Evacuated

More importantly, what actually does the word "brazen" mean? It is a translation of the Greek word "ἀσέλγεια - aslegia" which literally appears to mean: in-continent. (ἀ-σέλγεια) Various English definitions are submitted "unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence" The word "brazen" has been dictionary defined as: "bold, shameless, as bold as brass, brazen-faced, forward, presumptuous, brash, immodest, unashamed, unabashed, unembarrassed, unblushing; defiant, impudent, insolent, impertinent, cheeky, pert; barefaced, blatant, flagrant, undisguised” The Cambridge Dictionary describes the American usage of the word “brazen” as an adjective, used: “(of something bad) done without trying to hide it:” So it is a word referring mainly to the attitude of someone engaging in serious wrong conduct , frequently, but not exclusively, in the context of improper sexual behaviour. In Watchtower publications “brazen” has been defined as being: “From the Greek a·selʹgei·a, a phrase pertaining to acts that are serious violations of God’s laws and that reflect a brazen or boldly contemptuous attitude; a spirit that betrays disrespect or even contempt for authority, laws, and standards. The expression does not refer to wrong conduct of a minor nature.—Ga 5:19; 2Pe 2:7.” Is there really a problem in understanding how the word "brazen" should be understood in the context of human behaviour?

An example is this Satan's statement recorded here: "So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time.  Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish." Luke 4:4-6

I do not think it necessary to understand this on the basis of James being complicit as a Judaizer. I would say that the fact that these men came from James has no more significance than the fact that Acts 15:1 describes men coming from Judea. The general attitude of of the apostles and elders to such "Judaizing" efforts is expressed at Acts 15:24. So these men mentioned at Galatians 2:12 were expressing their own preferences, not at the direction of James. Peter, with an ill thought out and cowardly response, rightly incurred the wrath of Paul on this occasion. It all illustrates how easy it is to "talk the walk" as opposed to "walk the talk". The clear and assertive proclamations and decisions made at the circumcision conference in 49CE may well have been easy in view of the fact that the vast majority of Christians in Jerusalem were formerly Jewish, and indeed the entire governing body of the time were the same. However, when Christians of that background found themselves in an environment where far more Gentile Christians were present, it was a different matter. Cultural and traditional practice has a strong hold on humans and their behaviour when out of their comfort zone in that regard is charcteristically to cluster around what they are familiar with. Judaizers appealed to both religious and racial pride and fear of man. The insidious effect of their teachings however was to separate men from Christ and to work against the interests of Jehovah's ongoing purpose. This was hardly at the forefront of their intentions. However, Paul was fully cognizant, hence his very strong and demonstrative reactions to their influence, both expressed in his reproof of Peter and his subsequent letters. There is no dispute regarding Paul's recognition and admonition to others to recognise Christ as the head of the congregation. However I cannot agree with the notion of Paul suggesting that theocratic arrangements were unimportant. This is simply because it does not agree with Paul's own behaviour. His acceptance of the spirit-directed action of the Antioch congregation prophets and teachers to approve his ministry into international territory (Acts13:1-3). His subsequent report back to the same congregation on the success of his mission (Acts 14:26-28). His delegation by the same congregation to go to the Jerusalem apostles and elders on the circumcision issue (Acts 15:2). His participation in the ensuing conference (Acts 15:12). His obvious acceptance of the authorative consideration and scripturally based decisions of those apostles and older men as reflected in his acceptance of being sent as part of a delegation from that same group, and his actually being being dismissed as a part of that delegation to travel back to Antich to relay the decisions of that Jerusalem body (Acts15:22);. His subsequent returning to the Gentile territories to deliver the decrees of the Jerusalem apostles and older men for their observance. His acceptance of such direction, admittedly a recognition of Christ's headship as expressed through the officers of both the Antioch and Jerusalem congregations, demonstrated his acceptance of central authority thus expressed. His remarks regarding a "human tribunal" relate to those in Corinth who sought to undermine his authority as an apostle.Their assessments of his qualifications were of no consequence. His other references to his authority and his seeming discounting of apostolic approval as a determining factor in the validity of his role as an agent of the Christ, are to show the Corinthians that his authority at Christ's direction was as valid as and on a par with that of the apostles. There is no doubt however that all the individual apostles, including Paul, were quite happy to subject themselves as individuals to the decisions (decrees) and directions agreed by that body of older men in Jerusalem as a whole.

The "highly regarded" bit is the "double honor" bit of 1Tim.5:7, and with that goes the "heavier judgement" bit of James 3:1. Unfortunately, despite Jehovah and Jesus being the ones with whom those with responsibilty have an accounting, humans with their fleshly tendencies also tend to hold ones they view as prominent to account. From selfies to scandal to assassination (both literal and figurative), humans bathe in the imagined reflected glory of others.Today's obsession with "celebrity" is nothing new. Paul's self-imposed absence from prominence for 14 years is just a reflection of his modesty. His unique experience in his encounter with Jesus, almost on a par with the Transfiguration witnessed by Peter, James, and John, was no basis for him seeking prominence in the eyes of others. His seeming disdain for those taking the lead is only spun that way by fleshly minds. Paul's recounting of his early years experiences is his way of dealing with the unwarranted attention so typical of humans. He is always at pains to explain the undeserved nature of his privilege of service. (Eph.3:8). I cannot imagine he would ever engender a shred of disrespect for Christ's arrangement of matters in the congregation. Any extrapolation on the Ist Century account of Paul's dealings with the GB of the time must fall within that parameter.

Could be clearing out the trash? Comp. Matt.13:41

Just for clarity. This parenthesised description of Peter's restoration to favour is referring to his denial of Christ and events of 33-36CE several years PRIOR to his reproof by Paul isn't it?

Actually they don't. They are quite happy with the secular definition of the English word Inspiration (Click to view) However they do believe that the Greek word θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), translated as "inspired of God" is a word used uniquely of the Holy Scriptures. The English rendering used in the NWT2013 is quite acceptable. It is self explanatory really, as the word literally translates as god-breathed, being a compound of the word Theos, God and pneo, to breathe. The word used to describe demonic teachings or utterances is a little different, but the concept of wicked spirits using complicit humans for the transmission of lies and propoganda is an acceptable Biblical teaching. The use of the English word "inspired" with appropriate qualifiers is quite clear in it's specific application to Biblical concepts as it is also in a variety of secular contexts. The dictionary definition makes these clear. All such definitions are acceptable and in regular use by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Long ago...

??

Nature = the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. Yep. That was me. Don't understand this. I think @Anna raised the topic? God's happiness is visible to me. Yes, and anyone else who wants to see it. 1Tim.1:11. You quote my statements in bold which is very useful. Thanks for that. Just to emphasize, the happy God Jehovah is always happy with the the current and overall progress of his purpose. His name implies that he cannot fail in anything that he intends to accomplish, in fact that is why he is stated as being a god of "eternal purpose" in connection specifically with Christ. Your bracketed comments miss the mark rather, but Eph.3:11 should clarify. The other comments you make seem to be using my comments as some sort of springboard for your views? as below: I have to say that sadly, I just do not follow your reasoning at all. You seem to have what appears to be something driving a rant against what you term as "WTJWORG", and then a mini dissertation on what you understand regarding the words expressed in the books of Deuteronomy and Matthew regarding the definition of the "nature" (sorry if that is a negative buzzword for you) of the human expression of love for God. You have lost me Srecko. Anyway. As you say, surely some here will get your drift. PS. There. Someone has already posted. So. You are not alone.........

The implication that God's happiness depends on men? No, sorry, not my view anywhere as far as I can see. Not intentionally anyway. Shame. It seems I don't understand you....and..... you don't understand me. I will state my view on this matter clearly so there is no mistaken implication. Jehovah's happiness DOES NOT depend upon men. There. Is that clear enough? So what was the point you were making on this?

The strangeness for me seems to be in your implication that God's happiness depends on what humans are "feeling, thinking, speaking and doing", whether right or wrong. "Strange god you have" Yes, I can accept that you find my God strange. Now you seem to be talking more sensibly.

I think this is strange feeling. ........In your heart....or in god's. Keep working at it. Meditation always takes a bit of time and effort, but it is worth it long term. It will become less "strange" as your understanding grows.

Well it's about time you started reaching out to become a professional. It might refine your opinion. I have a sense of humour, but yes, I am pretty serious. You are referring to the nature of Jehovah's happines here I think? If that is the case then I don't apply it in such a narrrow context. This is another one of those question/statements you make that I find almost impenetrable. I see how your self-assessment as "amateur "applies here. But I will have a go. Do I think Jehovah is generally happy? ..............Yes. Do I think that Jehovah is disturbed on occasion by various incidents of unacceptable behaviour on the part of intelligent creatures? ...............Yes. Do I think this in any way disturbs his state of happiness? ..............No

Really, looking at all these comments, I am surprised that there could be a problem with understanding how Jehovah might use a particular channel to communicate with his people on earth. Surely you don't think that he is on the case all the time do you? Whatever for? It is clear that there is an organised way of keeping everyone on the same page.Most of the direction is left for the brothers to figure out what is best in accord with Bible principles. And to learn from their mistakes, which is something we all do. Jehovah through Jesus will keep things on track where necessary, and this the way they do it. The scripture says food is provided at the proper time, not ALL the time. Our respect is demonstrated in sticking with the arrangement. Where is the big deal??

???????????????????? Not that many around??????????????? Man's job???????????????

GDPR has put a stop to this in Europe unless acquainted

So? So you don't understand something you think I believe and you are not inspired? OK. Not sure what you are saying but it sounds sincere OK. More sense here although nothing special really. Everyone does this surely? Now we are getting into gobbledegook land. I basically do not understand what you are driving at. Are you using google translate or something because sense is not apparent, Is this what you mean? "Promjene koje se tiču ove teme pojavile su se i nestale u WTJWORG-u i ukazuju da JW-ovi znanstvenici lutaju u magli. Zapravo, interpretacije "generacije" prilagođavaju drugim nesigurnim, upitnim tezama."

Some may feel this to be the case. Of course there is no mandate to invest in Stocks as there is also no prohibition. It is just one of those matters for a personal decision, such a problem for those who prefer rules. Investopedia has a summary on this "myth". Investing in Stocks Equates to Gambling This reasoning causes many people to shy away from the stock market. To understand why investing in stocks is inherently different from gambling, we need to review what it means to buy stocks. A share of common stock represents ownership in a company. It entitles the holder to a claim on assets as well as a fraction of the profits that the company generates. Too often, investors think of shares as simply a trading vehicle, and they forget that stock represents ownership. In the stock market, investors are constantly trying to assess the profit that will be left over for shareholders. This is why stock prices fluctuate. The outlook for business conditions is always changing, and so are the future earnings of a company. Assessing the value of a company is complex. There are so many variables involved that short-term price movements appear to be random (academics call this the random walk theory); however, over the long term, a company is supposed to be worth the present value of the profits it will make. In the short term, a company can survive without profits because of the expectations of future earnings, but no company can fool investors forever—eventually, a company's stock price will show the true value of the firm. Gambling, in contrast, is a zero-sum game. Gambling merely takes money from a loser and gives it to a winner. No value is ever created whereas the overall wealth of an economy increases through investing. As companies compete, they increase productivity and often develop products that improve lives. Investing and creating wealth should not be confused with gambling's zero-sum game. Of course, some approach investment with a gambler's mentality and often end up with a gambler's reward.....nothing. As far as gambling is concerned, elders have better things to do than be concerned about those who wish to throw their money into the air. However, there are other connected issues that have more serious repercussions, These may invite attention. I couldn't resist exploding the Stock Exchange myth as it has surfaced here and may mislead others, but I'm bowing out of this thread now as it is off topic and discused thoroughly elsewhere

Your interpretations seem to mainly centre on the use of unscriptural acronyms and second guesses about what others believe or used to believe. Why not shed some light on the subject under discussion?

We can safely say what Jesus said

The only two things we can safely say about "this generation" (the contentious one) is that: 1. It will pass. 2. At a day and hour which no man knows.

Not a possibility, a fact. All who ignore "God's invisible qualities"... "are inexcusable". Or so the Scripture says? I don't know what your "Mandatory" gobbledegook is about. This is your conclusion. It, and it's complicated sub-clauses (unquoted), bear little resemblance to your original assertion that declaring the Bible as a message for all is (almost) contradicted by recognising that parts of it have specific application. This assertion is wrong despite it's ambiguity, so any further application of these ideas to specifics is irrelevant.

Of course not. The condemnation of those referred to at Romans 1:20 is not because of their ignorance or rejection of the Bible. This is just a non-argument. Lots of the Bible was written specifically for groups, even individuals. That is not a basis for concluding that no one else is allowed to read from or will not benefit from it. This is ABC stuff. 2Tim.3:16.

The lines would get jammed by GiBbering idiots!