Jump to content

  • Similar Content

    • By 4Jah2me
      I do hear occasionally on this forum, the expression of, (oh dear it's gone now), I'll say Basic beliefs, Foundation beliefs, of Jehovah's Witnesses. 
      My point being, when were those basic foundations started ?  Yes we have Russell and Rutherford et al. So who decided what was what and when ? 
      We have things like 'hell fire' eternal damnation' ' soul in continual punishment' etc. But who basically found the truth from God's word about 'The dead are conscious of nothing at all' ?
      Then we have the 'resurrection of the dead',  those being split into heavenly and earthly. Who decided these things from scriptures ? And when ? 
      It would probably take me 10 years, which I probably do not have left, to research all the things I wish to know. 
      So here is a question. From 1960, what new serious Bible knowledge do we have from those whom regard themselves as the F&DS or top of the tree ?
      What have they given to the congregation that is of extreme importance ?  BUT, more importantly what have they given that they haven't changed since giving it ? 
      So we've lost the 7,000 year creative days. We've lost Armageddon in 1975, We've lost no blood / replaced with blood fractions. We've lost the Superior Authorities as God and Christ, and probably lots more. BUT what important beliefs have we gained since 1960 ? What IMPORTANT SCRIPTURAL input have those at the top made since 1960 ? 
       
    • By 4Jah2me
      Point 1. I really do laugh at this term "Only game in town"   As I've said before the JEWISH RELIGIOUS LEADERS would have said that serving God by obeying THEM and the Mosaic Law, was the only game in town. Jesus however proved those Religious leaders to be wrong. Jesus and his disciples carried over the good points of the Mosaic Law and discarded the bits no longer needed. (Such as animal sacrifices, circumcision etc). 
      Russell & Co came out of former religions. I presume they must have carried over some good points from those former religions, then made adjustments or changed doctrines.
      So why would it not be possible for people that have left the JW Org to form a new religion ?  Carrying over the good and disposing of the bad, of which there seems to be plenty....
      I'm not saying it will happen but it does dispose of this idea of 'the only game in town' brainwashing. JW's seem to be taught that there cannot be anything else ever. What if Russell had believed that, the Bible Students would have never been formed. 
      Point 2.  The 'Truth' / JW Org.
      As I read more and more on here I am finding out that the Governing Body / Writing Dept'  / Legal Dept' et al,  have deliberately told many lies.
      The latest I'm reading (on a new topic on here) but the info stems back a while, seems to contain information whereby the 'Org' / those in charge at the time, implied, that children cannot get baptised, and that blood transfusions were acceptable to the Organisation. It seems that this was written in order to get favours from a certain government. 
      Both of those things are lies but seem to be deliberately used for some form of dishonest gain.
      Then of course we have lawyers telling lies in court about shunning. 
      And C.S.A court cases have proved that elders and others have deliberately lied. And the American 'section' of the JW Org deliberately withholding information regarding such matters.
      Link this to misuse of scriptures, such as, Superior Authorities, which deliberately took away people's conscience / freedom of choice, in WW2.
      And I'm sure people here can come up with lots more examples of lies, deliberate wrongdoing, mistakes, misinterpretations, 'new light' corrections et al.
      Why am i writing all this ?  Well I am proving two points. 
      1. If it's your 'only game in town' then it's not a good one. 
      2. That calling it 'The Truth' is totally deceptive.
      I do not think you would like it if I gave you a meal that was three quarters yummy, but a quarter poison. The poison might well contaminate the good food !
      So, saying that the Org / GB are three quarters right does not help. 
       
       
       
       
    • By Bible Speaks
      How did you learn the Truth? 
      I was raised in the Truth. ?

    • By JOHN BUTLER
      "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,"
      2 Timothy 3 v 16
      Was this in it's way a small prophecy ?                 
      The 2nd book of Timothy was written 65 C.E.  However 1,2,3, John and Revelation were written much later.
      So we have two points, 1. The writings were not complete when Paul wrote that information. 2, The Bible had not been constructed so no idea would have been formed as to what the Bible would contain. 
      Were there other writings ? Would they be considered as Scripture? 
      It seems that Paul was inspired to write that "All scripture is inspired.... " 
       
    • By Bible Speaks
      “Send out your light and your truth. May these themselves lead me.” Psalm 43:3.  JEHOVAH is very considerate in the way he makes his purposes known to his servants. Instead of revealing the truth all at once in one blinding flash of light, he enlightens us progressively. Our trek along life’s pathway might be compared to a walk that a hiker takes down a long trail. He starts out early in the morning and sees little. As the sun begins to rise slowly over the horizon, the hiker is able to distinguish a few features of his surroundings. The rest he sees in hazy outline. But as the sun continues its ascent, he can see farther and farther into the distance. So it is with the spiritual light that God provides. He allows us to discern a few things at a time. God’s Son, Jesus Christ, provided spiritual enlightenment in a similar manner. Let us learn how Jehovah enlightened his people in ancient times and how he does so today.

    • By Srecko Sostar
      "clear, pure water of truth" ?? ...and famous question that can be hear from platform and in witnessing "Would you drink water from a glass with just one drop of poison in it?"
       
      Water That Leads to Life
      ..."Jehovah’s Witnesses invite you to taste the pure waters of truth." .....
      [Picture on page 9]
      "You can find the ‘waters of truth’ at your local Kingdom Hall"
       https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009003
    • By Jack Ryan
      In paragraph 9 of this weeks Watchtower it was talking about how children’s comments at the meetings can prompt newly interested ones to recognise the ring of truth.
      I donÂ’t recall ever hearing it referred to as the ring of truth before. Is this a new phrase theyÂ’re going to try and get everybody using along the lines of, the truth, the brotherhood, this wicked system of things, etc etc.
       
    • By Queen Esther
      THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  CHRISTMAS......
      The year was 1928, when Jehovah's people came to understand the God-dishonoring roots of Christmas. Since then, the pagan roots of Christmas customs have become general public knowledge..... but few people have made changes in their way of life as a result. But, Jehovah's Witnesses are always willing to make the needed changes in order to become more acceptable as servants of Jehovah God.
      When shown that celebrating the birth of Jesus had actually become of greater interest to people than the ransom provided by his death; that the revelry of the holiday and the spirit in which many gifts were given did not honor God;  that the magi whose gift-giving was being imitated were actually demon-inspired astrologers;  that parents set an example for their children in lying by what they told them about Santa Claus;  that  "St. Nicholas"
      (Santa Claus) was admittedly another name for Satan the Devil himself;  and that such festivals were, as acknowledged  by Cardinal Newman in his "Essay on the development of Christian Doctrine" were "the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship"  the church had adopted....  When made aware of these things, Jehovah's Witnesses promptly and permanently ceased having any part in  Christmas  celebrations.
      Jehovah's Witnesses do have good times with their family and friends. But, they do not participate in holidays and celebrations that are linked with pagan gods (as is true of such holidays as Easter, New Year's Day,  May Day and Mother's day).  Read, 2.Cor. 6:14-17.  Like the early Christians,  Jehovah's Witnesses do not even celebrate birthdays. They also respectfully refrain from sharing in national holidays, that memorialize political or military events and also refrain from giving worshipful honor to national heroes.
      WHY ?
      BECAUSE  JEHOVAH'S  WITNESSES  ARE  NO  PART  OF  THE  WORLD !
      Reference, Proclaims Book,  pages  198-200....
      ( by  Brother  Roger B. Elder )     Thank  you  Brother  Elder !
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Transcript - Promoting Love and Respect for Truth.pdf
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
    • By Jack Ryan
      Governments who support “religious freedom” over the equal human rights and dignity of others condone, and even endorse discrimination.

      Tim Rymel, M.Ed., Contributor Author | Educator | Dad
      In April, Russia’s Supreme Court labeled Jehovah’s Witnesses an extremist religious group. “It effectively means that holding their beliefs and manifesting them is tantamount to a criminal act in Russia. They risk new levels of persecution by the Russian authorities,” said international legal counsel, Lorcan Price.
      In America, most of us think of Jehovah’s Witnesses as that occasional Saturday nuisance. They interrupt our morning breakfast or afternoon chores to tell us their version of the Christian faith. They cheerfully drag their families along for quiet strolls through the neighborhoods, and pass out Watchtower Magazines for us to throw away later.
      Annoying? Yes. Disruptive? Usually. But extremist? That depends.
      Growing up in the Pentecostal faith, I was taught that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Catholics were not Christians. Anyone who converted to those, or other non-mainstream Christian sects, was deceived by the devil. Though we didn’t use the word “extremist” to define those religions, we certainly saw them as a threat to the true people of God who were susceptible to “false teachings.”
      Religion, to paraphrase Merriam-Webster, is generally a belief in the supernatural with a commitment to keep up the attitudes and practices surrounding that belief. In other words, religion is more than just a belief it is an action. For some, that means attending church on Sundays. For others, it means killing people for believing the wrong things, or believing in the wrong way.
      The BBC noted that Al Qaeda’s purpose is to avenge “wrongs committed by Christians against Muslims.” The organization wants to implement a “single Islamic political leadership,” and drive away non-Muslims from areas it deems belong to the nation of Islam.
      ISIS, on the other hand, is a group of Scriptural fundamentalists who believe all other Muslims are apostates. William McCants, director of the Project on US Relations With the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution, says that ISIS wants “to restore the early Islamic empire called the caliphate and eventually take over the whole world.”
      Most of us can agree that Al Qaeda and ISIS are extremist groups. After all, they plan and implement terrorist attacks. They kill people, sometimes brutally. But is violence the only indicator of religious extremism?
      It could certainly be argued that when a religion becomes violent it becomes extremist. But even Christianity, in it’s many definitions, has a sorted history, which is seldom talked about and often dismissed. From the Spanish inquisition to the convert-or-die tactics used on Native American Indians, Christianity has been used to commit horrific acts of violence throughout the centuries. Judaism, from which Christianity arose, recorded shocking details in the Torah of the slaughter of entire populations, including women, children, and animals.
      Any religion, which purports to, alone, have all truth, and to, alone, have a direct line of communication to God, has a propensity toward extremist ideology. As University of Notre Dame Professor, Gary Gutting, points out:
      Any religion that denies the value and humanity of others is an extremist religion. Whether those actions lead to direct harm, or simply reduce protections through legislation, extremist ideology seeks to create one class that is believed to be more valued than another.
      The grandstanding that fundamentalist Christians have done since marriage equality passed in 2015 has created a growing, and disturbing trend toward extremist Christianity.
      The Oath Keepers, a vigilante Christian group, vowed to protect Kentucky County Clerk, Kim Davis, when she refused issuing a marriage license to a gay couple. They stated the judge in Davis’ case “needs to be put on notice that his behavior is not going to be accepted and we’ll be there to stop it and intercede ourselves if we have to.” And then, in an ironic twist to the story, the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, of “God hates fags” fame, picketed Kim Davis because of her multiple divorces and remarriages.
      Since then, dozens of “religious freedom” bills have been introduced across the country with the sole purpose of reducing or eliminating protections for the LGBT community in housing, employment, benefits, and even where they can go to the bathroom.
      The problem, of course, is that “religious freedom” is based on nothing more than a belief. Governments who support “religious freedom” over the equal human rights and dignity of others condone, and even endorse discrimination. In any such environment religious extremism is the outcome, threatening the very existence of democracy.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/when-is-a-religion-extremist_us_590de8e3e4b046ea176aeb98
    • By The Librarian
      “What Is Truth?”
      THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.
      Pilate indifferently rejected the opportunity to learn such truth. What about you?
      Learn more about Jesus Christ:
       
       
    • By Bible Speaks
      25 "Therefore, now that you have put away deceit, each one of you speak truth with his neighbor, because we are members belonging to one another." (Eph.4:25) NWT
      Don't let your ears witness what your eyes didn't see. Don't let your mouth speak what your heart doesn't  feel.    Live a honest life for Jehovah! 

      IMG_8907.mov
    • By Bible Speaks
      42 "But we have renounced the shameful, underhanded things, not walking with cunning or adulterating the word of God; but by making the truth manifest, we recommend ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God."
      (2 Cor. 4:2)

    • By Bible Speaks
      15O Jehovah, who may
             be a guest in your tent?
      Who may reside in your holy mountain?
       2 The one who is walking faultlessly,
      Practicing what is right
      And speaking the truth in his heart."
                 (Psalm 15:1,2)       Do not let your mouth say       what your heart doesn't feel. 
    • By Bible Speaks
      What Does the Bible Say About Christmas? ???????
      The Bible’s answer
      The Bible does not give the date of Jesus’ birth, nor does it say that we should celebrate his birthday. As McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states: “The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of NT [New Testament] origin.” Instead, an examination of the history of Christmas exposes its roots in pagan religious rites. The Bible shows that we offend God if we try to worship him in a way that he does not approve of.—Exodus 32:5-7.  History of Christmas customs
      Celebrating Jesus’ birthday: “The early Christians did not celebrate [Jesus’] birth because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom.”—The World Book Encyclopedia.
      •December 25: There is no proof that Jesus was born on that date. Church leaders likely chose this date to coincide with pagan festivals held on or around the winter solstice.
      •Gift-giving, feasting, partying: The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Saturnalia, a Roman feast celebrated in mid-December, provided the model for many of the merry-making customs of Christmas. From this celebration, for example, were derived the elaborate feasting, the giving of gifts, and the burning of candles.” The Encyclopædia Britannica notes that “all work and business were suspended” during Saturnalia.
      •Christmas lights: According to The Encyclopedia of Religion, Europeans decorated their homes “with lights and evergreens of all kinds” to celebrate the winter solstice and to combat evil spirits.
      •Mistletoe, holly: “The Druids ascribed magical properties to the mistletoe in particular. The evergreen holly was worshiped as a promise of the sun’s return.”—The Encyclopedia Americana.
      •Christmas tree: “Tree worship, common among the pagan Europeans, survived after their conversion to Christianity.” One of the ways in which tree worship survived is in the custom of “placing a Yule tree at an entrance or inside the house in the midwinter holidays.”—Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-christmas/

    • By Bible Speaks
      @caribbeangiirll shares with us: “My sister and I are out in service working the territory in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. It was our first time doing territory work here since both of us were living in Canada and took the truth there. We had so much fun sharing the good news here.”
    • By Bible Speaks
      @almaguers123 from Corpus Christi,Texas, USA shares with us: “Our first part as a family!!! My husband finally made the truth his own and was baptized this year. So happy we almost couldn’t contain ourselves. Thanks to Jehovah’s undeserved kindness we are enjoying many blessings together.” Baptisms Corpus Christi Texas USA
    • By Bible Speaks
      "Ride in the cause of truth and humility."—Ps. 45:4.
  • Forum Statistics

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,509
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,508
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    AliciaBarbosa
    Newest Member
    AliciaBarbosa
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.