Cos

Sadly, you are correct. 
What does that say about the acceptance of such policies and practices? To me it says that the avg jw may not like it, but has to swallow it because the gb/wt says so. The silence is an indication to me of one of two things or both,  shame and/or ignorance. Remember the wt article where they said to accept what we say even if it sounds absurd and against your better judgement (I paraphrased the article)? Is this what they were talking about or is more to come? If this was it, then who in their right mind with ANY morals, biblical or not, can accept the way that the wt org handles abuse of any kind? 

Documents relate to alleged sex abuse allegations against local church leader Two adult women came forward in 1999 with accusations against their dad Claimed he physically and sexually abused them as kids decades earlier Church leaders tried to keep the matter internal, documents indicate 'Disfellowshipped' the father, a local leader, but reinstated him following year   

I have a feeling your going to hear crickets on this question.

I've read some interesting information that has leaked from the wt through various sources and was curious what this group thought. It has to do with the plethora of known child molesters and the covering of those individuals. I'm sure this isn't too much of new news as we have already experienced the ARC (Australian Royal Commission) and the position made by gb Geoffrey Jackson and the folks in charge in Australia. From what I have heard from the average jw is that the ARC was made all just made up lies by apostates to make the org look bad. Well here comes round two? three? The evidence is pretty damaging to the way in which the org cares for its children and their staunch position to keep the org in a good light regardless of who may be collateral damage. While I won't post the actual link to what has been distributed, it is quite easy to find. Look up Faithleaks and then the latest press release. 
Now I am quite sure there are going to be some here, quite a few actually, who would rather ignore things like this instead of actually finding out if in fact it is true or not. I don't find that in any way unusual from jws actually. When someone is told not to question the answers given, only listen-obey-and be blessed, then the only ones who will actually question those answers are those who actually care about others. After all, isn't that what we are commanded to do by Jesus? Care for others and you would yourself. This is why I am posting this, because if these things were constantly being brought forth about an organization I belonged to, I could not dismiss the claims that ring very similar from country to country. I would have to find out more.  Is this all just apostate lies all around the world made up by people who left the org, or could there be some truth to it? Also, its not like there is a single organization on this planet that is without its faults or bad people who reside within the org, but it is more about how the org deals with these matters. 
So the simple question posed in this thread is do you approve of the way the wt handles abuse (child, domestic, sexual, etc.)? Do you know how the wt deals with such cases? 

right there you just made my point, the first line you wrote. if they needed to change, then they DID NOT continue what the disciples started. You cannot claim they are a continuation and at the same time claim they deviated. Unless you believe that the first disciples got it wrong too. 
 

How do you look at this in light of scripture, specifically Romans 14:5&6 and Colossians 2:16? 

also exist many other who doing same or similar :)))

Here is another:
Matthew 24:24-27  "For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Clearly here we are told that there will come some who proclaim that Jesus returned and you just didn't see Him, because He came invisibly. That just isn't true and doesn't line up with the Bible which clearly states His return WILL be visible. 

but this admittance proves that they were NOT a continuation of the disciples as you claim. If they were then they would not have deviated, unless of course they were led by a power not from God. 
Then why did you claim that there was? Here is your quote:

yes Shiwiii you are right.
This two "past and old truths and lights" you mentioned about WT are possible to understand with also "new and getting bright light". And this "new" is in explanation how, according to 2015 WT study edition, FDS aka GB are not EVEN/ AT ALL  appointed in 1919. So, all wrong and error doctrines in the past time and in this present time and of course in particular future time, are not prove hor JW are in any wrongs. Because all things will be in place when Jesus in fact WILL APPOINT THEM IN SOME FUTURE TIME. 
SO IT is OK to have all this and that ERRORS in INSTRUCTIONS and DOCTRINES. IT is quite NORMAL :))))))  

Hi!
Last explanation in WT magazine say how GB and FDS are the same. FDS task is to spread "spiritual food". GB spreading food, so GB is FDS. FDS have its beginning in 1 century in form of apostle who are, as WT said prototype of modern GB. If you are be careful in reading WT magazines (i am speaking about magazines in my language, croatian, to confirm the same i would need to go to original english version)   you will notice how first century governing body is with small first letter "g" and "b". But when they are talking about 20th century main church body they using big letter B and G - Governing Body. WHY? 
With the end of first congregations, i think that we have no  reports to confirm CONTINUATION you mentioned. And WT magazines also not writing about any continuation, just mentions about these or that small groups that was in some sort of opposition to beliefs of Catholic church. No gb or GB. No FDS or fds. Nothing. Then suddenly at the end of 19 century in period of many turbulent events, social movements and religious movements, one man after wandering, changing few religious belongings and searching for the "truth", founded the company  in 1881 as Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society for the purpose of distributing religious tracts. 
Do you want to believe that Jesus inspired him to give such corporative start of/to His Church, His Body?? For me it is very strange such idea - because Jesus start His Church in very different way. :))

but it is a practice that the jws/bible students participated in prior to 1935 or so. So what this means is, your claim  "they are the ones who did not follow the false teachings........" cannot be true based on your ideas of what is false teachings.
There is no mention of jws/bible students, as the groups we know today/last century,  in the Bible. So your claim that they are the continuation of the disciples, is false unless you can provide proof otherwise. 

You are correct, but the topic being discussed is what you posted:
You need to prove such claims, and without proof then I may as well just say that cats are the direct lineage of the teachers of the bible students. If I said it it must be true, just as you have been told that jws/bible students are a continuation from the disciples by men who run the wt, so it also must be true. 
by the way, I proved to you in a earlier response that your "they are the ones who did not follow the false teachings........" cannot be true based on your ideas of what is false......Worshiping Jesus and Christmas. 

How can you even believe that. The wt has gone from worshiping Jesus in the 1920's and celebrating Christmas to none of that in less than a 60 year span. So the basics of the beliefs are not even close to the original founding. Again, is there any documentation about the bible students in the 1500's? 1600's? anything prior to the late 1800's?  

This simply cannot be the case because the org has morphed so much within the last 100 years that it is no longer even close to what the bible students were. So in the 16th century, what were the teaching of the jws/bible students? Is there ANY documentation of what they taught before the 1700's?

Ms DeeDee,
 
2000 years ago Jesus said His church would NEVER cease to exist...so where has the JWs form of religion being for so long? <><

Folks, the early church writers discussed and rebuked many false teaching, but nowhere do they even mention anything that resembles the JW form of religion or even the Unitarian form of religion until the Arians of fourth century. Surely if a group resembling the JW/Unitarian religion were present before the fourth century then the early church writers would have said something about them, but nothing.
 
Instead here is some of what they did say;
 
Irenaeus (120-202) "For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.” (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19).
 
Tertullian (155-220) "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25)
 
Hippolytus  (170-235) “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8).
 
This is just a few examples of what the early Christians believed and taught before Arianism and its later spin offs; there are many more examples that could be called on.
 
Some, like Mr. Rook, want to blame Christians for all that is wrong in the world like. They will ignore the continual rise of false political idealism to blame Trinitarians for wars. But this kind of self-righteous attitude does not disprove that God is Triune. <><

Ms DeeDee,
 
2000 years ago Jesus said His church would NEVER cease to exist...so where has the JWs form of religion being for so long? <><

If Newton were Unitarian so what? Even some of the brightest minds get things wrong! <><

Arians/Unitarians such as JWs claim that Jesus is the first (in chronological sequence) to be born? And they site for support Colossians 1:15, claiming that the Son is a member of creation. The Watchtower also add the word “other” to the passage in their bible version to give that impression.
 
Guys, if the reference to "firstborn" in Scripture primarily means being the first to have been given life, then that title could never be lost because it would refer to a factual event, the first birth.
 
Further, the title could never be applied to someone that was not truly the first in sequence.
 
But the Bible shows that the title of "firstborn" can be removed or gained independently of whether a person is the first one to be born. 
 
1 Chronicles 5:1-2 shows that Reuben was the first one born to Isaac and yet he lost this position due to bad conduct. The position of "firstborn" passed to Joseph. 
 
David was called "firstborn" yet he was the youngest in the family (Psalm 89:27, 1 Samuel 16: 11-13). 
 
Ephraim was called the "firstborn" even though he was the second born (Jeremiah 31:9, Genesis 41:51-52). 
 
Thus we can see that the term "firstborn" can be used as a title. And it is in this sense that it is used in connection to Jesus in Colossians 1:15, it has nothing to do with sequence of birth or creation, but rather it is to do with authority.
 
If Paul was saying that Jesus was the first one created then why didn’t he use the Greek word “protoktisis” (first-created) a term which is never used of Christ in the Scriptures?
 
From the context we can know whether the Greek word prototokos in Col 1:15 means "first one born" or "the first in authority".
 
In Col. 1:18 we read of Jesus, "so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything”, this clearly shows the way prototokos should be understood in the preceding verse.
 
So from the context, the Greek word prototokos affirms Christ’s supremacy and sovereignty over all things and does not signify first in chronological sequence. <><

Ms DeeDee,
  
Let me first of all say that the expression “image of” entails identity of nature and essence.
 
The Greek word eilon (“image”) according to Vines Expository Dictionary,  “involves the two ideas of representation and manifestation” (see also Vincent, Word Studies in the N.T). “Image” does not suggest a mere likeness to God or a paradigm of His person, but a real manifestation of true Deity in body form.
 
I’d like to show you, from the scriptures, how this word eikon can be used to convey the reality; turn to Hebrews 10:1, here we see the  “shadow” (or picture) and how it is contrasted with “the very image” (eikon), which is the reality of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. I hope this helps you to understand, if not let me know and I will expound on this further. <><

Arians/Unitarians such as JWs claim that Jesus is the first (in chronological sequence) to be born? And they site for support Colossians 1:15, claiming that the Son is a member of creation. The Watchtower also add the word “other” to the passage in their bible version to give that impression.
 
Guys, if the reference to "firstborn" in Scripture primarily means being the first to have been given life, then that title could never be lost because it would refer to a factual event, the first birth.
 
Further, the title could never be applied to someone that was not truly the first in sequence.
 
But the Bible shows that the title of "firstborn" can be removed or gained independently of whether a person is the first one to be born. 
 
1 Chronicles 5:1-2 shows that Reuben was the first one born to Isaac and yet he lost this position due to bad conduct. The position of "firstborn" passed to Joseph. 
 
David was called "firstborn" yet he was the youngest in the family (Psalm 89:27, 1 Samuel 16: 11-13). 
 
Ephraim was called the "firstborn" even though he was the second born (Jeremiah 31:9, Genesis 41:51-52). 
 
Thus we can see that the term "firstborn" can be used as a title. And it is in this sense that it is used in connection to Jesus in Colossians 1:15, it has nothing to do with sequence of birth or creation, but rather it is to do with authority.
 
If Paul was saying that Jesus was the first one created then why didn’t he use the Greek word “protoktisis” (first-created) a term which is never used of Christ in the Scriptures?
 
From the context we can know whether the Greek word prototokos in Col 1:15 means "first one born" or "the first in authority".
 
In Col. 1:18 we read of Jesus, "so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything”, this clearly shows the way prototokos should be understood in the preceding verse.
 
So from the context, the Greek word prototokos affirms Christ’s supremacy and sovereignty over all things and does not signify first in chronological sequence. <><

Folks
 
Isaiah 9:6 is a prophetic description of Christ. The phrase “his name” in Isaiah 9:6 is a Hebrew idiom, and mean much more than a name that the child actually bears, it signifies that they are appellatives or descriptive designations of His person and work.
 
Wonderful Counsellor.
Mighty God.
Eternal Father.
Prince of Peace.
 
Allow me to make one point; Isaiah 9:6 is not saying that Jesus is the Father.
 
The designation “Eternal Father”” (“Everlasting Father” in some Bible versions) means “Father of eternity”. The word ‘Father’ carries the meaning of “possessor”; possessor of eternity.
 
This is in complete accordance with Hebrew custom, where he who possesses a thing is called the “father” of it. For example father of strength means “strong”; the father of knowledge means “intelligent”’; the father of compassion means “compassionate”; and the father of goodness means “good”.
 
So according to common usage, the phrase “Father of eternity” (Isa. 9:6) would mean eternal. Bible scholar John A. Martin thus concludes that the phrase “Eternal Father” is simply “an idiom used to describe the Messiah’s relationship to time” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary). <><

Shiwiii, You have 181 views until now. That is good. People pay little attention... in some way.  

Very succinctly put;  "both laws - divine and human"  
 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.  Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."  Matt 5:17-20