Juan Rivera

I want to commend you, but so far as I know, you have not conceded a single point, even the times you've been clearly mistaken. I'm addressing you and calling you a hypocrite because you are the only vigilante here claiming to have authority from the Congregation and Jehovah, without any proof. No one here is making those baseless claims. Whether it holds significance to you is not the issue. But if you are going approach other witnesses making claims about your authority and appointment, your name and identity are going to matter. Anonymous handles ,and aliases are not going to cut it. I am not defending foolishness. But human opinion remains human opinion. I've criticized "Many Miles" about his opinions about the GB, Tom has criticized him as well. If you haven't noticed, Miles has not been participating here since our last exchange. I've criticized "James". "Tom" and Arauna have criticized "me". I don't agree/nor fully understand "JWI"'s paradigm and I've expressed that to him, as well as Tom. I don't challenge established authority. But so far, your authority has not been established. Here's the rules for this forum: Members should keep in mind that an opinion on something of a doctrinal nature that is not in line with current understanding does not mean that the current understanding is wrong. Therefore it’s not necessary to take offense, or start defending current understanding just for the sake of it, without actually presenting a reasonable counter argument. Members must realize that one of the objectives of this club is that members should feel comfortable expressing their ideas and discussing things which can be viewed as controversial, as long as these do not become dogmatic and/or are aggressively promoted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it works both ways. Biblical principles to keep in mind: (2 Timothy 2:23-25) Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.. (Titus 3:9, 10) But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition (1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine. (1 John 4:1) Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. Not allowed: obscene, vulgar, and/or hateful talk, racist remarks, ad hominem attacks (against anyone, which includes the GB), trolling, and links to apostate websites."

Everyone should be worried about their own standing before God, including you. Everyone will stand before God and give an account of those whom we have aided in truth or misled. A true witness, does not hide behind a mask/moniker pretending to have authority from the Congregation. A hypocrite will do that. A vigilante will do that. A false witness will proudly appoint and take authority to himself under the veneer of love for God. You don't need my permission, but you sure need the authorization from the Congregation you claim to represent. Otherwise you are a cheat and a liar. Which is way worse than what you are trying to correct. I don't need to convince myself of my devoutness, we have overseers in the Congregation for that, not online vigilantes (Galatians 2;2; 6:1) Anyone that attempts to take up the mission of vigilante, or rebuker of other brothers or JWs by claiming to advance doctrinal orthodoxy, under a moniker, a false identity, without any authority or any appointment from the Congregation, I will ask for their credentials and identity. Otherwise that individual is indeed fighting against the Congregation and Jehovah, in the name of truth. and I will ask who appointed them ruler and judge over us? Where is the evidence that we love ourselves more and have engaged in deceit, or misused the JW literature? Where is the evidence that we are mocking the true essence of Christianity? We all have overseers that we submit to and obey and who keep a watch over our souls. Why are you trying to usurp their role , their authority and presume to teach in Christ name, without any authorization. Why are you usurping the arrangement of God. The only puppet hiding behind a moniker is not Tom, or me, but you @George88. I leave the judgment of disfellowshipping to the Congregation, not a vigilante.

Continue to act according to your beliefs without any accountability. Continue to operate as the Vigilante pretending to have Jehovah's and Jehovah's Witnesses backing. Keep hiding behind a moniker. The difference is that I'm willing to put my name on the line and be accountable to my overseers if I make a false step. "The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much." You have excluded yourself by not being forthright, while trying to correct other Jehovah's Witnesses. It's embarrassing. Pretending to represent Jehovah's Witnesses is not a game. It is a sacred task. Jehovah doesn't use Monikers or fake Avatars or faceless disembodied usernames to correct other Witnesses. Stop pretending your a messenger of light.

@George88 Attempting to take up the mission of vigilante, or rebuker of other brothers or JWs by claiming to advance doctrinal orthodoxy, under a moniker, a false identity, without any authority or any appointment from the Congregation, you are indeed fighting against the Congregation and Jehovah, in the name of truth. It seems clear that your behavior needs to be reigned in by some kind of Congregation discipline, under threat of disfellowshipping if necessary. As Christians, we know both that Satan wants to get us to think more highly of ourselves than we ought. Pride is the sin by which he fell. We also know that he is an angel of light, that is, he makes evil seem good. That’s how he deceives men, and that’s how he tempts. So how can he get @George88to rebel against Jehovah, while making him think that he is serving him? He does this through pride portrayed as zeal for Jehovah and Christ and the Good News. He works like this: “Look at those Witnesses in this forum, JWI, Tom, Juan. Don’t you love Christ, and don’t you love the Good News? If you love Jehovah, then you need to defend the truth, and lead these lost souls back to the truth of the Good News. That’s not the virtue of faith, but the vice of pride coated in the veneer of love for Jehovah and the Good News. You are taking authority to yourself, rather than submitting to the Congregation. This is the way Satan causes divisions, through a pride in which a person takes to himself an ecclesial authority not given to him by the Congregation.

Read this @George88 : When you are ready to engage with truth and be forthcoming as a JW should be, and not hide behind a Moniker claiming to have authority, I will be here to participate. So far you have just been regurgitating nonsense that I don’t believe either. In the meantime I recommend to take some time off to learn and study these issues more carefully. I suggest a year or so. No one presently a JW should take your stance, or presume to teach. Save me your childish behavior. Let's determine that. Give me a few examples from this forum? Vague accusations are not sufficient. We have plenty of evidence they were occupied wrestling with everything having to do with the human and Christian experience. So yes, they were definitely sharing their mundane thoughts. I live in this planet. What are you asking? What nonsense are you spouting? Comprehend what exactly? You are being to too vague and ambiguous. Who made you ruler and judge over us? You are judging people's hearts now? Right back at you. I doubt your overseers will approve the nonsense you've been sharing here. When I have I insulted the Watchtower. When has Tom or JWI? Who has criticized the GB/elder arrangement because some have failed at it? Human opinion remains human opinion, whether it is private or public, held by one person or held by a group of persons. I doubt any witness here is not aiming to find objective divine revelation/interpretations. Again, who appointed you Christian vigilante? Which JW overseer approves of your conduct and speech here? Who made you judge, jury and executioner? Quit twisting Scripture. All I know is that you have usurped authority and presumed to teach in Christ name, in the name of Jehovah's witnesses, under a mask, under Moniker @George88 but without their authorization.

Mere question begging assertions. Show me where those participants you keep mentioning have promoted and imposed beliefs on visitors? After you do that, show me who has appointed you to be judge, jury and executioner of the forum? You can’t even tell me your name, and I would think because you yourself would get expelled from the Congregation for your behavior and statements. I’ve read the Cross/Stake threats. Show me where JWI or Tom have made “absolute claims” about this topic? Are JWs allowed to raise questions? Are they allowed to have opinions and personal theories? Are they allowed to suggest and propose alternatives? Are they allowed to engage and pursue prudent inquiries? Are they allowed to offer conclusions as tentative hypothesis, that will ultimately will be judged by the Governing Body?

@George88 The constant danger of this rigorist mindset of yours is that whenever you attempt to take up the mission of vigilante, or Rebuker of other brothers or JWs by claiming to advance doctrinal orthodoxy, under a moniker, a false identity, without any authority or any appointment from the Congregation, you are allowing your zeal for the truth to blind you, and are fighting against the Congregation, in the name of truth. It seems clear that your behavior needs to be reigned in by some kind of Congregation discipline, under threat of disfellowshipping if necessary.

Who is the faceless disembodied username falsely claiming to speak for JWs with authority from safety of his electronic foxhole? Is that you George88? Before you start issuing imperatives and exhortations, make sure you understand what you are criticizing. Spare me your nonsense and speculations. I doubt your overseers even know the things you are claiming here. If you truly want to know my status you need to ask my overseers, but I doubt you’ll do it, or that they’ll be interested in answering a disembodied troll username called George88.

I have inquired about others here. I have yet to find anyone making your baseless outlandish claims. Witnesses sharing personal opinions is not apostasy. So I ask you, who appointed you to rebuke others, your overseers? What would they say about the content of your posts and this George88 persona? Do they know? If you have been banned in the past, only for you to come back under a different moniker, and resort to deception and disruption and lack of accountability, then you are a troll. Part or being mature and getting out of ignorance is that before you start trusting persons’ statements about themselves, you have to determine that they are trustworthy and truthful. You are neither.

Opinions, assertions and theories are easy, they are dime a dozen. If assertions were sufficient to establish a truth of a claim, then I could simply assert that you are mistaken. What is this axe to grind, according to you? I have read plenty of posts here and in the closed forum about ecclesiology. That has been my focus for the past year. Show me where Tom says there should be a redefined structure and leadership within the organization? Show me what issues Tom says should be addressed? Be that as it may, what are you trying to curtail here? Fallible, limited imperfect opinions? Are JWs not allowed now to have personal opinions? Is anyone here claiming to posses authority from the Congregation besides yourself? Is any JW here dictating how God should Govern the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses? No. Show me where Tom or JWI have demanded these changes you claim?

Name calling someone that has giving you his real name is Childish behavior. Coming to a forum attempting to engage in debates with other witnesses and attempting to expose and set the record straight is going against the Congregation's counsel of Scripture. Ask your elders and tell them to read your posts under your Moniker George88 and see what they tell you. If you keep insisting in adopting this vigilante persona, you are just adding another voice to the cacophony of competing voices. Scripture is just as adamant against vigilante Christians as it is about false teachers/prophets. If you haven't realized, the name of this thread is : "Forum participants we have known" I'm trying to understand who is this Moniker George88 claiming to be a JW with authority, all while engaging in ugly, combative, abrasive, uncivil, mean spirited, and entirely useless rhetoric for resolving disagreements or persuading anyone.

It's pretty clear that you are a troll, hiding behind a Moniker because you can't face the music. And since you are obstinate about your ways claiming to posses an authority you can't prove, it's helpful for other persons who may be participating in or listening or watching the conversation see that dangerous behavior. It's essential to clarify that you are claiming an appointment and to be a Jehovah's Witness and speak for the brothers. You are not coming here speaking on your own name. Nobody knows who you are. That is the difference. Your puppet master analogy is fitting for someone that keeps hides behind different personas. Much like a Hydra, that's why you haven't been banned.

@George88So, who in the closed club is a true believer, according to the George88 moniker? and who is a colleague? Give me the specific criteria and sins so I won’t persist in my ways and be deserving of your rebuke. There is only one in the forum that I know of, who is trying to sit in the seat of Moses. Scripture has authority because it’s divine, independent of whoever quotes it. I’m still trying to figure out where do you get this authority you claim to have? Who appointed you? After you answer, I’ll understand better where you are coming from and where you are trying to go and discuss your concerns with the forum.

@George88 All heretics quote scripture. That is not enough. So, who are the "brothers" you are trying to rebuke that have offended thee? Are these "brothers" of yours the same you are calling "false witnesses" "apostates", whose existence is meaningless to you? Is offending thee, now offending, tarnishing, profaning God and thus you are compelled to confront them? And if they are, which moniker are they offending? When you engage scripture, you will learn to be truthful and forthcoming and not hide behind a mask/moniker pretending to have received authority from God without any proof, trying to dictate judgment on others. That's what truly matters. If you have no proof you exist as a false minister and you have nothing but bosom-burning (internal conviction).

@George88 Your childish behavior is speaking of others in the third person, trying to preach to onlookers as if this is a soapbox, and lecturing about your own beliefs claiming to be a Jehovah's Witness. All while hiding under a Mask/Moniker and claiming to have been appointed with authority to rebuke others. And when asked who you are, you deflect and bring up your "opposers" "What about JWI, What about Pudgy? What about this? What about that... When the truth is, if your overseers knew the authority you are claiming for yourself here in the forum, you would get disciplined by the congregation for misrepresenting your role. Someone that would claim such a thing without any proof is already deeply misguided and opposing God. It seems clear that you need to be reigned in by some kind of Congregation discipline, under threat of disfellowshipping if necessary. I have already revealed who I am. Juan Rivera is not a Nickname.

How do you know we’re not going to reach a constructive discussion? And if you believe we’re not going to reach it, then why are you even commenting here? Why would you need to attempt to engage in (if not hamper with) an activity that you believe cannot possibly succeed? If you believe that, then why bother attempting to *reason* with me? Your actions seem not to be consistent with your claim. At the same time you are making an uncharitable claim and it’s a personal attack, because you are accusing other Christians of loving an ideology above the truth. Personal attacks, however, are easy. You are free to argue here that something we believe or claim is false, but you are not free to engage in personal attacks. A precondition for entering into dialogue is the principle of love, presuming in the other person a love for the truth above all else. What are you claiming here? Who appointed you? The call to rebuke/repent witnesses requires that they recognize both your authority, love and trustworthiness. You have established neither. Apart from divine miracles, it takes time to establish your authority, love and credibility. It requires that they recognize that they have sinned against God, and that you have authority to speak in Jehovah's behalf to rebuke or call to repent. It requires that they see Jehovah's love in you. Otherwise, is is offensive because you are being presumptuous and are engaging in hortatory coercion. The natural response is the same given to Moses: Who made you ruler and judge over us? Continuing to give non answers is not in line with what you claim to represent. I said "alleged" because you are bringing other people unrelated to my question. Whataboutisms are not going to cut it. This is not a fight. Whataboutims, Tu quoque. Already answered above.

No one is pressuring anyone here. I am asking, why do you hide and use a moniker. Using Whataboutisms and Tu quoque is not an answer. What is the standard here, truth, honesty, trasparency, or your alleged opposer’s behavior? As far as I know, everyone in Scripture that represented, spoke, rebuked and ministered to God revealed who they were, where they stood, and took responsibility for their words, by allowing them to be connected with their personal identity. Real names made them accountable for their words, by tying their reputations to what they said and how they said it. Why don’t you follow that pattern? Where is the accountability? Who are you? So teach me. Let’s go out in service and discuss your concerns and your advice. Show me what is your objective? and what is it that you want me to comprehend? Putting aside my opinions and misinterpretations and having the right mindset. Yes. Jesus cared how others perceived him. He was the Great Shepherd, but he also was the new teaching interpretative authority in Israel thus could rebuke others. I am seeking God’s approval, but I am not an island. I’m material and tied to others, our neighbors that Jesus spoke about. We are social by nature, so here now or in the future we are a community not lone rangers. So teach me spiritual strength and maturity, but also teach me truth, transparency and honesty. And you can start by telling me who you are? and why you hide? Because if you don’t, you are making me stumble, and can’t even offer me the basics of what it means to be a Christian or a Jehovah’s Witness. All you are offering is a dynamic that brings reproach on Jehovah, which is hostile and nasty bickering, vindictive, which is unhelpful and antagonistic. More spiritually harmful than helpful and a waste of time.

I have. Now I’m asking you. Why do you hide behind a moniker? No. You asked what seemed to be a rhetorical and loaded question and I responded in good faith. So let’s show each other the respect and courtesy of allowing each other to define and articulate his own position. Of course Scripture is important. But sometimes persons outside our beliefs can see us in ways we fail to see. Criticisms can be edifying if they can help us out of error. So humility is also in order. I don't think anyone is well enough to avoid error absolutely, but some people are better at avoiding error than others. When we work together, we can help each other out, those with strengths in an area helping those with weaknesses in that area. So by jumping into the discussion, whether we are weak or strong, we can grow.

But satisfaction brought it back, haven’t you heard? Is a pressing matter because the more I know about you, the more I can determine your credibility, your sincerity, your authenticity. So why do you hide behind a moniker?. Why hide if Jehovah values transparency, honesty and speaking the truth and makes us accountable for it? Self-awareness and Experience. Feedback from Others. It triggers an emotional response. People can change and develop empathy and reflect on their behavior. Understanding the mechanics of condescension. Because they can still interpret tone, body language, and context to identify condescension.

I’m curious, George. Why do you hide behind a moniker? I can think of several reasons why others do it, including their own admissions, but what is the rationalization for your persona? 🙏 @George88 @TrueTomHarley JWI mentioned that he was involved in several other projects and activities. I haven’t been active lately, because there’s just too much content and input worth browsing here. Many miles sent me a message about a month ago that I had a knee jerk reaction to because I took as condescending, but it was most likely done in good faith. Hope he is doing good and can continue despite his pain and convictions about the blood issues.

I loved the solid and generous response to this interaction🙏 😂😂 “The trick is not to sanitize the present—it is to desanitize the past”

Ok. I posted this on the other thread yesterday. What do you think about the reasoning? https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90798-what-is-our-scriptural-basis-for-refusing-transfusion-of-products-rendered-from-blood/?do=findComment&comment=189274 http://truetheology.net/forum-bkup/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172

Of course they can, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to find exactly that all throughout the New Testament. @Many Miles You can do as you like. You can keep psychoanalyzing and doing apologetics, while making assertions that will get you nowhere. Or you can engage in good faith dialogue and actually show how they both can’t be true. I understand the Blood teaching is a life and death issue. I take it so serious even to the point of white martyrdom (disfellowshipped, insult, derision) and death. But I’m not going to take your word for it on how to go about seeking reform. The stakes are far too high. Especially with someone anonymous, who doesn’t attend public meetings, who hides his identity and can’t take responsibility for his words by allowing them to be connected with his personal identity.The sins of Heresy and Division are errors too serious to risk on the basis of a private judgment or a hermeneutical toss up between the Congregation’s doctrine and your interpretation of the Bible. One does not slice up the Body of Christ on a maybe. One would have to be absolutely certain that one is right, that the Congregation is wrong, and that schism from the Congregation is justified, because one will have to stand before the Bridegroom and give an account for having carved up His Bride into pieces, and for having influenced others to do so as well by one's actions and example, and because one's eternal salvation is at stake. I would not want to have to stand before the throne and answer for having perpetuated schism on the basis of mere uncertain speculation. You can give up on your fellow Brothers like Bro. Hal Flemings and treat us with contempt. Or you can roll up your sleeves, and serve the Congregation, and help clean up the mess. Leaving the Congregation sets an example for others, that separating is permissible. In other words, separating only adds to the mess to be cleaned up, by creating a separation from the Congregation, and by creating a scandalous example to others, that division is ok when the going gets tough. In our fast food era, we want everything to be better, right now. But have to be prepared to live our whole lives, serving the Congregation in faithfulness, seeking reform, without seeing the changes we’d like to see. That’s because ultimately, it is not about us, or what we want, or what fulfills us.

@Many Miles No. In very simple terms the Congregation cannot teach whatever she wants. And certainly cannot teach that the Old Covenant is somehow still valid or that we can be saved by it. We already said that she cannot contradict the faith that has been handed down. Cannot contradict the Good News that were once and for all established. Cannot contradict the primary teachings: Hebrews 6:1,2. Cannot contradict the core teachings. Cannot command us to violate our conscience. There are numerous explicit statements and teachings within the Bible.Such as: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. God is Almighty. God is the Creator. Jesus Christ died and was resurrected. Jesus Christ provided the ransom for the salvation of mankind. If the Governing Body came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God or that Jesus Christ was not resurrected, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so. To do so would immediately disqualify them from any claim of being the body of Christ for that could not be the result of God’s spirit upon them, but rather the opposite.

Is that what we say officially? I knew that we consider it a Christian law closely tied to the Salvational issues discussed in that Council. As I understand, in Acts 15 the Congregation was speaking with its teaching and interpretative authority role given by Christ, assisted by the holy spirit. As you know, some understand that Apostolic decree as a pastoral decision not a doctrinal one. A discipline/ prohibition/ stipulation/ dietary custom that could later be rescinded /relaxed. I need to read more about this. I thought this command was given to fulfill a particular need in the first century where there was no social system of assistance. Again, I would say it was given by the authority of the Congregation, in this case Paul. As to how the Congregation will interpret it today( a principle, prudential judgment, a policy, a local arrangement) it’s within the prerogative of the Congregation. Such measures could of been for a particular group, or a particular season, because of what was needed for a particular time or circumstance. Paul could be saying that this is what he believed Jehovah was calling them to do in that time for some particular reason. I have to look into it.