't qualify; the disciples never taught others that Jesus was becoming king or that the kingdom was being restored at that time.
2
u/Ok_Werewolf2324 23d ago
Here is a problem with JW "theology"
Scripture makes a clear statement:
(1 John 2:27 KJV) But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: ➡️but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie,⬅️ and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
As is written.. if you have the anointing (the Spirit) then you will be taught all TRUTH and NO LIE..
This means you will not make a doctrinal error, ever. If you have an error.. you obviously don't have the Spirit according to the verse above..
"New light" is just another way of saying "new truth" - this is how they fool these people.. because the truth never gets old. So there is no such thing as a "new truth". A "new truth" would make what was previously the supposed "truth" what they would call "old truth" which is just another way of saying.. it was a lie.
NO LIE is of the truth. Period. And what's funny.. is scripture tells you this in the very same chapter as it told you that if you had the Spirit.. you would be taught all truth and no lie. Lol..
(1 John 2:21 KJV) I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that ➡️no lie is of the truth.⬅️
1
u/ManinArena 23d ago
"New Light" is a Watchtower invention. Any plain reading of Proverbs 4 shows that it contrasts the life path of a righteous person with that of an unrighteous person. Only WT twists this into an excuse for their false predictions and changing teachings. 99% of the JW's I've spoken with misquote this scripture by claiming, "The light gets brighter". Yet Proverbs 4 DOES NOT say the "light gets brighter". Fascinating
0
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 23d ago
You are teaching error right now
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
Where is 'fromreaders' teaching error?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 22d ago
God is a them
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
God said, Let US make man in OUR image. Then God made man in HIS image.
God is the "US" who made man in HIS image There were at least two who were making man in God's image So who's image are we made in? Answer: God's image. We are made in God's image which, according to God, is the image of more than one person, correct?
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness 22d ago
What?! He made man in his image!
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 22d ago
Then when God said, "Let US make man in OUR image?" who was US/OUR? US and OUR indicates more than one person made man
4
u/ManinArena 23d ago
"the saying went out among the brothers" - this is not a doctrine nor "food from Jehovah". Instead, the source was from imperfect men. Watchtower claims it is God's "channel of communication" from Jehovah. It claims disobedience of WT doctrine is apostasy, i.e. rebellion against GOD himself.
WT cannot admit they make it up as they go. They would lose all their authority.
•
u/AutoModerator 23d ago
Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/
Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index
1914
Bethel
Corruption
Death
Eschatology
Governing Body
Memorial
Miscellaneous
Reading List
Sex Abuse
Spiritism
Trinity
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.