Srecko Sostar

Are you a Pastor?

I have no problem with your explanation, but your JW friends have.

Let us hear how official publication explained why Russell has been called "pastor". WTJWorg source link is: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1996043?q=pastor+russell&p=par Jesus gave the congregation “gifts in men,” some as “pastors,” or shepherds, who treat Jehovah’s flock in a tender way. (Ephesians 4:8, 11; King James Version) One of these men was Charles T. Russell, the Watch Tower Society’s first president. He was called Pastor Russell because of his loving and compassionate activities in shepherding the flock under the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ. Today, Christian elders are appointed by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and care is exercised not to use such terms as “pastor,” “elder,” or “teacher” as titles. (Matthew 23:8-12) Yet, present-day elders do a pastoral, or shepherding, work for the benefit of the sheep of Jehovah’s pasturage. JW members do not use the term "pastor" for their elders, regardless of the fact that you gave an explanation of the term pastor, so it would follow that it is the same type of activity. Although today's JWs consider Russell a forerunner of the representatives of the true God and also the founder of their religion and organization, they have renounced the use of the term as "pastor" and the like because such terms are in use by other religious communities that, JWs claim, are part of "false religion". The term “Pastor Russell” was the exclusive name for only one and unique man of the time and as far as I read WTJWorg publications BS and JW did not use the word pastor for anyone other than Russell. Thus, it is a matter of the historical context of the use of the name, not the meaning of the noun pastor. JW refuse to call their elders pastors. Whenever the word “pastor” appears in a WTJWorg text the publication refers to priests of “false religions”. The only use of the term “Pastor” in a positive context is only in the historical figure of CT Russell. Sure, that attitude of JW members is ridiculous, but it’s because they want it that way.

I’m not petty, but I’m surprised that such an informed and knowledgeable debater like you mistakenly names historical figures from the WT. Russell was called Pastor, and Rutherford was called Judge.

Then you reaveled yourself to believe that the Nazi Regime started with Jehvaoh's Witnesses prior to the Jews and everyone else - since you are in agreeance with the video in question likewise with Witness who conisder the video to be factucal. Your logic and connecting non-existent statements is fascinating. You set a thesis and if someone on the forum does not react to it, then you attribute to him imaginary motives, imaginary attitudes, imaginary conclusions. Just keep going, you're doing well, but you're not going anywhere.

Keep counting. If you do not sleep but count, you will go far in counting.

About who you speaking about? What former JW? About author of article on web site (culture trip) i put link? I don't know is this female person JW, ex-JW or Klingon?

JW members have no access to JW archive. Because public JW Archive not exists. They have access only to JW Library What is hard to understand in this?

What is "wow" here? I already stated what you now finally admit. There is difference with library and archive. JW ordinary members have a access only to JW Library.

Plenty of words. Nothing more. Admit, please, that JW members have a JW library, not a JW Archive.

You can say what you want. And you can continue too. :)) Ordinary JW members do not have access to the JW archive, but only to the JW library.

I think there is a simple explanation for why something is called a library and something else an archive. What is officially displayed by WTJWorg is a JW library...... and not a JW archive. The main difference between archive and library is the type of content they house. Archives typically contain unique and rare public records or historical materials, while libraries contain various reading and study materials. - https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-archive-and-library/ ----------------------- Libraries in towns (public libraries) or universities (academic libraries) can generally be defined as “collections of books and/or other print or nonprint materials organized and maintained for use.”* Patrons of those libraries can access materials at the library, via the Internet, or by checking them out for home use. Libraries exist to make their collections available to the people they serve. Archives also exist to make their collections available to people, but differ from libraries in both the types of materials they hold, and the way materials are accessed. - https://www2.archivists.org/usingarchives/whatarearchives

The third factor that belongs to these two, verified evidence and opinion, is also faith. How will you prove with verified facts that someone in the past was “inspired by God” to write a written text? There is only someone’s faith that proves for or against. One’s belief that every biblical book was written under the inspiration of HS, is his attitude and his personal opinion which is not crucial to the other person. Someone’s opinion of his own belief in something is not proof that he is right. It is already/only his interpretation of his own personal spiritual experience. Do you believe/have faith that archive.org is the official site of WTJWorg?

"Archive.org" ("archive.org") is not official JW web site. If you put the term "Archive.org" or "archive.org" on their public and official JW.org search engine, there are no results. And if you type in "Internet Archive" then it takes you back to their official site. You speaking in agenda style. You are disqualified.

“Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?" :))))

Now you're getting it. Doesn't this go toward culture? I'm glad you caught on. What are you talking about? The excerpt is from the internet. I am not saying that what is written on the internet is true or a lie. Someone provided an explanation of such social curiosity. That is all.

Next part: About The 3 Layers in video There is nothing wrong with that. There are parts of the JW website available to the public, both secular people and members, and there are parts of libraries that are only available to elders, and even that might be selective. But that third issue could be explained to us by JW elders if there are any on this forum.

If that ex Betelit said something inaccurate, semi-accurate or dubious then we can all comment on it. What's the problem? Maybe he also comments in this video on something he interpreted in a way that can be disputed. And what now? Have your say and let others have their say. Sometimes (many times) I don’t have the time and will to listen and watch just about every ex-JW who makes a video about their life and the reasons for leaving WTJWorg. Many who make videos go unnoticed by me and I don’t even think to know what all they are saying and doing. Certainly some of them while talking about some topics say things that are their experience of the issue, and do not have to be completely accurate in every expression. And now to comment on the introductory part of the video. I went to the JW Library for Croatia. The oldest publication of WT magazine dates back to 1981. The oldest is only one brochure from 1976. So I'm asking you now, how will a JW from Croatia find out what older publications wrote? And why would anyone have to know English so well to go to another JW library and find out more? In addition, the video moderator is right when he claims that JW should deal exclusively with WTJWorg publications in the JW library, which according to JW leaders is the safest and most accurate spiritual food for a true Christian, and should not be eaten from another "spiritual table". What is wrong with these claims of his?

Why should I explain what is obvious? My comments are my opinion.

@Space Merchant Let's repeat the question. I'm not asking who you're interacting with. I asked you if you could prove that no one but me reads your comments (comments in general and comments about me)?

In the majority of interactions I have with you. And you call this evidence? PS It is just opinion!

When I spoke about the events of 1900s you stated the following If you knew, your responses would reflect that. Reading your comment on the topic I realized what you are commenting on that topic. Your comment would be, it is what I understood, not the history of America.

Okay, dear man, so it's just me reading your comments and no one else? Please provide some fact and evidence that i am only one who read your comments.

Apologize, You seem to hear and see poorly. Where did I write that I understand that part of American history? You really have serious problems attributing your ideas to other people.

Because of those people who read your frequent comments on the "Glasgow" video. The video is not problematic and is not misleading. My interpretation of what the journalist said in that video was wrong. Let me understand for once SM :))) Do you want me to beg you every week on my knees for mercy :))))