I Almost Wish That There Was More Public Kickback From WT Regarding CSA Charges

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He raised the notion of that one hypothetical brother or sister—they always exist—who behave so outrageously that you wish the elders would lay down the law with them—tell that person off!—put him in his place! The reason they do not do so, he says, is on account of Prov 27:22.

Seems like the application is more like the lack of value that a foolish person might recognize in some very good counsel. Pearls and swine. That's not so different from his application. You can make it work among the brothers, but it sounds much more like our relationship with some in the world for whom we need to shake the dust off our feet.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

I just want to put a few quote togethr here.

Quote @TrueTomHarley " so that if you actually kept up and immersed yourself in scripture and what had been published for the general congregation " 

Quite myself  "Well if a person immersed themselves in scripture they would soon find how the GB and the JW Org misuse scripture to suit their own agenda. "

And myself again "but the problems come from those that are in complete control. The GB / Lawyers, then down from the hierarchy ranks to the Circuit Overseers and Elders.  None of them seem to question anything. They seem to act like zombies or robots. "

Now JWI :-

Quote @JW Insider " 4Jah2me has just reminded us of the mistake Rutherford made about "superior authorities" which was not corrected back to Russell's view until the 1960's. And it made me think that hundreds of brothers, like branch overseers, district overseers, circuit overseers, and elders (whether anointed or not) could easily have known that the teaching was wrong. It seems impossible that any Witness anywhere could read the Bible and not see that this was a mistake. But none of these persons, evidently, had the idea that it would be OK to mention the need to correct this doctrine "

I'll leave it to you to have your own views here. I've proven my point. 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

TTH wants to hear from opposers why the Watchtower is reluctant to speak out about ongoing court cases

TTH wants nothing of the sort.

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Do others since 1950 noticed a view by the Bible Students in conflict with scripture, yes! A simple one would be the cross and crown. That’s why we are now JW’s NOT bible students. A conflation you seem only to eager to equate.

JWI wants nothing of the sort.

But if you are going to do one of these things where you go on an attack with false "facts" again, then someone ought to point out at least a couple of them. First of all, you are conflating the Bible Students and the JW's if you think that the cross and crown was a view noticed "since 1950." The cross-and-crown pins were declared to be objectionable as early as 1928. The English Watchtower got rid of the symbol from its covers in 1931. The pin was objectionable because it was religious jewelry associated with Russell and the Bible Students, not because it showed a cross. The WT still taught that Jesus died on a cross up until about 1936.

Remember that the English name for the "Bible Students" still associated with the WTS was changed to Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931. Some Branches with the delay due to language translation lagged behind with the new name "Jehovah's Witnesses" and their redesigned Watchtower covers. (The Branch in Spain still had the cross-and-crown on their tablecloth design until 1932, and their Spanish Watchtower redesigned the covers in 1932.) Recall that in Germany the usual name was still Bibelforscher (Bible Students) from 1933 and beyond, and was used so much in Germany that many people didn't recognize that the Bibleforscher were the same as the Jehovas Zeugen (Jehovah's Witnesses) even after WWII. In fact, many of the Bibelforscher in concentration camps were not Jehovah's Witnesses but were Bible Students no longer associated with Rutherford and the Watchtower Society.

So this cross-and-crown change had nothing to do with the 1950's, even though a bit of confusion might still have occurred in the mind of outsiders about the Bible Student name up until then, as this Watchtower experience shows:

*** w92 6/1 p. 30 After Buchenwald I Found the Truth ***
In 1954, I was visited by two of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I subscribed to the Awake! magazine. . . . During the discussions that followed, I remembered the Bibelforscher in Buchenwald who were so true to their faith. Only then did I realize that these Bibelforscher and Jehovah’s Witnesses were one and the same people. Thanks to a Bible study, my wife and I took our stand for Jehovah and were baptized in April 1955.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

People that believe the Watchtower has erred in interpretation of scripture are those opposed to the truth and seek their own independent understanding of scripture.

You have made this statement several times, seemingly forgetting that it is the Governing Body who have declared that the Watchtower erred in interpretation of scripture. You are so blinded in your anger against anyone who might admit this simple truth, that you are inadvertently claiming that the GB are opposed to the truth and seeking their own independent understanding. I don't believe they are opposed to the truth, nor do I think they are seeking their own independent understanding.

15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is why true witnesses understand the authority is God and Christ as inscribed by scripture.

After 1929, Jehovah's Witnesses (since 1931), not just the Bible Students, believed that Romans 13:1 did not refer to the secular authorities:

*** w50 11/15 p. 442 par. 12 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
On the clergy interpretation of Romans 13:1 has been based the Roman Catholic doctrine of the “divine right of kings”. Man-made governments since the flood of Noah’s day stem from Nimrod’s government at Babel or Babylon.

Since 1962, Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Romans 13:1 to refer to the man-made governmental authorities. As you have tried before, you try to be slick with your opposition to the truth of such matters, and as usual, it has led you to attempt some wordplay again. You try to divert with your wordplay to make it ambiguous about "why true witnesses understand the authority is God and Christ as inscribed by scripture."

Let's try to keep the facts straight:

*** w96 5/1 pp. 13-14 pars. 12-14 God and Caesar ***
As early as 1886, Charles Taze Russell wrote in the book The Plan of the Ages: “Neither Jesus nor the Apostles interfered with earthly rulers in any way. . . . to offer no resistance to any established law. (Rom. 13:1-7; Matt. 22:21) . . .  This book correctly identified “the higher powers,” or “the superior authorities,” mentioned by the apostle Paul, as human governmental authorities. (Romans 13:1, King James Version) . . . .
In 1929, . . . it was felt that the higher powers must be Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. . . . Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period.
In 1961  . . . the words used not only in Romans chapter 13 but also in such passages as Titus 3:1, 2 and 1 Peter 2:13, 17 made it evident that the term “superior authorities” referred, not to the Supreme Authority, Jehovah, and to his Son, Jesus, but to human governmental authorities. In late 1962, articles were published in The Watchtower that gave an accurate explanation of Romans chapter 13 . . . .

It was correct in 1886, under Russell, until it was changed due to what Rutherford "felt" about it in 1929. Finally in 1962, it was changed back to Russell's correct view so that it was an "accurate explanation" again. So this had very little to do with "Bible Students" as you tried to imply. I was referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses from 1931 to 1962.

Just a side note: For some reason the Watchtower added that "it must be said" that moving from a correct explanation to an inaccurate explanation of Romans 13:1 "helped." This makes one wonder why we no longer need the "help" of an incorrect explanation. Is it because we will no longer need to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout any more difficult periods in the future? That can't be the real reason.

The real reason is clear. It was a mistake. We can be humble about it, instead of trying to use weasel words and other ambiguous wordplay to try to avoid being humble. We can't keep trying to give the impression that we avoid honesty to avoid admitting a mistake. It makes us look haughty. It makes us look like we are opposers who oppose the truth.

(Proverbs 12:17) . . .The one who testifies faithfully will tell the truth, But a false witness speaks deceit.

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@JW Insider  Thank you for that in depth truthful comment 

[Srecko Sostar]

16 hours ago, César Chávez said:

People that believe the Watchtower has erred in interpretation of scripture are those opposed to the truth and seek their own independent understanding of scripture.

This was already answered by @JW Insider. I need to say how you have strange way of perception and conclusion about this issue. You try to defend WT Society and GB who making clear and loud statements about own errors and wrong religious teachings.

16 hours ago, César Chávez said:

When the bible mentions to test, these are the areas where a Christian should test those that carry an independent view of scripture.

?? Fantastic!  Testing people who have independent view of Scripture. If you already know that individual has "independent view" (you obviously think how bad must be to have Independence), why waste time with testing person? You already know difference between "good and bad" view. :))

[JW Insider]

21 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

The fact is you continue to illustrate false understanding by promoting the Watchtower is one and the same with the bible students.

Never have. Never will.

The Watchtower changes from year to year. It's very similar, but it's not even one and the same with itself as we progress further and further every few years.

25 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

I'm not concerned about the Bible Student era since I'm not a Bible Student.

I believe you when you say you are not a Bible Student, but it makes no sense that you brought up the Bible Students here when no one else did.

[JW Insider]

19 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

but this person claims they [the GB] are completely wrong with bible interpretation.

Never have. Never will.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

40 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Wow! You have a strange way of thinking. I wouldn't boast on this one if I were you. Thank God I'm not you to post comparisons and make a statement that you just made. There's a movie called, True Lies, you and JTR should watch it.

 

CC:

I saw the 1994 movie "True Lies", with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis., and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I don't know which one impressed me more ... Jamie Lee Curtis falling off the bedpost, or Schwarzenegger piloting the Harrier Jump Jet.

What impressed you about the movie that you would recommend it, CC.???

[TrueTomHarley]

15 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

What impressed you about the movie that you would recommend it

Arnold peeking through the skyscraper window behind the wheel of his Harrier Jet and the bad dude realizing that it just might mean trouble.

[JW Insider]

53 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Wow! You have a strange way of thinking.

Fortunately. I think anyone who wants to waste the time can just go back to see that you are playing a word game again. I mentioned the Bible Students in response to what you had already said the day before.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

My guess at this time is that CC has never seen the movie, he recommended, due to the context before his recommendation. I guess we will know soon. Especially how he would tie in the pertinence to the subject being discussed.