Do Jehovah's Witnesses feel that using the term " new light " justifies?

Question

every change the Watchtower Society makes?

Even when the new teaching completely reverses the old teaching ( and thus makes the old teaching obsolete and to be disregarded ) ?

Answer 1

I believe its just a clever cover up for error.

Answer 2

God did it Nina.
In his letter to the Romans, Paul speaks of a situation about which opinions varied. He writes: “One man has faith to eat everything, but the man who is weak eats vegetables.” Why was that? Well, under the Mosaic Law, pork was not an acceptable food. However, that Law was no longer binding after Jesus died. (Ephesians 2:15) Then, three and a half years after Jesus’ death, an angel told the apostle Peter that from God’s standpoint no food should be viewed as defiled. (Acts 11:7-12) With these factors in mind, some Jewish Christians may have felt that they could eat pork—or enjoy some other food that had been prohibited under the Law.
However, the very thought of eating those formerly unclean foods would likely have been repulsive to other Jewish Christians. Such sensitive ones might have felt instinctively offended at seeing their Jewish brothers in Christ eating such food. Moreover, certain Gentile Christians, whose religious background likely never included dietary prohibitions, may have been puzzled that anyone would make an issue over food. Of course, it was not wrong for someone to abstain from certain foods, as long as he did not insist that such abstinence was necessary to gain salvation. Still, the different viewpoints could easily have fueled controversy in the congregation. The Christians in Rome would need to be careful that such differences did not prevent them from glorifying God “with one mouth.”
God Now approved of Persons eating Pork...Is that New Light Nina???

Answer 3

May I ask why you are so concerned about Jehovah';s Witnesses. Do you realize that you are stating that they are wrong in what they believe and you are right. That is a judgement that I am sure you were taught, should not be done. If we would only concentrate on ourselves, being the best that we can be, and allow others to believe whatever.
There are many, many religions in this world, and if we worry about what each one is doing, against OUR beliefs, what time do you have to try and make yourself a better person.
The world will change for the better when we start with ourselves.

Answer 4

"New Light" usually clarifies- not reverses. For instance, Witnesses used to celebrate holidays but as they studied the Bible they came to understand that the holidays aren't in harmony with the Bible so they stopped.

Answer 5

New Light is a very bad explanation for failed prophecy. You can not claim to be God's only voice on earth and then be wrong.

Answer 6

More than a century ago, Jehovah's Witnesses recognized the bible truths that hell is not hot, that the soul is not immortal, that God has a personal name, that Jesus is not Jehovah, that most humans will be resurrected as humans, and that God's Messianic Kingdom will restore paradise to earth and end the suffering of humankind.
http://watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm?article=article_03.htm

Amazingly, those ideas remain tightly and uniquely identified with Jehovah's Witnesses. Some enlightening regarding details has emerged in 130 years, but it is a silly exaggeration to pretend that significant teachings (such as those mentioned above) have been "reversed".


Jehovah's Witnesses use literally dozens of different legal and corporate entities, many of which have names similar to "Watchtower Society" but none of which has "its teachings". Rather than to a corporation, beliefs and teachings are common to persons of the same religion, specifically to the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

When a questioner refuses to even use the actual and respectful name of a religion, it would seem to expose the questioner's lack of objectivity and lack of credibility.


It seems relevant to note that the critics of Jesus could have remarked that he advocated cannibalism, then retreated from that advocacy, then later advocated cannibalism again.

(John 6:51-56) I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” 52 Therefore the Jews began contending with one another, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Accordingly Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, YOU have no life in yourselves. 54 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me. . .

(Matthew 26:26-28) [Jesus] said: “Take, eat. This means my body.” Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you; for this means my ‘blood


Jehovah's Witnesses certainly do admit when their understanding is wrong, and they certainly do embrace the teaching that seems best supported by Scripture. Would the questioner recommend otherwise?

The term "light" is a rather common metaphor for "understanding" in many different languages, including English, Hebrew, and Greek. Despite what anti-Witnesses pretend, Jehovah's Witnesses do not have some fascination with the expression "new light", but merely use the term as most secular dictionaries define it (as a synonym for "new understanding").

Ironically, it is Christendom (rather than JWs) which attaches theological significance to the expression "new light", typically as a reference to heaven.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/new%20light


In any event, it seems rather obvious that ongoing bible research, as well as occasional advances in archeology and etymology, would result in refinements of one's understanding. That was true for Jesus' apostles and other early Christians, and it is true today.

In the first century CE, certain ideas took DECADES to resolve, even among men and women who walked with Christ Jesus. Even in the presence of Jesus, the idea of 'eating flesh and blood' stumbled some disciples (not outsiders, but disciples) who were unwilling to wait for the now-obvious answer (Jesus was simply speaking metaphorically).

After Jesus' impalement, sincere disciples were confused about whether Christianity should involve only Jews, or maybe only Jews and Samaritans, or maybe only these and circumcised Gentiles. There was confusion about using tongues within the congregation, about tolerating sin and "Jezebel", about when Jesus would "return", and about when Armageddon would arrive. Much of this confusion was quite public; even though the apostle Peter enjoyed tremendous privileges and direct communication from heaven, Peter seems to have been the source of an incorrect teaching "out among the brothers" that was perhaps not resolved until the apostle John wrote his Gospel more than 60 years later!

(John 6:61-68) Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this stumble you? ...he went on to say: “This is why I have said to you, No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” Owing to this many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with [Jesus].

(Acts 18:25-26) [Apollos] had been orally instructed in the way of Jehovah and, as he was aglow with the spirit, he went speaking and teaching with correctness the things about Jesus... When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him into their company and expounded the way of God more correctly to him.

(John 21:21-23) Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what will this man do [that is, the apostle John]?” 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.” In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that [the apostle John] would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?”


Does the bible support the idea that full knowledge would be instantly understood by everyone? No. Instead, the bible contains such reasonable ideas as these:

(1 Corinthians 13:12) For at present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known.

(Daniel 8:16,17;12:4,9) [The voice] proceeded to call out and say: “Gabriel, make that one there understand the thing seen.” ..And he proceeded to say to me: “Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.” ...“And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.” ...And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm?article=article_02.htm
http://jw-media.org/beliefs/beliefsfaq.htm