What is the observation. Does this mean witness be Srecko as an anonymous avatar? Or is witness not real to suggest automation and clone of John, James or JWinsider, because of the down vote support given, including you.

Proverbs 12:15-25 15 Fools think their own way is right, but the wise listen to others. 16 A fool is quick-tempered, but a wise person stays calm when insulted. 17 An honest witness tells the truth; a false witness tells lies. 18 Some people make cutting remarks, but the words of the wise bring healing. 19 Truthful words stand the test of time, but lies are soon exposed. 20 Deceit fills hearts that are plotting evil; joy fills hearts that are planning peace! 21 No harm comes to the godly, but the wicked have their fill of trouble. 22 The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in those who tell the truth. 23 The wise don’t make a show of their knowledge, but fools broadcast their foolishness. 24 Work hard and become a leader; be lazy and become a slave. 25 Worry weighs a person down; an encouraging word cheers a person up. How does one distinguish between the OT and Jesus understanding in Matt 5:11,12 (AMP) by not misapplying scripture. Or are you saying, you have never "spoken" ill of the Watchtower GB, think! Think! before, posting.

Interesting. How do you explain this, please.

Please analyze the word "truth". Especially truth from God and Christ. Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. 17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. James 1:16,17 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Mark 11:24 Do you believe the GB are asking for a good and perfect gift of truth from the Father? "What does the record show?", as they have said.

As Jesus said to his people that chose to follow HIM: “Blessed [morally courageous and spiritually alive with life-joy in God’s goodness] are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil things against you because of [your association with] Me. Be glad and exceedingly joyful, for your reward in heaven is great [absolutely inexhaustible]; for in this same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matt 5:11,12 (AMP)

Question: Is @Foreigner real person or someones clone just for purpose of down voting? :)))

I must warn you. Anyone, having a positive vote in my behalf is considered AllenSmith34 by all these yo-yos. Toms word not mine. It won’t be long before they accuse you of being Allen. As a matter of fact, foreigner and anyone else that supported AllenSmith before he was “deleted” by the likes of Anna, James, JWinsider, Tom and whoever else forced the owner (wink! Wink!), even though, these people themselves were just as insulting to him as they are with me, shows the greater bias among friends and colleagues (AKA-D'Avatars). The real bias force to defend and protect each other at all cost. Foreigner is therefore considered BTK. Tom likes to rebuke those that challenge opposers and apostates by their terms. He prefers to silence the truth to accept nonsense and falsehood to benefit his authorship. Have a good day! 🤗

Inside WTJWRG Institution one thing is of crucial importance. Who are those people who have authorization to govern, rule, lead this organization and people who are members/believers? Who are those people who represent JHVH and Jesus and their Will? In this WT article authors tried to explain history of this.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

Why this article is interesting (again) in connection to topic? Here is some quotes from pages of this article: CAN YOU EXPLAIN? In the first century and today, how have those taking the lead among God’s people been . . . empowered by holy spirit? assisted by angels? guided by God’s Word? .... Jesus had given his followers a commission: “You will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) How could they possibly complete that assignment? True, Jesus had assured them that they would soon receive holy spirit. (Acts 1:5) Still, an international preaching campaign required direction and organization. To direct and organize his people in ancient times, Jehovah used visible representatives. Famous paragraph 12: The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. As we can see from box in WT magazine under question Can you explain? author AVOID to use direct word "Inspired" and instead this explicit sort of spirit manifestation as it is commonly viewed while reading Bible (for example, to write holy scriptures, to tell something as prophecy or command from God, to heal the sick....etc) author put word - empowered by HS. And now author give factual example from 1 century: Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers. For example, in 49 C.E., holy spirit guided the governing body to make a decision regarding the issue of circumcision. Author highlights 2 things. First is ROLE of OVERSEEING. And second is about MAKING DECISIONS. In contrast or continuation to this 1 century example, author of article later emphasized this: In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45)...... Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! (Read 1 Corinthians 2:10.) Here we have just statements of author who firmly say that FDS aka GB been appointed by Jesus in 1919. But another thing is something what call on more alarm. As Evidence of holy spirit is, situation when this Body grasp something as Truth under holy spirit helping or empowering. In this explanation one thing is very questionable and somehow danger. In period from 1919 (we shall not talking about 1 century GB or about Angel Assistance today) this entity who "share" food under title: Bible Truth, with supposed help of holy spirit, in fact they had spread "Fake Truths", they later changed into "Real Truths". Some doctrines they produced in few steps as yes-no-yes ... truths. Here we comes to possible conclusion how reason for that errors, according to this article, was not in Human Representatives of Jesus here on Earth. No, reason and cause for that is in holy spirit who has "empowered" them in that confusing way and direction. Because other two elements in this equation (assisted by angels + guided by God’s Word) was not been sufficient and powerful enough to correct wrong direction made by empowering influence of holy spirit. :)))) Here we see how "blame" for errors and imperfect food can be found in the same reasons why food can be good and eatable too, after some period of time (in refrigerator :))), of course. The way how this article try to prove the credibility of GB for task of sharing the food, becomes nonsensical. But, pay attention to this: empowered = having the official authority or freedom to do something

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

having the knowledge, confidence, means, or ability to do things or make decisions for oneself

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

Here we see how this definition changed our view on issue and article. Why they used word EMPOWERED in connection to spiritual food? In fact, according to Dictionaries, WT magazine talk about Power of GB Over People. Here it is not ISSUE about Food Quality, Truth or Lie, Perfection or Imperfection. IT IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL.

I call those by name. I coward to no man. James, John, Srecko, and others like witness Here, it can be applied to the likes of James, JWinsider, Anna, Comfortmypeople, Shiwiii, and people like a self-appointed anointed (witness) that for the first time down voted a comment out of hate, and yet in that persons mental state, they are still anointed for calling someone's comment stupid, without realizing how stupid that self appointment is in the eyes of God. Therefore, it isn't as much of the truth, which there is basically known to be sought here, even though the majority like to pretend to be intelligent with their long-drawn misapplied Watchtower literature applications, as much as doing everything possible to undermine scripture to sway their personal argument to be the truth. This of course, is not childish, but apostasy. Now you will see I didn't include TOM here. TOM is here to get all this input to benefit his personal fiances. He doesn't care one way or another about, truth.

Remember what Born-again actually means, to be renewed in the spirit by taking off the old self (dead in spirit) and being born anew (born in spirit) with Christ understanding of scripture. To Born again, it means a guarantee to heaven by means of salvation (Born Again). That of course, is ludicrous. There is no such thing as a guarantee. If it were that simple, just being Christian would guarantee salvation, However, there are clear instructions in scripture to give everyone the ability to be saved, with personal actions, faith, and loyalty to God, his inspired words and Jesus, the one who gave us that chance to be saved. Born Again Christians take the phrase literally instead of a symbolic gesture of faith. They believe, they can sidestep the latter with no further action. They just praise Jesus for that misunderstood salvation. There is a difference with being saved from the original sin (ADAM) and our personal salvation. Jesus gave his life to correct one sin to pave the way for us to have the honor to live on earth in paradise. Keep in mind, that sinless state will be achieved within that 1000 year period, it won’t be sudden or automatic after judgment day. Unless you have a fierce debate with a leader of a Born Again congregation, a person that scoffs at and belittles the JW’s on principle more so than scripture, you probably won’t understand the true nature of Born Again ideology. The same position displayed here.

Truth isn't for everyone. Very true. Truth is not for the GB of JW Org that's for sure. If you study topics on here you will see, amongst the 'sarcasm and agendas', that there is a lot of serious conversation. Quote "People cannot act decent.' Are you blind to the Child Sexual Abuse within the JW Org / Watchtower ? Now then tell me, people cannot act decent. And that is inside the Org.

I am amazed at all the bitterness and sarcasm on this site. People cannot act decent. I think a lot of people have an "agenda", and that's, fine. But I do wish people the wisdom to see the childish agendas clearly. Truth isn't for everyone. So be it.

No feelings at all. Straight logic.

SO TRUE!

THAT ... passes the "smell test". It makes good common sense. Still, I would like the Society to expound and codify it. To protect the innocent from being caught in the Dragnet of a witch hunt for foggery and mopery, with smoke and mirrors. The G.B., and Elders almost always have the very best of motives, but not always. Also, motives, and competence are two entirely different things. Just WANTING to do what is right is not enough ... Ever read the book "The Peter Principle"? EVERYONE eventually can get promoted, based on merit to a level where they are no longer competent. A stellar Ministerial Servant becoming an Elder, can become a Beserker, through incompetence, with the very best of heart condition and motivation. Occasionally, you will find one as dumb as a stick, who understands NOTHING, not written in stone. ...that's why God used to write things in stone! The issue has been ignored for almost ten years now.

I don't think they "enjoy" doing wrong ... it's just that they have fallen into the trap that EVERY shamen, witch doctor, priest, or respected religious leader falls into when they start accumulating money, real estate, and camera time. That's what that job does to people. In the entire history of the human existence of directly created Man, in over six thousand years, and from sea to shining sea, there has only been ONE exception.

I get it. To be born again, you first have to dye. Of course, being born again is being born (one time) PLUS being born (a second time), or "BORN + BORN," not to be born SQUARED, which is "BORN x BORN." Then again, I think Jesus said the sons of darkness are better at math than the sons of light. Or something like that.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Thank you for that cartoon. At least you show me as human. And I do find it kinda funny that you tend to agree with a lot of my 'stuff' sort of I know I come across as immature that's because I am. But you put the same points in to more perspective. You make it real and can back it up more readily than i can. It's not about taking sides, it's about getting the truth out there. As a side note: I'm enjoying this forum much more since I've stopped reading the Kid's comments. Your point on the word Brazen is very important as it shows the Elders are given free reign to use any excuse to 'remove' people or put them on the 'watched list'. By your comments though James i can see that you agree that the GB / Watchtower / JW Org has a lot of cleaning out to do. They need to be washing the inside of that dish or bowl as Jesus said, not just polishing the outside. And in my opinion it takes people from inside and outside tp push for changes. To me it looks like 8 million people that are trying to do right, being Governed by 8 men and other hierarchy that enjoy doing wrong.

"Depends" is a brand name for nappies for the incontinent.

As an "aside," I also want to comment on the prominence of James, himself. For years I just assumed that the prominence of James was somewhat by accident, due to a rotation of the chairman of the Governing Body, and basing this idea on the article that introduced the modern Governing Body in 1971: *** w71 12/15 p. 759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation *** Apparently, the apostle Peter was the chairman of the governing body on the festival day of Pentecost of 33 C.E., and the disciple James, the half brother of Jesus Christ, was the chairman at a later date, according to the account in Acts of Apostles. From this, and from what historical evidence there is available, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated, just the same as the chairmanship of the presbytery or “body of elders” of each Christian congregation rotated among the coequal elders.—1 Tim. 4:14. What I hadn't realized at the time was that the term "what historical evidence there is available" was nothing at all, so that the rotation evidence sentence could have said "From this, and no other evidence at all, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated." And of course, the referenced scripture, 1 Tim 4:14, says nothing about a chairmanship of the "body of elders" rotating, either. (1 Timothy 4:14) 14 Do not neglect the gift in you that was given you through a prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you. So we should look again at when the prominence of James first shows up: It's true that he seems to have the last word in the Acts 15 scenario: (Acts 15:6-22) 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and. . . .13 After they finished speaking, James replied: . . . . It isn't definitive that he was head of a rotating chairmanship, but it's still true that Peter and James are mentioned here as speaking in leadership capacities. Also, earlier, when Peter gets out of prison his first statement is: (Acts 12:17) 17 But he motioned to them with his hand to be silent and told them in detail how Jehovah had brought him out of the prison, and he said: “Report these things to James and the brothers.” . . . And a statement Paul makes about the order of Jesus' appearances after his resurrected, and another statement that shows that persons were just as interested in James and his brothers as the 12 apostles, so that they were so often mentioned together. (1 Corinthians 15:5-7) .5 and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. (1 Corinthians 9:5) 5 We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ceʹphas, do we not? Years after Acts 15, Paul comes back to Jerusalem, and the first named person he meets with is James, and a group of elders, this time to discuss nearly the same issue relative to Jewish Christian believers, not Gentile Christian believers as had been discussed previously. (Acts 21:17-19) 17 When we got to Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. 18 But on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving a detailed account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry. So based on the evidence, it's probable that there never was a rotation system, and James continued to hold a very prominent, perhaps the most prominent leadership role in the Jerusalem congregation: the COBE, possibly from prior to Acts 12 all the way up to Acts 21 and beyond. Also, as the Bearing Witness books notes, neither Peter nor any of the other apostles are mentioned in Acts 21, so that it is ONLY James and the elders. The book assumes that the apostles might no longer be in Jerusalem. I don't know how this might affect the original "governing body" in Jerusalem theory.

I'm pretty sure that everything you said in this post was true. But with some caveats that I'd like to highlight. If we take Acts 15 as fully parallel to Galatians 2, as you and Outta Here have done, then I agree that we should not consider the apostles and older men of Jerusalem to be "Judaizers." In Acts, Peter and James are fully credited with doing things correctly, and all blame is placed on the sect of the Pharisees and believers like them. Evidently, in my opinion, this sect of the Pharisees, or similar Judeans pushing circumcision, were seen (by the Galatians at least) as getting their authority from men like Peter, James and John. Therefore Paul warns them, in my opinion, that even if it were Peter, James and John, or even an angel, that they should not submit. But Paul never says it wasn't them giving authority to the Judaizers. He never exonerates Peter, James and John. He even goes so far as never to actually call them "pillars" but couches their authority in language like "seemed to be pillars" and that it wouldn't matter who they were anyway, because they are just men, and Paul isn't trying to please men. Of course, in other places, and here, too, Paul also goes into a discussion of where his own authority comes from and why no one could say that any of Paul's authority came from Jerusalem. As in at least two other places, Paul sees fit in this context to compare his own authority, with that of the apostles in Jerusalem. It seems that if Paul were trying to exonerate Peter, James and John, (as Acts 15 does) then he would not be expected to add so many phrases that diminish their authority, and he would have no reason to highlight his independence from Jerusalem. He surely could have exonerated them by mentioning the decree that they had agreed to. If Paul had still considered this decree authoritative, it was the perfect answer to the Galatians who thought that James and Peter were on the side of circumcision, and the whole problem with the Galatians would be over. On another note, Paul doesn't even mention the "decree" in any of his letters. The closest he gets to discussing the decree is in 1 Corinthians 8, where he appears to contradict what it said about eating food sacrificed to idols. However, I now believe I was mistaken in trying to tie this Judaizing so directly to Peter and John. And @Outta Here has me thinking it might not apply to James either. Not that they ever were ACTIVE Judaizers, but I thought Paul was including Peter's example, because Peter had publicly sided with the Judaizers even though admittedly temporarily. This had put a stamp of authority on the Judaizers which allowed Paul's audience to believe that those apostles with authority over Paul actually had the last word on circumcision. Judaizers were spoken of as being smuggled in, rather than just coming of their own accord. And Paul said that these men were "from James" implying that James, another man of great reputation and authority among the apostles at Jerusalem, had given a stamp of authority to the Judaizers. I'm not yet convinced, as Outta Here seems to be, that saying that a group of Judaizers came from James, is really about the same as saying that a group of Judaizers came from Judea. If he had said, "from John" would that also just mean "from Judea"? I'm sure that Paul is at least saying that James knew their beliefs and that he had sent them, purposely, perhaps not to engage with Paul to subvert him, but to listen carefully to what he was saying to gentile converts about the Mosaic Law. James would therefore be admitting tacitly that he expected a potential problem would need to be resolved and the people he sent would have been most sensitive to what Paul was teaching. I also don't know if we can say that they worked things out so "amicably" but things did finally work out over time. I mention this for the same reason I mentioned a transition period that is indicated in Acts between chapters 15 and Acts 21. In fact, I think if we look closely at Acts, that it's easy to see that Luke's goal was to leave out a lot of detail when it detracted from the minimum that a Christian needed to know about the past. I'll get to that later, and the rest of this post will just be a background for later reference before talking about the way Luke/Acts selects details. I once tried to reconstruct the timeline of Acts from the chronology markers, to match it up with Galatians and others of Paul's letters, and this is much easier to do now with the Internet (and the Bearing Witness book), and so many online reference works available. It might seem like a waste of time, but it might give also us some insight into the types of things Luke includes in Acts and what he leaves out. That might not seem important now, but for me, it was a key part of my overall opinion (which could be partially or completely wrong, of course) along with a comparison between Acts, Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians. Here we can also compare Acts 21:20-26 to Acts 15: (Acts 21:20-26) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. . . . 26 Then Paul took the men the next day and cleansed himself ceremonially along with them, and he went into the temple to give notice of when the days for the ceremonial cleansing would be completed and the offering should be presented for each one of them. By this time, Paul had been teaching that Jewish persons need not follow the customary Jewish practices. And by this time, Paul had already been saying that if anyone gets circumcised, then they are under obligation to keep the entire Law. Undeserved kindness+faith was being contrasted with works of Law as the "path to salvation," but by the time Ephesians was written, undeserved kindness+faith was apparently being contrasted with good works of any kind as a path to salvation. Paul had already been teaching about circumcision and extending it to mean any type of putting oneself under law, just as trying to gain salvation by works had extended past works of Law to any good works. Ephesians 2:8-17. Note that these verses were written to uncircumcised believers, but with an obvious application to circumcised Jewish believers, too: (Colossians 2:13, 14) . . .He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake. (Galatians 5:2-6) . . .See! I, Paul, am telling you that if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Again I bear witness to every man who gets circumcised that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be declared righteous by means of law; you have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. 5 For our part, we are by spirit eagerly waiting for the hoped-for righteousness resulting from faith. 6 For in union with Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value, but faith operating through love is. (Romans 2:28, 29) . . .For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. That person’s praise comes from God, not from people. The bt book mentions these same scriptures and notes that this case in Acts 21 depicts Paul becoming a Jew to those who are Jews to hopefully win them over. (1 Corinthians 9:20) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. So far none of this is a problem to understanding it the way you (Anna) have presented it.

I liked Thayer's glossary definitions included in the post linked below. But to avoid diverting people off to another topic, I'll just repost that definition: But it's not a terrible translation, as it really was used in Greek with reference to "brazen hussies." (shameless hussies, and wanton hussies - and brazen hustlers, too, for that matter.) Literally, it meant people who were not so moral as those good folks up in the town of Selge, Pisidia, Asia Minor. It's much better than the old translation in the NWT (loose conduct) which was actually a mistranslation because it implied lesser moral infractions of a more general variety. Note Thayer's: ἀσέλγεια, -ας, ἡ, the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής (a word which some suppose to be compounded of the α privative and Σέλγη, the name of a city in Pisidia whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals [so Etym. Magn. 152, 38; per contra cf. Suidas 603 d.]: others of α intensive and σαλαγεῖν, to disturb, raise a din; others, and now the majority, of α privative and σέλγω equivalent to θέλγω, not affecting pleasantly, exciting disgust), unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence:Mark 7:22 (where it is uncertain what particular vice is spoken of); of gluttony and venery, Jude 1:4; plural, 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2 (for Rec. ἀπωλείαις), 2 Peter 2:18; of carnality, lasciviousness: 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 2 Peter 2:7; plural "wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc." (Fritzsche), Romans 13:13. (In Biblical Greek besides only in Wis. 14:26 and 3 Macc. 2:26. Among Greek writings used by Plato, Isocrates and following; at length by Plutarch [Lucull. 38] and Lucian [dial. meretr. 6] of the wantonness of women [Lob. ad Phryn., p. 184 n.].) Cf. Tittmann i., p. 151f; [especially Trench, § xvi.].

Quoted in my post? The incontinence is more about uncontrolled immoral behaviour than an actual bodily function, hence the translation earlier as "loose conduct". There is enough information on the use of the word in ancient times to arrive at a pretty good understanding of what it means. Incidentally, the literal act of urinating in public could well be accompanied by the attitude the word describes, and would then be construed as "aselgeia".

Africa Inland Mission tie, eh? Perhaps that is what the scripture meant when the Greek word for "brazen" which literally means "in-continent" (per Outta Here) was used. Either peeing without self control, or being inside a continent, such as Inland Africa. .... Depends!

Just as the word "Gay" means something COMPLETELY different than when you and I were growing up ... perhaps the word back then meant something like urinating in public, or dressing in such a way that was immodest if one was incontinent. With our track record of being right about such things, it may have originally meant anything at all EXCEPT what the Society officially tells us is the case.