God's Kingdom Rules

[Evacuated]

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

still a legitimate question about whether we can claim that any kind of bright, shining, surprising, unannounced Parousia event actually shined like a great, worldwide, highly visible lightning flash in 1914.

It is a legitimate question and for me the answer is unmistakably.....Yes!

I am quite happy with the understanding that the lightning flash picture in Matt.24:27 illustrates the way in which the presence of the true Messiah would be perceived by the chosen ones. This contrasts the furtive, secretive nature of the presence of false Messiahs as pictured in the words at Matt.24:26. No need for "chosen ones" to follow adherents off to secret locations to see a false Messiah when the real one one's presence can be "seen" anywhere in the sense that lightning lights up a vast geographic area. That is the sense I get from Luke 17:24 as well, although this is not a parallel passage. (By the way, you are probably misquoting the references for this passage).

As for Luke 17:22, this is in the context of Pharisaical expectations regarding coming of the the Kingdom which were not fulfilled in Jesus earthly presence at that time, although, as the Messiah, his presence and all attached meant that "the Kingdom of God is [was] in their midst" (Luke 17:20-21). Luke 17 22-24 has Jesus thus reassuring his disciples who, later, may well wish for his return, but will have to wait until God's appointed time. Counsel similar to that provided later at Matt. 24:23-28 follows which, although briefer, has similar meaning.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Matthew appears to be not as consistent because he says, that the Parousia is like the days of Noah and later that it is like the day the Flood came:

I cannot understand why you dissect Matt.24:38-39 other than to support your idea quoted above:

38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.

It reads far more sensibly to me emphasised in bold as:

38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.

The presence of the Son of Man is thus seen to be comparable to the days before the flood+ the day Noah entered into the ark + the rest of that 7 day period culminating in the day of the flood itself and this agrees with Luke 17:26-27 which speaks of the days of Noah. I don't believe there is any significance in the actual duration of the days of Noah other than to recognise they comprise a period of years culminating in an excecution of judgement and thus provide the basis for believing the PAROUSIA  has similar characteristics.

To be honest, I do not have the time to argue this point any longer. I was looking forward to this, but after starting on the post and proceeding as far as I have, I find the argument too disappointing to continue unravelling it's detail.

Now the crux here appears to be the timing of this parousia and it's visibility "as the lightning".

a) Did the parousia commence in 1914 and is it still continuing, to culminate in the judgement, or b) is it the judgement period itself, and as such, yet to come? 

I think it is safe to say @Eoin Joyce goes for a) and @JW Insider appears to go for b).

It also appears you know enough of the reasons for why I plump for option a), so there is no reason for me to re-hash or re-state those here. I have said plenty so far in this thread alone.

And on the basis of what I have so far considered regarding option b)?

In the famous words of Peter Jones CBE, "I'm out! 

 

[Anna]

14 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Along with JW Insider, I can also confirm that he has remained a Christian believer. And yes, he wasn't upset because he "wasn't being heard as he would have liked to have been heard," but because he had found out what the Society had been teaching was demonstrably false, because he kept getting the brush-off from HQ, and because there was an underhanded campaign to vilify him in his JW community. ...

... You know, the usual way big organizations treat dissenters and whistleblowers. 

Yes, you are correct, he claims he is a "Christian". I read so much stuff I am not sure who said what anymore. I am glad I said "I was under the impression" I knew I had no time to verify it when I was writing that post....

[JW Insider]

21 hours ago, ThePraeceptor said:

so I don't like much where this assumption/reasoning is going...

On 10/13/2016 at 11:14 PM, JW Insider said:

It is the more likely definition of the term parousia (parade-like spectacle of a royal visitation) that is the primary reason for it

No it is not! You just want it to be so as to fit your alternate interpretation (which, admittedly, is very interesting).

παρουσία (parousi'a) is the noun of the verb πάρειμι (pa'rimi) which is a composite word from παρά (preposition with various meanings, in this case the meaning is "beside") and εἰμί (verb, I am) and so we have a literal meaning of "being beside, being with" or as it is commonly translated "being present". Therefore the noun would be "presence". Although it is true that the word has been used by ancient authors to describe a royal or official visitation there is no reason at all to presume that this was the intended meaning in the Bible. From the previous link to Liddell-Scott you can also follow the citations and you will see that there is no mention or even hint in the ancient texts of a "parade-like spectacle". The citations of Euripides and Sophocles are translated in English so you can read them and see that they are refering to a simple visit. Please bare also in mind that in Greek there is no other word for "presence". So, in my view, to use your definition of "royal visitation" to support the "visibility" or incontestability of Christ's presence is simply not accurate.

I don't want it to be the more likely definition. It causes embarrassing problems for us that are difficult to explain or avoid. But it certainly is the more likely definition when the term in the noun form, "parousia," is used of a king or royal personage. Of course, the more common use of the term, when speaking of non-dignitaries, would simply be "presence."

You said: "Please bare also in mind that in Greek there is no other word for 'presence'."

This implies that it would be difficult to say things like, "they were in the presence of Jesus" without using the term "parousia" and therefore the term could just as easily (or more easily) refer to the common definition of "presence." So how would we be able to know if the form, "the parousia of Jesus," or "the parousia of [dignitary]" was referring to a common presence or a "royal visitation" event?  Wouldn't it always be ambiguous? But there is actually plenty of evidence that the form "THE PAROUSIA OF . . . " would more likely define a royal visitation event, when used of a royal personage. And for us, the most important of that evidence is in the Bible itself.

First of all there are many other ways to indicate "presence" without using the word "parousia" in Greek. In fact, the verb form is an obvious way to avoid ambiguity. Of course, context provides the best clues. We can always look and see if the term "parousia" is ever used in the Bible of a royal personage, person of high or powerful rank, dignitary, etc and check whether the context provides any clues about a "spectacular" event or not. You probably already know what the answer would be from context, and I don't think these are just coincidences, because they almost always lead to the conclusion that a "spectacular event" is implied in the context.

A similar term in the Greco-Roman world that had both a common and a royal definition was "triumph" which evidently started out in this case as a term for a special kind of parade, but which also was used in a more mundane way to refer to any kind of success or acheivement. There are inscriptions and depictions of various "triumph" parades from contemporary stone images and writings:

The word triumph comes to us from Latin, but its usual meaning in that language is not the one we commonly give to it in English. To the ancient Romans, a triumphus was a parade celebrating a great military victory. The victorious general would ride a chariot through the streets of Rome to the steps of the Senate, a slave standing beside him holding a crown of laurels over his head. The general’s army would follow, leading the defeated enemy commander, captured slaves, and great wagons of spoils from the victory. The day was a holiday and the entire city would turn out to cheer, to feast, and to drink. Roman poets also used the word triumphus to refer to the victory itself, as did later prose writers in Imperial Rome. But this second sense was relatively rare in Latin, and the word usually referred only to the processional and accompanying celebrations.  (from wordorigins.org)

Clearly, if there were any ambiguity about whether a royal triumph or a common triumph were meant, the context would take care of it, or another term for success could distinguish the mundane meaning.

Another answer to the claim that there is no other word for "presence" is that the idea of "presence" is already implied in the context of many verbs and phrases so that the term is not usually necessary at all in the Greek. Look at some pairs of verses below to see what I mean:

• (Matthew 3:13) Then Jesus came from Galʹi·lee to the Jordan to John, in order to be baptized by him.
• (Matthew 3:13) Then Jesus came from Galʹi·lee to the Jordan [until his presence before] John, in order to be [present to be] baptized by him.
• (Matthew 8:18, 19) . . .When Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave the command to depart for the other side. 19 And a scribe came up and said to him: . . . 
• (Matthew 8:18, 19) . . .When Jesus [found himself in the presence of a] crowd around him, he gave the command to depart [so that they would then be present on] other side. 19 And a scribe came up [so that he was in the presence of Jesus] and said to him: . . .
• (Matthew 26:69) . . .“You too were with Jesus the Gal·i·leʹan!”
• (Matthew 26:69) . . .“You too were [known to be in the presence of] Jesus the Gal·i·leʹan!”
• (Matthew 18:20) 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”
• (Matthew 18:20) 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am [present] in their midst.”

So it shouldn't be surprising that the term parousia is rarely used of anyone in the Bible. But this makes it all the more curious that only one gospel writer ever uses it, and the one that does, of course, is Matthew who uses it only 4 times. Every one of the times Mathew uses the term, it is about the Parousia of Jesus, never anyone else. One of the four times, it's the disciples asking Jesus about the Parousia after Jesus has just described a spectacular judgment event. The other three times, it was in Jesus' answer where Jesus speaks of it as "The Parousia of the Son of Man." Jesus always describes it in the context of a spectacular judgment event.

You also said: "Although it is true that the word has been used by ancient authors to describe a royal or official visitation there is no reason at all to presume that this was the intended meaning in the Bible."

There are very good reasons to presume this was the intended meaning. Matthew, the only gospel writer who uses the term "parousia," actually describes Jesus' entry into Jerusalem in the same terms that would remind Greek readers of a parade-like "parousia."

(Matthew 21:4-9) 4 This actually took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet, who said: 5 “Tell the daughter of Zion: ‘Look! Your king is coming to you, mild-tempered and mounted on a donkey, yes, on a colt, the offspring of a beast of burden.’” 6 So the disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and its colt, and they put their outer garments on them, and he sat on them. 8 Most of the crowd spread their outer garments on the road, while others were cutting down branches from the trees and spreading them on the road. 9 Moreover, the crowds going ahead of him and those following him kept shouting: “Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!”

The royal parousia event in the Greco-Roman Hellenistic world was known to be a bit more flamboyant. Discussions of such events have spoken of crowds coming out to see and cheer, the fixing of the roads so that the "king" (emperor, dignitary, etc) had a smooth path, and it could be accompanied by trumpets and fanfare from an entourage of persons dressed in white robes, and could even include a public event where the dignitary could sit in judgment to showcase his power.

The "entourage" associated with the term Parousia may even be the reason for including the mention of  the trumpet sound and the angels when describing the spectacular judgment event.

(Matthew 24:30, 31) . . .Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

(Matthew 25:31, 32) 31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, . . .

You also said: "From the previous link to Liddell-Scott you can also follow the citations and you will see that there is no mention or even hint in the ancient texts of a "parade-like spectacle". The citations of Euripides and Sophocles are translated in English so you can read them and see that they are refering to a simple visit."

Several of the Liddell-Scott definitions are related to something more than a simple visit, including the "royal visitation":

2. arrival, ἡμῶν κοινόπουν π. S.El.1104, cf. E.Alc.209, Th.1.128 ; “εἰς Ἰταλίαν” D.H.1.45 ; esp. visit of a royal or official personage, βασιλέως, etc., PTeb.48.14 (ii B. C.), IPE12.32A85 (Olbia, iii B.C.), etc.; of a god, IG42(1).122.34(Epid.).

3. occasion, v.l. in S. El.1251.

4. π. τισὶ ποιεῖσθαι entertain them on their official visits, OGI139.9 (Philae, ii B.C.).

5. in NT, the Advent, Ev.Matt.24.27, al.

The citations from Euripides and Sophocles use language from upwards of 500 years earlier. The special use of the term Parousia may not even have generally developed at that point. Even if it already had, remember that the term only carries the special meaning when the context is about the official parousia of a royal or official personage, or of a god. The term should be translated as merely presence or arrival in these other cases. Notice from the Liddell-Scott entries that the special use begins to show up more from later authors, per their references.

Better sources for the meaning would be contemporary sources to the Greek Scriptures.

Therefore, a better set of resources to start with might be the ones referenced in this book which has a preview on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=fj1R9Z4uIzAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

I might type out some of it, or at least I'll snap a screenshot of parts of page 150 and 151, another quote comes from page 158:

A further source of background material that has bearing on our study is found when one explores the meaning and use of the term parousia before and during the New Testament period. The word means "presence" or "arrival." From the Ptolemaic period to the second century A.D. there is clear evidence that the term was used for the arrival of a ruler, king or emperor. The Latin equivalent was adventus. For instance, a third-century B.C. papyrus refers to a crown of gold to be presented to a king at his parousia.⁶ Or again a parousia of King Ptolemy the Second (circa 113 B.C.), who called himself soter, is expected and it is said "the provision of 80 artabae ... was imposed for the tou Basileos parousian...."⁷Such examples from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods could be multiplied. For example, in memory of the visit of Nero to Corinth, special adventus/parousia coins were cast that read Adventus aug[usti] Cor[inthi].⁸ These coins were cast during the general period when Paul was writing to Corinth (1 Cor 15:23).

Equally interesting is the evidence G. D. Kilpatrick has collected showing that "parousia" often was the Hellenistic term for a theophany.⁹ For instance, in the Greek form of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, at Testament of Judah 22:3(2) and Testament of Levi 8:15(11), we find it used to refer to the final coming of God. Josephus uses the term parousia for the divine appearances in the Old Testament theophanies (Ant. 3.80, 202-3; 9.55; compare 18.284). Of perhaps equal importance is another sort of "sacral" use of the term, found in an inscription from the Asclepion at Epidaurus, which reads tan tep[a]rousian tan auto [p]arenephanize ho Asklapio-"and Asclepius manifested his parousia"¹⁰ (compare 2 Thess 2:8). It is important to realize that one should not make too sharp a distinction between the sacred and the profane use of parousia, not least because by Paul's time the emperor was already being given divine status of a sort. E. Best puts it this way:

These two usages are not so far apart as might seem for court and sacral language are closely linked. It is difficult to believe that those who used the term in the Hellenistic world were unaware of this significance.... The word then was chosen to express the concept in Greek because it carried the nuance of movement and probably, ... because it carried from Hellenistic culture the idea of a ceremonial visit of a ruler to his people which would be for them a joyful occasion.

(p. 158)

It is probable that Paul is drawing on the secular parousia imagery, for when a king went to visit a city his herald would go before him to the city walls to announce with trumpet blast and audible words the coming of the king. It might even include the "cry of command" to open up the city gates so as to let the visiting monarch in (compare the use of this tradition in the entrance liturgy in Ps 24:7-10).

This suggestion becomes more than a conjecture when we point out that in I Thessalonians 4:17 Paul refers to the apantesin. Cicero, in the course of his description of Julius Caesar's tour through Italy in 49 B.C., says, "Just imagine what apanteseis he is receiving from the towns, what honors are paid to him" (Ad. Att. 8.16.2; compare 16.11.6 of Octavian). This word refers to the action of the greeting committee that goes out to meet the king or dignitary at his parousia who is paying an official visit to the town, and escort him back into the town on the final part of his journey. "These analogies (especially in association with the term parousia) suggest the possibility that the Lord is pictured here as escorted the remainder of his journey to earth by his people both those newly raised from the dead and those who have remained alive." Thessalonica, a Hellenistic town founded by the Macedonian king Cassander, was a free city within the Roman Empire from 42 B.C. The recipients of l Thessalonians would surely have been familiar with what Paul was implying by the use of the secular Hellenistic language of a parousia.

---- end of quote ----

I highlighted (bolded) the portion about giving a crown to the king at a parousia event because of what Paul says:

(1 Thessalonians 2:19, 20) For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation before our Lord Jesus at his presence? Is it not in fact you? You certainly are our glory and joy.

One of those references was from the "Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs" -- Testament of Judah 22:1-3.

1. And the Lord shall bring upon them divisions one against another. And there shall be continually wars in Israel;
2. And among men of another race shall my kingdom be brought to an end, Until the salvation of Israel shall come, Until the PAROUSIA of the God of righteousness, That Jacob and all the Gentiles may rest in peace.
3. And He shall guard the might of my kingdom for ever; For the Lord sware to me with an oath that He would not destroy the kingdom from my seed for ever.

[Anna]

On 10/14/2016 at 0:17 AM, JW Insider said:

If this sounds like letting off steam, I apologize. It's sometimes difficult to state a case against something that might be "strongly entrenched" without trying to cover a lot of details.

If it is men we are trying to please then the most prudent thing we can do is keep our mouth shut and wait. This is an interesting problem. I had started responding to a post @Eoin Joyce where I think he disagreed that it could be a sign of love to speak up against an official doctrine, because people could be stumbled or misuse our words.  Of course, I don't think that questioning doctrines is related to stumbling, because "questioning" is exactly what we are trained to do. Most of our publications teach us to answer questions about doctrines, and our primary training is for the purpose of responding to questions about doctrine. And I would agree that a format like this is conducive to any kind of doctrinal questioning, because my questions are not so different from questions I have heard asked by respectable persons at Bethel, and apostates alike. We don't interact directly with apostates, but that is no reason to avoid the same questions they have asked. Jesus answered the challenges of the greatest apostate of all.

On the question of whether it is a sign of love, we could ask if it can ever be a sign of love to be vocal about disagreements we have with the doctrines of Christendom, such as Trinity and Hell-fire? Perhaps it's not love in every context. We wouldn't want to stand out in front of churches to condemn their false doctrines, because this is probably a form of hate speech. But I think it would be proper in a context where people seek out a specific topic online where questions are brought up about those issue for discussion.

I sometimes wonder what a Christian Bible Student in Rutherford's day should have done if they began to realize that the Pyramid studies were false, and even to some extent "dishonest." Russell never stopped believing in the Pyramids for his entire life, and Rutherford spent most of his Watchtower career believing and defending these teachings, too, until he finally began to identify them as 'teachings of demons.' Would it have been right to speak up? Obviously not in every context, but there were Bible Students discussing this issue long before Rutherford made up his mind. My great grandmother and great grandfather had an argument over this very issue when they were "Chicago Bible Students" before becoming Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course, the question assumes that the question comes from the correct side of the equation. What if we are questioning something that turns out to be true, and we are trying to defend something that turns out to be false? Yet, this is exactly what the Beroeans were doing that made them more noble-minded than the Thessalonians. They were questioning what was already true. Paul later told those Thessalonians to "Make sure of all things." If we are questioning a doctrine and we receive evidence that we are questioning something that is true, then evidence will speak for itself (unless we are stubborn and haughty). But if we receive no evidence, or untrue claims instead of evidence, we will likely continue questioning. If a person receives evidence that the questions are "out of place" and persists in such questions, I think this is what causes divisions. The questioner is probably out of line and may even need discipline but this does not automatically result in "stumbling" of others, either. After all, a good question will usually result in a good answer, whether about a belief, a practice, a tradition, etc.: 

(1 Corinthians 11:17-19) . . .. 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

By the way, I never heard that the Swedish brother became an atheist. His website is still very pro-Christianity, and pro-Bible. (Although I disagree with several ideas on his site.) Also, he never published anything until after he was disfellowshipped. I might have any recent changes in his story wrong, but I had the impression he waited patiently while he assumed his manuscript was going to be responded to. When I was at Bethel no one wanted to touch it and it mostly stayed on a shelf for a couple of years. (Allen was right, by the way, the first edition of his book was not that much different from the last manuscript that Bethel had while he was still a JW.) No one wanted the assignment to respond to it. Most of the time the only concern was what to do about him in case he decided to start spreading his research around. The brother I did research for at Bethel (B.S.) wanted him disfellowshipped right away just in case. The year I traveled to Europe with this brother, B.S., (1978) he went to see about doing that very thing.  I do agree that it is very  sad, but I had the impression he would still be a Witness if he hadn't questioned, he wasn't dismissed for publishing a book, because he hadn't done that yet.

Many ex-JWs do become atheists, though, from what I have heard. That's sadder. I think it makes it much harder to come back. I was told about an ex-ex-JW who attended a small church for a while and realized it was not what he figured it would be and he came back.

I don't know if you are letting off steam, but it sounds like you are happy to be able to talk about it here

Sorry, this is going to be a long post, might even beat some of yours, hahaha.

We both know we should not be men pleasers.  I don’t think it’s prudent to keep our mouth shut if we believe that talking would be beneficial.  What is wise though is establishing when it is beneficial to talk and when not. The whole organization is dependent on the support and cooperation of its members, otherwise without them, the GB would not be able to do anything but sit in their offices and twiddle their thumbs, and Jehovah would have to employ the stones to cry out.  Evidently Jehovah has not chosen to employ stones but humans. We have to keep in mind that the sole purpose of the organization is to be organized to preach the Good News of the KINGDOM which includes educating people about what the Bible really teaches; the fundamental truths I mean. I think we both agree on the fundamental truths.  I also agree it is difficult to just “forget” about certain aspect of our doctrine when there has been evidence in the past that “we were wrong”. The problem is I am very limited in what I can discuss because in order to be able to do that, I would have to read all the pertinent material.  I do not have time to do that, which means I am taking your word for it (and others). What I can do is focus primarily on what I know from practical experience. Practical experience has shown me that we are the best Religion out there.  Nothing compares with us, despite what some post as evidence against that idea. There is no evangelical group quite like us. There is no church which keeps itself morally and spiritually clean like we do. As far as I am aware there is no other church that is entirely run on voluntary donations. And there is no church that is like a united world wide family in the same way that we are. And because there is no Church like us, other churches and their members have decided that the easiest way to explain away their evident failing in those aspects is to proclaim that the “church of Christ/God” is no organization, but it is alive in each individual who professes Jesus.

Here is an interesting excerpt from a “Christian” website which explains this reasoning under the heading: QUESTION: How does the first century church compare to the church today?

"In his letters to the first century church, the Apostle Paul commended each for excelling in the graces of God. Specifically, these first century churches were known for their faith, love, zeal, giving, knowledge, and intolerance for sin, as well as false doctrines. The first century church was united in spirit.

Today's world is characterized by the last days events foretold by the Lord Jesus Christ in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Matthew's Gospel. Specifically, we are hearing of the "wars and rumors of wars," earthquakes, famines, and pestilences of which our Lord warned. It was foretold of the church in these last days, that (among many other things):

• The "love of many" would "grow cold."
• Many in the church would be "lovers of self" rather than lovers of God.
• Many in the faith would be "offended."
• The church would "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof."
• Last day Christians would have "itching" ears, would not "endure sound doctrine" and would have "many teachers."

In other words, the end times church (the organization) will include those who profess belief in Christ but who are, in fact, children of disobedience. The Lord Jesus Christ foretold of this reality in His parable of the "wheat and the tares."
Certainly, the early church had its problems, just as the church today. However, the early church was more diligent to identify and eradicate false doctrines than today's multi-denominational church. It was easier for the early church to discipline, or rid itself of those engaged in immoral activity. This could be because the early church was not as fragmented, or divided as the church of today.

It is important to remember that, regardless of the times in which we live, every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit of God. Every true believer is God's "building." While unity of the spirit in the local church is to be desired, Christ's Church (the organism) is not a visible building. There is an unseen church, comprised of Christ's followers, who remain true to the teachings of Christ and to the leading of His Holy Spirit. The unseen or invisible church excels in the graces of God, just as the early church did, despite the physical location of its members.

Christ's Church is not a building with programs. Christ's church is comprised of those who have a vibrant relationship with our risen Lord and Savior. Though the world may not be witness to the miraculous signs and wonders, or other manifestations of the power of God that were apparent in the early church, Christ's church remains alive and well”.

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/first-century-church-faq.htm

 

 

 

Well, well…… WHAT A COP OUT! You can’t keep your church together like the first century Christians did and like Jehovah’s Witnesses do, so you resort to palming it off on to individuals! Very clever since it lets everyone off the hook.  Incidentally this is what Jonsson has come to believe also, and it seems @Ann O'Maly and @HollyW too.

On another website: How Did the Early Church Differ From The Church Today?

“….One of the major differences between the church of today and the beginning of the church was that the early church was much more evangelistic.

Maybe evangelism was taken more seriously because the Great Commission given by Jesus was still fresh in the minds of the apostles as Jesus commanded, “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth”

The early church did not tolerate open and unrepentant sinning as some churches do today.  Many churches today accept unrepentant homosexuals and even ordained, openly homosexual pastors and members.  This would have been inconceivable in the early church.  The early church also met and broke bread (ate) together more frequently than the churches today.  It seems that many churches have lost that “first love” that the early church had and like new Christians have today.  Sadly, that first love, that zeal for God, and that evangelistic fever has faded somewhat today, but it is still not too late for revival in the world.

http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/how-did-the-early-church-differ-from-the-church-today/

And another one:

“…….The first Christians saw themselves as brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers to everyone who was part of the Christian community.
 MONEY- Many churches today spend most of their revenue on salaries, building mortgages and other material supplements to ministry. Look at any church budget and you’ll probably find 1 or 2 percent of church funds allocated to benevolence—helping poor people in need. Maybe another 5 percent, or 10 percent at best, is given to needs outside the church that on some level help the poor.

But such distribution of funds runs counter opposite to how the early church spent its money. The New Testament talks a lot about giving money, but rarely—if ever—talks about giving toward salaries, and it never mentions giving money toward a building. (For what it’s worth, it also never mentions giving 10 percent, which is still a staple value in modern churches.)

MILITARY - Another modern value that was unknown to the early church is militarism. Militarism refers to the “belief or desire that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.” There’s no doubt about it—militarism profoundly shapes American values.

But it also shapes American Christian values. Military historian Andrew Bacevich has unearthed the roots of American militarism and has discovered that the man behind the curtain has been none other than the evangelical church. After much research, Bacevich concludes: “Were it not for the support offered by several tens of millions of evangelicals, militarism in this deeply and genuinely religious country becomes inconceivable.”

But the early church was unmistakably not militaristic. Early Christians were never fascinated with the power of the Roman military; rather, they clung to the rhythm of the cross, where evil is conquered not by swords and spears but by suffering and love. In fact, the most quoted verse among early Christians was Jesus’s command that we should love our enemies…. to aggressively defend or promote national interests—we flee from our early church roots, whose allegiance to God’s Kingdom demoted their allegiance to Rome’s kingdom.
 

Bible Study-The early church also valued the corporate study of the Bible. You may think the modern church has this one down. Most Christians own several Bibles, and church programs often contain a wide array of Bible studies and spiritual classes.
Be that as it may, Christians today exhibit an unprecedented biblical illiteracy despite owning dozens of Bibles. According to one statistic, 60 percent of confessing born-again Christians can’t name five of the 10 commandments, 81 percent don’t believe (or aren’t aware of) the basic tenets of the Christian faith, and 12 percent think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife……
 The early church took seriously Jesus’s statement that people can’t live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the Lord’s mouth (Matthew 4:4). And when Jesus told His disciples to teach others “all that I command you,” they did it (Matthew 28:20).
 I fear that our desire to get back to the early church would require a rather extensive overhaul of the shape of contemporary gatherings”.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/4-ways-modern-church-looks-nothing-early-church

Why have I bothered to quote all this (as it may be off topic). Because despite our various failings in Chronology etc. We, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, can proudly say we are doing our best, AND succeeding, in being like the first Century church. The church that Christ himself established. How much closer can one get to the genuine source than that?

And all this, I believe, could not be achieved without God’s blessing, despite the mistakes we have made.....

 

That's my simple two cent contribution in the midst of all this deep Chronology discussion

 

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Anna said:

Sorry, this is going to be a long post

Sorry. I don't read long posts.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

I don’t think it’s prudent to keep our mouth shut if we believe that talking would be beneficial.  What is wise though is establishing when it is beneficial to talk and when not.

Good advice. Paul spoke on this subject to the Corinthians.

(1 Corinthians 14:26-40) 26 What is to be done, then, brothers? When you come together, one has a psalm, another has a teaching, another has a revelation, another has a tongue, and another has an interpretation. Let all things take place for building up. 27 And if someone speaks in a tongue, let it be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns, and someone must interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the congregation and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning. 30 But if another one receives a revelation while sitting there, let the first speaker keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one at a time, so that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And gifts of the spirit of the prophets are to be controlled by the prophets. 33 For God is a God not of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak. Rather, let them be in subjection, as the Law also says. 35 If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation. 36 Was it from you that the word of God originated, or did it reach only as far as you? 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or is gifted with the spirit, he must acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone disregards this, he will be disregarded. 39 So, my brothers, keep striving to prophesy, and yet do not forbid the speaking in tongues. 40 But let all things take place decently and by arrangement.

It's an interesting glimpse into what some of the first century meetings must have looked like. I agree that the time for speaking up with "tongues" and "prophecy" and "revelation" has likely come and gone. (Notwithstanding the claims of Judge Rutherford.) But if these gifts laid the foundation for the growth of the early congregation and the acceptance of what we now have as the Christian Greek Scriptures, then all is not lost of these either.

Still, we have the idea of someone who may have a teaching. Obviously, even the tongues, prophesying and revelations were for the purpose of teaching and encouraging "so that all may learn and be encouraged." What is intriguing is the idea of speaking up. Speaking up must have been for the purpose of questioning. Why women couldn't speak up to ask their questions, I don't know. I suspect it was due to the culture shock of allowing women and men to sit together in public, and the danger of therefore limiting the growth of the early congregation ... "so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively."

(Titus 2:4, 5) . . .that they may recall the young women to their senses to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sound in mind, chaste, workers at home, good, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively.

(1 Timothy 2:11-15) 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but she is to remain silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor. 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, . . .

Answering a question is the same as teaching in Paul's mind, which is why Paul would probably not even allow a sister to raise her hand and answer a prescribed question at a Congregation Bible Study or Watchtower Study, either. Even asking a question was showing a lack of subjection for them. Yet, a brother could do so. So clearly, we don't do everything the way Paul envisioned it in the first century. But it seems that Paul wanted a meeting in which people came to learn and be encouraged, and he appears to suggest two or three topics, one at a time that could come up, not from some central authority, but from members of the congregation who would offer a teaching (through questions, explanations, prophecy, tongues, interpretation, psalms), and then there would be time for more questions and learning. This may sound a bit like what we do now, but you rarely hear anyone, even brothers, speak up to ask their own questions.

Also, more to the topic, there are a lot of people who think that questioning means we are not speaking in agreement. This is not true at all. If there are questions about a topic and someone feels they should be dogmatic about a certain interpretation, then that is what creates the conflict, because it becomes impossible to overturn a dogmatic belief - a "strongly entrenched thing" - without a certain level of dogmatism in the response to it in order to show that there are reasons to question it. Dozens of different interpretations can exist simultaneously without the least bit of conflict if we are all willing to question as the Bible encourages us to do. The different interpretations are merely accepted as different ways that different persons have interpreted it.

This would even work with very odd and controversial doctrines, such as the Great Pyramid and the predictions for 1925, for example. Various brothers should have merely admitted that it was true that some brothers were interpreting the Great Pyramid as Jehovah's witness or the Bible in stone. It would also be admitted as TRUE that some brothers did not believe this was right. We could AGREE on that. That is already the consensus. Some brothers might get more dogmatic about it and sort of "beat their fellow slaves" into believing it, but in an environment where we are supposed to ask questions, then we are still in agreement that this is something where questions have come up. We AGREE that there is a doctrine about a Pyramid being suggested, and even that some brothers are being dogmatic about it. (It was the dogmatism by which people were told they must believe whatever Russell had believed about Pyramids that resulted in the counter-dogmatism that the Pyramid doctrine was from "Satan."

It seems to be in this sense that "divisions" (to some extent) are helpful, because when people are willing to question without dogmatism, they help to reveal what is approved and what is not. When people get too dogmatic and speak out against questioning, this also becomes an indicator of what is approved. There was a brother in Writing when I was at Bethel who often joked: "Argument weak? Shout like hell!" (Eccl 9:17)

(1 Corinthians 11:18-19) 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

And of course, there would be other doctrines, where consensus would be so obvious, no one could question it.

(Hebrews 5:11-6:3) 11 We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God indeed permits.

 

 

 

[HollyW]

On 10/14/2016 at 8:01 PM, Anna said:

Yes, you are correct, he claims he is a "Christian". I read so much stuff I am not sure who said what anymore. I am glad I said "I was under the impression" I knew I had no time to verify it when I was writing that post....

Is that a sneer, Anna, when you put "Christian" in quotes? I ask because that's what you said the WTS was doing when it put quotes around the "Bible reading" some JWs had said was sufficient.

[Guest]

@JW Insider

Ok, I see your point. It's a logical one. In your lengthy response, in my view, you are taking a lot of liberties in interpreting the wording and assuming too much. Also, I am not "claiming" things. I'm just stating facts on the meaning of words without even trying to interprete the verses. If your post was not so long I could refute your arguments point by point but I'm not really that interested in proving who is wrong and who is right.

I would like to understand one thing though. According to your view the word "parousia" of the original should have been translated as "royal visitation" and not "presence".  Am I right in concluding this by your post?

[JW Insider]

On 10/14/2016 at 2:41 AM, ThePraeceptor said:

Please bare also in mind that in Greek there is no other word for "presence".

I responded as follows:

On 10/14/2016 at 11:02 PM, JW Insider said:

Another answer to the claim that there is no other word for "presence" is that the idea of "presence" is already implied in the context of many verbs and phrases so that the term is not usually necessary at all in the Greek.

I may have erred in implying that you were making a "claim" here, as I see by your response:

On 10/16/2016 at 0:22 PM, ThePraeceptor said:

Also, I am not "claiming" things. I'm just stating facts on the meaning of words without even trying to interprete the verses.

That was the only time I see that I used the term "claim" in my response, but I don't use it as if to imply that all claims are non-factual. I am claiming certain facts, too, and also that certain bits of factual evidence might also have a bearing on the discussion.

However, to keep that prior response from becoming too long () I left out the fact that the NWT translators disagree with this idea you presented that there is no other word in Greek for "presence." Here are some examples from the NWT along with the basic Greek word that can carry the idea of "presence" in various contexts or phrases.

(Luke 13:26) 26 Then you will start saying, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our main streets.’

ἐνώπιον enṓpion, en-o'-pee-on; neuter of a compound of G1722 and a derivative of G3700; in the face of (literally or figuratively):—before, in the presence (sight) of, to.

(Acts 2:28) You have made life’s ways known to me; you will fill me with great joy in your presence.’

πρόσωπον prósōpon, pros'-o-pon; from G4314 and ὤψ ṓps (the visage, from G3700); the front (as being towards view), i.e. the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication, presence, person:—(outward) appearance, before, countenance, face, fashion, (men's) person, presence

(1 Thessalonians 1:2, 3) 2 We always thank God when we mention all of you in our prayers, 3 for we continually remember your faithful work, your loving labor, and your endurance because of your hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father. [Related to the word in Acts 2:28]

ἔμπροσθεν émprosthen, em'-pros-then; from G1722 and G4314; in front of (in place (literally or figuratively) or time):—against, at, before, (in presence, sight) of.

Curiously, if the NWT had been consistent in the translation of 1 Thess 1:3 using the term presence in the same way when we got to the next instance of that word in 1 Thess 2:19 we would have translated the verse like this:

(1 Thessalonians 2:19) "For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation [in the presence  of] our Lord Jesus at his presence?" [NWT + insert]

That verse alone should make us wonder if "presence" was really the right way to translate "parousia." So instead we translated it:

(1 Thessalonians 2:19, NWT) "For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation before our Lord Jesus at his presence?"

The KJV and many other translations use something like this: 

(1 Thess 2:19, NASB) For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?

On 10/16/2016 at 0:22 PM, ThePraeceptor said:

If your post was not so long I could refute your arguments point by point but I'm not really that interested in proving who is wrong and who is right.

And, as it turns out, there is even much more evidence than what I offered. I apologize for that.

On 10/16/2016 at 0:22 PM, ThePraeceptor said:

I would like to understand one thing though. According to your view the word "parousia" of the original should have been translated as "royal visitation" and not "presence".  Am I right in concluding this by your post?

Just like the other Greek words that the NWT translates as "presence", there is not always a single word or term that fits all the contexts. So sometimes the term "presence" would be perfectly acceptable, but there is no reason to let the meaning in other contexts suffer for the sake of consistency. The prior NWT (pre-2013) attempted a higher level of consistency, which I personally like a lot because a more literal and consistent usage is sometimes better for study. The current 2013 NWT is less consistent but I have no problem with this, purely for the ease of reading.

As you know we have sometimes taken words like "Gehenna" "Hades" "Sheol" "Shibboleth" "Tartarus" etc., and, instead of translating them at all, merely used a kind of transliteration along with study material in a Glossary or a separate doctrinal teaching. So we could have used the term "Parousia" in phrases like the "Parousia of the Son of man."

There is also the idea of using a capital letter so that the "Presence of the Son of man" is seen as having a more special meaning than "presence of the Son of man" and gets distinguished from other contexts where the word presence is used in a more common way. The latest NWT does this with every reference to the Kingdom of God or Christ, over 100 times in the 2013 NWT (except in Colossians 1:13, of course, because this "kingdom" is obviously dated to 33 C.E.).

However, using the term "Presence" even capitalized doesn't really give the full sense of the term. There are only one or two cases in the Greek Sciptures where "presence" might be as good or better than the words "coming" or "arrival" because it's used in the common sense that matches its etymology. However, an arrival implies a subsequent presence anyway, and more often, the arrival is the focus and the key to understanding the subsequent presence. So it would be slightly better to translate "Coming" or "Arrival" or "Return" (in this case) because it gives a little more focus on the "Event." The capitalization could be added because it separates it again from the mundane uses of "arrival" or "coming" or "return."

The other problem with the word "presence" or "Presence" is that can imply that someone is "there" and you just haven't noticed it, but in the cases where it is used in the Bible it is paralleled with a bright, shining, glorious "manifestation" with words like "lightning" and "epiphany." So it could be an improper translation based on context.

(1 John 2:28) 28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, so that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not shrink away from him in shame at his presence.

A few of the other instances of this type of contextual usage were already mentioned in prior posts.

Our NWT translators no doubt wondered why the first translators of the Bible out of Greek into their own language used the word "advent." Advent implies an "event" rather than just a presence, at least it focuses on the "event" portion. Yet, while the koine Greek of the Greek Scriptures was still a living language, they chose to use "advent" in Latin and words related more to coming and arrival in Syriac and Coptic, etc. Knowing that the Latin word "Advent" was already the equivalent of "Parousia" when referring to a royal visitation finally explained this, but much of the evidence hadn't been translated into English until nearly 1910 (Adolph Deissmann, for example). This was just a few years too late for Benjamin Keith to have noticed when he showed Nelson Barbour the usage in Benjamin Wilson's Diaglott.

Of course, they could have researched and noticed that every instance of the usage in Josephus could have been better translated with "coming" or "arrival" than with "presence." Not that "presence" would have been wrong in some of the cases, but that "coming" or "arrival" almost always provided a better sense in the context. The exceptions were when it was used of the "manifestation" or "theophany" of God, but even these implied both ideas together: the arrival of a manifestation and exceptional presence of God, often associated with lightning, thundering voice, judgment, etc. Josephus, by the way, did not refer to any royal parade-like events when he used the term parousia, but his context made it clear that when he used the term "parousia" his focus was more about the arrival than the subsequent presence. For example:

His mother was the sister of Onias the high priest, who informed him of the coming [parousian] of the ambassador; for he was then sojourning at a village named Phicol, where he was born. Not long after that, he came [elthón] to the city and reproved Onias for not taking care of the preservation of his countrymen” [Josephus, Antiquities 12.4.2]

Notice that he wasn't informed of the "presence" of the ambassador, but of the "coming" of the ambassador (to Jerusalem) who was not yet present there. It wasn't until afterwards that he came to Jerusalem. This construct matches the use in Matthew, so even though the context shows us how we should understand the idea embedded in the term,  it is not absolutely necessary to translate the idea of a royal visitation into the word itself, because the context already clarifies the special nature of this "parousia." But it would be insufficient to merely call it a "presence" due to the same context.

There is another reason to avoid "presence" when referring to the Parousia event, and that's the ambiguity or "looseness of meaning" created when translating the prepositions in front of it. We've gotten used to it in our publications, but there is an inconsistency about whether we should say "at his presence" or "during his presence." There is no evidence from the Greek itself about which is better; we merely choose the word "during" instead of "at" based on our doctrine.

(1 Corinthians 15:23) 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.

But compare 1 John 2:28, already quoted above, where the word "at" is used, and yet it is exactly the same expression in Greek.

The same thing can happen with other prepositions like "until" (which also happens when Jesus says I will be with you (present) until the "synteleia"):

(James 5:7, 8) 7 Be patient then, brothers, until the presence of the Lord. Look! The farmer keeps waiting for the precious fruit of the earth, exercising patience over it until the early rain and the late rain arrive. 8 You too exercise patience; make your hearts firm, because the presence of the Lord has drawn close.

The idea is that Christians should be patient until the parousia event. If that parousia began in 1914, the incorrect implication is that Christians no longer need to be patient after 1914. Matthew 28:20 would similarly imply that Jesus is only present with us until 1914.

 

 

[Anna]

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

Sorry. I don't read long posts.

I don't either

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

Answering a question is the same as teaching in Paul's mind, which is why Paul would probably not even allow a sister to raise her hand and answer a prescribed question at a Congregation Bible Study or Watchtower Study, either. Even asking a question was showing a lack of subjection for them. Yet, a brother could do so. So clearly, we don't do everything the way Paul envisioned it in the first century. But it seems that Paul wanted a meeting in which people came to learn and be encouraged, and he appears to suggest two or three topics, one at a time that could come up, not from some central authority, but from members of the congregation who would offer a teaching (through questions, explanations, prophecy, tongues, interpretation, psalms), and then there would be time for more questions and learning. This may sound a bit like what we do now, but you rarely hear anyone, even brothers, speak up to ask their own questions.

Isn’t this similar to what Russell and his associates did? It  might sound like a good theory for our day too, but it would not work in practice. Although we try and emulate the first Christian congregations, in some areas it just isn’t feasible or practical. If this was “allowed” then we would soon find ourselves fragmented into splinter congregations moving from one to another depending on which congregation supported our idea. We would have “believers in 1914 Congregation”  (JW 1914 for short) and “ supporters of 587 congregation” ( the JW Jonsson group) etc. etc. take your pick. We would end up pretty much the same as Christendom. Isn’t that how various splinter groups of Christendom’s denominations started, from autonomous congregations? Interestingly this is how today’s  Bible Students do it too. By the way, did you know that the Chicago Bible students still exist? Albeit a small number. They have been like that since they split off from Rutherford. Not going anywhere really, and definitely not preaching the God news of the Kingdom. I have spoken to a few of them and everyone believes whatever they want to. They pride themselves with this so called “freedom in Christ”.

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

Also, more to the topic, there are a lot of people who think that questioning means we are not speaking in agreement. This is not true at all. If there are questions about a topic and someone feels they should be dogmatic about a certain interpretation, then that is what creates the conflict, because it becomes impossible to overturn a dogmatic belief - a "strongly entrenched thing" - without a certain level of dogmatism in the response to it in order to show that there are reasons to question it. Dozens of different interpretations can exist simultaneously without the least bit of conflict if we are all willing to question as the Bible encourages us to do.

And there’s the problem I think. You have hit the nail on the head - "The unavoidable dogmatism in the response" which then leads to all kinds of unpleasantness. I read your post about how apparently there is a bit of a commotion among the helpers at Bethel recently. Sounds like something like that is going on already!

 

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

Dozens of different interpretations can exist simultaneously without the least bit of conflict if we are all willing to question as the Bible encourages us to do. The different interpretations are merely accepted as different ways that different persons have interpreted it.

This would be great if that is how it would work in practice, but the problem I see with that concept is what I already mentioned above. It’s a nice theory!

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

t seems to be in this sense that "divisions" (to some extent) are helpful, because when people are willing to question without dogmatism, they help to reveal what is approved and what is not. When people get too dogmatic and speak out against questioning, this also becomes an indicator of what is approved.

Nice theory!

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

There was a brother in Writing when I was at Bethel who often joked: "Argument weak? Shout like hell!" (Eccl 9:17)

Hahaha, funny!

So in summary, what I think you are saying is that you believe the GB should not have the sole authority over the interpretation of scripture. Am I right?

When questioned about this topic at the ARC hearing G. Jackson admitted that he did not believe that they were the only spokespersons for God, but he did say that THEY felt responsible for dispensing the spiritual food, i.e. doctrine/interpretation. I think you are familiar with the transcript, here is the portion I am talking about:

Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?

A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food.  So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.

This kind of arrangement would not allow for for the suggestions you make above I don't think. Another interesting statement from Br. Jackson is one I underlined below:

  ......"what you need to understand with regard to our organisation is it is a faith-driven organisation.  This is not an organisation of lawyers or those that are overly concerned with legal matters.  So our primary allegiance is to Jehovah God.  Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction.  So we have responsibilities as guardians to make sure that everything is scripturally acceptable". 

 

Any comments on that?

 

[Anna]

18 hours ago, HollyW said:

Is that a sneer, Anna, when you put "Christian" in quotes? I ask because that's what you said the WTS was doing when it put quotes around the "Bible reading" some JWs had said was sufficient.

I didn't want to sound to be mean, it's just that I don't think he is following in Christ's footsteps. One thing is calling yourself a Christian and another is following Christ's example. Many people call themselves Christians. I was shocked Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner calls himself a Christian. Words are cheap.

[Ann O'Maly]

On 10/17/2016 at 6:18 AM, Anna said:

I didn't want to sound to be mean, it's just that I don't think he is following in Christ's footsteps

 How would you know? Are you familiar with his daily habits, deeds, his beliefs?

 

[HollyW]

On 10/16/2016 at 10:18 PM, Anna said:

I didn't want to sound to be mean, it's just that I don't think he is following in Christ's footsteps. One thing is calling yourself a Christian and another is following Christ's example. Many people call themselves Christians.  

You sounded judgmental.  Is that mean?