b4ucuhear

I wasn't tying the idea of Enoch's prophecy being something yet future as being based on Greek grammar (in case you thought that). There is no scriptural basis to indicate to me that Enoch's prophetic words had a fulfillment either before or during Enoch's lifetime (whether one views his "prophecy' in this case as predictive or as a sacred pronouncement). That leaves after - which is in harmony with the predictive nature of the word prophecy as you know. Why I had raised the question is that in our literature, there are references that appear to make the application to the flood of Noah's day and also to the execution of judgment at Armageddon. (or both?) In response to that, I think I agree with you here. While I don't reject out of hand/can accept an application to Noah's day in principle, some of the specifics lead me to the conclusion that it would likely have it's main fulfillment later on. Why? The destructive work is described as being accomplished by "holy myriads..." indicating of course, spirit/angelic involvement in the destruction. Whereas in Noah's day, destruction was described as being accomplished by means of the flood flood waters without any reference to myriads of destructive angelic forces.. "And another thing"...some/many translations refer to this destructive force as being accomplished by "saints." If that is the correct interpretation and if "saints" refers to redeemed/resurrected holy ones, that would also indicate a period of time after which (according to our doctrine) anointed Christians (our version of saints) have been resurrected to heavenly life, and are part of the executional force against Satan's system at Armageddon. (Which is also in line with our understanding). Again, not being dogmatic and I don't really want to pursue this in too much detail as a "springboard for speculation" - which I really don't have the time/inclination for anyway.

Well put and very true. Individuals who are proud, ambitious, want to be adored...do not have the humility to do that work and even when they do, everyone knows about it (whether by title or otherwise. That's where you find members of the "Secret Service.") Thankfully we have many others - both pioneers and publishers - who are a joy to spend the days with and love being out in the ministry. .

I have seen that too - although not across the board. Some very fine brothers who are very active in the ministry are also good speakers. But the converse is most certainly true quite often. We had many Bethelites assigned to our congregation (not from Brooklyn) and the ones least likely to go out in the ministry were them. (I can't speak for other congregations though and I doubt that is the experience across the board). But "cold bureaucrats who never wanted to go from door-to-door..." can be found all over if you are privy to behind-the-scenes activities. They may have started off well, but this "corporate ladder" mentality of wanting to be noticed and be somebody can take hold if one isn't careful. Sure, all brothers are encouraged to "reach out," but again as we are often encouraged to personally consider: What is you motive? Some of the better speakers/C.O.'s even have a "following" of brothers and sisters who will travel to a congregation to hear them speak. (As we found out when they came to ours and others). That is unhealthy no matter who you are. Often/(sadly) when brothers and sisters see a "wow" speaker of the platform at a meeting or assembly, the equate that person as being spiritual and an example. But as you and I both know, that at times couldn't be farther from the truth. You can't always judge a book by it's cover. But again, that is not my experience with most brothers and sisters on the platform - but it is often enough for sure. I have experienced something like this although my "time" wasn't in question. We were asked when doing Bethel construction to skip our meetings and assemblies while living on site. But the congregations we belonged to had a hard time accepting that, and gave us heat over it. As far as not doing as much in the ministry when occupied in construction projects, there is at least an allowance/tolerance for pioneers who may not make their time due to said projects - even allowing for vacation time. So the time, effort and skills these brothers bring to the table is and should be valued. But that is not what I/we are referring to above. It has to do more with the attitude. After all, that attitude was also manifest early on when some left the organization, NOT WANTING to go out in the ministry.

Since Enoch's words were prophetic, I'm not sure the relevance of his preaching of a warning 1,100 to 800 years prior to the flood would have even if it "appeared" that Jehovah had purposed to destroy the earth 120 years prior to the flood. Since his words were prophetic without specifying a time frame, it could have had it's fulfillment much later (even though it was so sure to happen it was described in the past tense). So again, I'm not clear on whether I'm following your point correctly or off on something else entirely. Are you suggesting that Enoch's prophesying found it's fulfillment at the flood...much later at Armageddon...or some other time?

For what it's worth, this is what the 2001 WT says: ENOCH SERVES AS GOD’S PROPHET Faithful Enoch did not remain silent about religious error and ungodly practices. As a man of outstanding faith, he was one of the “so great a cloud of witnesses” of Jehovah. (Heb. 11:5; 12:1) Enoch—a mere imperfect human standing as an isolated witness among wrongdoers—had the courage to speak up. “Look!” declared Enoch, “Jehovah came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him.” (Jude 14, 15) Yes, Enoch spoke courageously as a faithful human prophet of God. In fact, Enoch’s prophesying likely was made known by preaching, even as Noah later was a “preacher.” (2 Pet. 2:5) However, Enoch was not a campaigner acting on his own initiative. He spoke as he was moved by Jehovah's spirit or active force." ((vs 14.states that "...Enoch, also prophesied about them when he said: 'Look! Jehovah will come with his holy myriads (15) to execute judgment.")) How the disciple Jude, who recorded Enoch’s words in the first century C.E., knew about that prophecy is not revealed. It is not found in the writings of Moses who compiled the Genesis account. Nevertheless, Jude wrote under divine inspiration, and therefore the inclusion of Enoch’s prophecy in his letter establishes the genuineness of those words. Jude was discussing certain “ungodly men” who had slipped into the Christian congregation. (Jude 4) With reference to them he cited Enoch’s prophecy about Jehovah’s coming to execute judgment against the ungodly. Surely those words had telling effect in the first century. But just think about the effect of Enoch’s prophetic words upon the ungodly men living in his own day! Would those wrongdoers enjoy hearing that ‘Jehovah will come with his holy myriads to execute judgment against the ungodly’? Obviously not! It certainly took courage and the backing of Jehovah to speak up in the midst of those unrighteous practicers of false religion. How they must have wanted to still Enoch’s tongue!" - end of citation I guess one question that could be asked is: To whom did Enoch prophesy? He had no natural ability to predict the future or make a sacred pronouncement of God on his own initiative. So he wasn't prophesying to God of what God already knew. He wasn't prophesying to himself - for what purpose? It would logically appear that he was talking to someone else, and they hated him for it. I underlined a couple of the points that could be relevant to our discussion either way, but I think I've had enough involvement in this discussion. Most of the main points have been made I think and don't intend to flog every detail (drown in a sea of possibilities). I'm off to the service arrangement now

That's a pretty good point. Despite that natural tendency to want to defend orthodoxy - myself included, there are many instances that may seem to make sense or true at the time but if not explicitly stated in the Bible could be wrong. (1975 and other dates; King of the North; types and anti-types...even some of the "predictions"/interpretations we have now of the details of the way things are going to happen in the future...may have seemed right but may be going beyond the things written). It's always safer to stick to what the Bible actually says. I still believe reasonable assumptions can be made even when the Bible doesn't spell it out, but it would be presumptuous to be dogmatic about it as if we had some miraculous ability to make predictions and whatnot.

That is basically what I wanted to focus on in my next response. Haven't thought about it enough yet. But basically, even though the technical details may not be included in every account, what really would be characteristic of Jehovah to do? What would be in keeping with his personality to do - to have Noah do - without focusing so much on the questioned/maybe possible details that we don't see the forest? It's more than that though. When we consider that Jehovah who can read hearts could just destroy all wicked without a word, why doesn't he? Because there is a whole universe of intelligent creatures that are spectators to this legal drama and issues and challenges have to be answered. It's not enough to say for instance, that "mankind can't even direct his own step so I will destroy them all/or all governments." It has to be demonstrated beyond all doubt as a precedent for all eternity. People are judged by the choices they make and given the opportunity, would they repent/make the right choice as did the Ninevites and others? Sure Jehovah could know their hearts. But no way for the universal court spectators to find out unless you give those in question the chance. And while all details of every account are not included in God's Word, we see that Jehovah very patiently gives even the seemingly wicked an opportunity. He sent his own son to die for even enemies. Even promising a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous. Doesn't that sound more like a God of love, justice, mercy... Nehemiah 9:16... "But they, our forefathers, acted presumptuously...refused to listen...became stubborn...But you are a God ready to forgive, compassionate and merciful, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love, and you did not abandon them. Even when they made for themselves a metal statue of a calf and were saying 'This is your God...' and they committed great acts of disrespect, even then you, in your great mercy, did not abandon them in the wilderness..." True, there eventually was an accounting, but Jehovah was pretty patient and merciful and that was evident to all. They had plenty of opportunity to change. Jehovah couldn't be charged with being unfair, unilateral or acting without warning or even using his power in an unfair manner. What would make it unfair? To me it would be if he destroyed them without even giving them a chance or warning - even though the Bible doesn't supply every detail. I haven't really thought all the details through as I have just read this and am responding immediately, but it is in the general direction I was thinking - along with your line of reasoning.

I understand your observation better now I think. Thank-you. Although there are a lot of "perhaps...didn't necessarily...undoubtedly.." = conjecture; it is a valid point that there is conjecture from both points of view and we can't be dogmatic about what is not expressly stated in God's Word. As far as what we individually would accept comes down to some extent to what we may think makes the most sense considering all, - but without being dogmatic and expressing it as ultimate truth. There are some things I put on the back burner that there is no smoking gun for, yet we teach as revealed truth or new light. I take a "wait-and-see" attitude realizing the truth will eventually be realized even if we make mistakes along the way.

It bugs me when people act like they are worshiping an organization (the creation) rather than our Creator. It makes us seem cultish. Yes, respect and obedience to his "channel" has always been an integral part of our worship and relationship with Jehovah - even as Moses and Aaron were Jehovah's representatives. But if you were around at that time and saw Aaron making that golden calf, would you have thought you were being obedient to theocratic authority by bowing down to it? We shouldn't treat any human as a god. We shouldn't suspend our "clear thinking faculties" and hand them over to someone else because among other things not all men are who they appear to be. "Imposters...wolves in sheep's clothing...apostates..." we've had them all and still do.

The fact that they "acted as if they had no warning" is not only true, but kind of the point behind "they took no note/knew not." The people we preach to today act as if they have no warning even now. They don't want to know. "I'm busy...I'm not interested...I don't believe in God...I have my own religion..." That doesn't mean we aren't doing a warning work (along with the good news we bring). The fact that in fulfillment of Matt. 24:14 we are preaching this good news of the kingdom and that kingdom will remove all other worldly governments and to get out of Babylon the Great... are all part of the message expressed regarding "the good news of God's kingdom" and what it will accomplish. As in Noah's day, we are given divine warning through his Word what Jehovah intends to do and our faith moves us to be preachers of righteousness including that divine warning (which in fact is good news to those who love righteousness.) I'm not clear on your point here (sorry). In reading Matthew 24 I must admit, I do get the very distinct impression that Jesus was answering his disciples' request for a "sign" that would indicate a situation they would not otherwise recognize (Jesus' invisible presence) unless they could see something they could recognize as a sign/warning. Why would Jesus repeatedly suggest as in vs :42 "Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming," - if there was nothing evident to watch for? Verse 33: "Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors." Whereas as verse 36 says: (and is pointed out by the commentaries); "Concerning that (specific) 'day and hour' nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father," they would be aware of the signs that would alert them as to when to be on the watch. I get the impression that whereas Jesus indicated a period of time indicating his presence, (that could extend longer than people might expect) in which to be watchful of the evident signs that would signal his presence, they would still need faith, endurance and alertness - to "keep on the watch" because they wouldn't know the narrow time frame of the "day and hour" in which the end/judgment would come - it would come as a "thief."

Although some may say Noah preached by his faithful example, it wouldn't enlighten anyone much as to what God's purposes or even overall standards are. Even people today who don't believe in God set a good example in some areas. I'm pretty sure that I'm not really/fully understanding the points you make here, but I'll throw some stuff out there anyway and I'll apologize ahead of time if I am totally misreading the points you are trying to make. I guess as a base point, it would make sense not to choose "our favourite definition of preacher," but what the Bible says a "preacher" is and go from there. As far as I can tell there are only 3 places in the Greek scriptures where the word "preacher" is used and in the context of our discussion it is only fair to use it the way the Bible writers did. "Preacher" according to the NWT is used at 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11 and notably at 2 Peter 2:5: "...Noah a preacher of righteousness..." According to Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionary/Lexicon: Preacher: Gr. (Keruso #G2784): "...to herald (as a public crier), specially divine truth (the gospel): - preach, proclaim, publish. (related to #G27830: 1) a herald or messenger vested with public authority, who conveyed the official messages of kings, magistrates, princes, military commanders, or who have a public summons or demand, and performed various other duties. In the NT, God's ambassador, and the herald or proclaimer of the divine word. Thayers Greek definitions: 1) to be a herald, of officiate as a herald 1a) to proclaim after the manner of a herald 1b) always with the suggestion of formality, gravity and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed 2) to publish, proclaim openly: something which has been done 3) used of the public proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it, made by John the Baptism, by Jesus, by the apostles and other Christian teachers. It would seem to me that a "preacher" is someone who actually says something. Even without resorting to Greek definitions, that is the idea most people would take away from that. So if, as the Bible says, he was a "preacher" (who talked/spoke), what is it he would be talking about? Hebrews 11:7 "By faith Noah, after receiving divine warning of things not yet seen, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; and through this faith he condemned the world, and he became an heir of the righteousness that results from faith." Does this explicitly say Noah (as a "preacher of righteousness") preached the divine warning he had received from God? No, but what else would he reasonably be talking/preaching about? Romans 10:10 "for with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation." It makes sense to me that Noah's heart exercised faith in the divine warning given him from God and that faith moved him to not only build and ark, but as a "preacher" of righteousness, didn't just keep that divine warning to himself - but warned others. Yes, there is no smoking gun that says: "Noah warned everybody as a preacher," but again, if we can accept that a "preacher" by definition, is someone who spoke/speaks, what logically would he be speaking about after being given divine warning? Yes, it's by inference, but a pretty safe bet as far as I can see. Alternatively, what else would a "preacher" who had been given divine warning preach about? The weather? Yes! If they are calling for rain

I can't say I disagree with other posts pointing out that the actual words say "knew not," "did not know..." It's also a fair point to be made that if the Bible doesn't actually say something, our translations shouldn't take liberties to make it appear as something different. As lauded as our NWT is for it's accuracy in some circles, there is no denying that at times liberties have been taken. Especially in our latest revision. Still I like it and use it (along with others). The point I was making in quoting these other commentators is that it would appear that using the same scriptures as a basis, they came to much the same conclusion in their observations as indicated in the NWT. That people living at Noah's time must have known something was up and were not completely ignorant of what was to happen, but they took no note (they chose to "know not".). According to (some) Bible commentators, they "knew not" in the sense that they didn't want to know. I can't say I'd be dogmatic that Noah's being a preacher of righteousness included warning people of an imminent flood. But warning people in order for them to make a change/turnaround does seems consistent with the way Jehovah often does things - giving even wicked ones an opportunity to make a choice for live or death. So to me as posted above, it does seem "most likely" that Noah as "preacher of righteousness" included some kind of warning.

Fact: Christians have been tasked with preaching the good news of the kingdom in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations before the end comes...That being the case, it makes sense to me that records of both time and resources would need to be kept in order to determine where to allocate said time and resources to where they are needed most. If things didn't take place in a highly organized way ("decently and by arrangement") and everyone kept their figures to themselves as to where, how and how much effort was needed, just doing what THEY felt needed to be done, it would be an anarchy of individual perceptions. After all, who wouldn't want to spend the rest of their lives preaching/living near a beach in Hawaii? (or substitute your favourite destination here). It seems clear to me that extensive records are not just desirable, but necessary. Even corporations recognize that. HOWEVER...as has been discussed, another fact... Fact: If the motivation for our ministry is to be noticed by man rather than love for neighbour or God then there is something wrong. Can recording hours and handing them in contribute to a mindset of just putting in hours; can it contribute to wanting to be noticed for your "works" before men? I believe that is a possibility, but not a given. It would be unfair to paint with such a wide and tainted brush. Still, and especially lately I have seen pioneers fudge their reports so as to "get their time in." And that fact doesn't go without notice from those who struggle/extend themselves to be out. These "phantom" pioneers are described as "members of the 'Secret Service'" - since only God knows how they get their time in without actually doing anything. (OK, I'm not actually encouraging that type of description or being critical or judgmental of what others do), but I know for a fact that it happens. So while I see and recognize that filling in reports and counting time is not a specific requirement spelled out in God's Word, I can see and appreciate why it can be useful in facilitating the preaching work we are endeavoring to do. It just should be with the right motive. Which is essentially what everyone agrees with anyway here as far as I can tell.

Although recognizing the rendering of "ginosko" and "ou" as: "knew not"; "didn't know"...some Bible commentaries have this to say: Albert Barnes: "That is, they knew not the exact time until it came upon them. So says he, it shall be when the Son of man shall come. They shall not know 'the precise time' until he comes, and then they will be found engaged in the ordinary business of life unconcerned." Adam Clarkes commentary on the Bible: "And knew not - They considered not - did not lay Noah's warning to heart, till it was too late to profit by it: so shall it be - and so it was in this coming of the Son of man." Expositor's Bible: "In these verses, again, not only is no date given, but we are expressly told that it is deliberately withheld. What then? Are we to dismiss the subject from our minds? Quite the reverse; for though the time is uncertain, the event itself is most certain, and it will come suddenly and unexpectedly. No time will be given for preparation to those who are not already prepared...but for those who are not watching, it will be too late - it will be with them as with those who lived at the close of the very first dispensation, who were 'eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away.' Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth dome..." John Gill: "And knew not until the flood came,...that is, they did not advert or give heed to what Noah said to them about it: they slighted and despised his warnings; they did not believe, that what he said of the flood was true: they had notice of it, but they would not know it, and therefore God gave them up to judicial blindness and hardness of heart; and so they remained, until it came upon them at once:..." Matthew Henry: "They were secure and careless; they knew not, until the flood came, (Mat. 24:39). Knew not! surely they could not but know. Did not God, by Noah, give them fair warning of it? Did he not call them to repentance, while his long-suffering waited? (1 Peter 3:19, 20). But they knew not, that is they believed not; they might have known, but would not know. Note, What we know of the things that belong to our everlasting peace, if we do not mix faith with it, and improve it, is all one as if we did not know it at all. Their 'not knowing' is joined with their eating , and drinking, and marrying; for, First, Therefore they were sensual, because they were secure. Note, the reason why people are so eager in the pursuit, and so entangled in the pleasures of this world is because they do not know, and believe, and consider, the eternity which they are on the brink of...SECONDLY, therefore they were secure, because they were sensual; therefore they knew not that the flood was coming, because they were eating and drinking; were so taken up with things seen and present, that they had neither time not heart to mind the things not seen as yet, which they were warned of. Note, As security bolsters men up in their brutal sensuality; so sensuality rocks them asleep in their carnal security. They 'knew not' until the flood came. 1) the flood did come, though they would not forsee it. Note, Those that will not know by faith, shall be made to know by feeling, the wrath of God revealed from heaven against their ungodliness and unrighteousness. The evil day is never the further off for men's putting it far off from them. 2) They didn't not know it till it was too late to prevent it, as they might have done if they had know it in time, which made it so much the more grievous. Judgments are most terrible and amazing to the secure, and this that have made a jest of them..." Pulpit Commentary Verse 39. - Knew not. They would not comprehend the signs of the coming judgment, or, at any rate, refused to profit by them, preferring their own carnal pleasures to the care of their souls and the amendment of their lives. The Lord assures us that similar recklessness and unbelief will be found at his coming. Doubtless anguish and fear will fill many hearts, but the general feeling will be incredulity, and a false security which refuses to take warning. Verse 39. "And knew not until the deluge came. The source and cause of their ignorance was, that unbelief had blinded their minds; as, on the other hand, we are informed by the Apostle, that Noah beheld at a distance, by the eyes of faith, the vengeance of God which was still concealed, so as to entertain an early dread of it, (Hebrews 11:7.) And here Christ compares Noah with the rest of the world, and Lot with the inhabitants of Sodom, that believers may learn to withdraw, lest they wander and be cut off along with others. But it must be observed that the reprobate, at that time, were hardened in their wickedness, because the Lord did not show his grace to any but his servants, by giving them a salutary warning to beware in proper time. Not that information of the future deluge was altogether withheld from the inhabitants of the world—before whose eyes Noah, in building the ark for more than a hundred years, presented a warning of the approaching calamity" end of quotes. It seems that many Bible commentators seem to lean toward the idea behind "knew not" (by inference or directly) as reflecting the idea that "they took no note." The literal statement "They knew not," does not seem, to them at least, to be in the sense that they couldn't, didn't or had no opportunity to know, but rather because they chose not to know. They were like many compared with today, who could know but just choose not to. They don't want to hear the message. Their deliberate ignorance was a manifestation of the condition of their hearts, being preoccupied with physical, mundane affairs of life - a deliberate choice they made. Although it wouldn't surprise me if there were other commentators who ascribe to the idea that people "knew not" because there was no way of knowing. It doesn't make sense to me that Jehovah would destroy people without the opportunity to turn around. Yes, he can read hearts, but the whole universe is a spectacle watching this legal issue play out.

Beautiful. Thanks for posting what will be my new screen savers.

2 Corinthians 2:3,4: "Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our trials so that we may be able to comfort others in any sort of trial with the comfort that we receive from God." What a wonderful arrangement.

Surprisingly there are many people who do enjoy that, but like you Anna I personally am not one of them. My wife and I love our brothers and sisters and enjoy their company, but when we get home from a day of service, we just want to chill or use what little time is left to get stuff done. "Dropping by unannounced" is not something I've ever been cool with - although I know many others are. If someone drives past my house without "just dropping by," I view that as an act of consideration toward me - it's not too much to ask for a brief text or phone call first to ensure it's not an inopportune time. It's happened on more than one occasion for example that it's well into the evening, we have finished supper and I'm sitting on my lounger watching a favourite TV show in my PJ's with a remote in one hand and a glass of Scotch in the other...knock, knock, ding, dong...family with kids in tow "just drops by" = awkward.

People making the effort to come to meetings should see our weekly arrangements as an oasis from the daily cares and problems heaped upon them from Satan's system. Each of us should take it as a personal responsibility to make the meetings refreshing and something to look forward to for the rest of our spiritual family, where they will be valued, loved, comforted and appreciated. It starts with us and the love we have and the way we express it. Our elder body doesn't have any "lists" of who attends every meeting although we have a schedule to visit certain ones. But aside of that, we can do what we already know we should be doing individually. Of course, greeting new ones or those we haven't seen in a while, but more. As a memory aid, it may help to make notes during the meeting of what comments, parts etc we can sincerely express appreciation for afterwards. I need to write down what was said and how it helped me in order to say something like: "I'm glad I came to the meeting tonight. Your comment about (...) is something really helpful to me/I learned something/I never thought of it that way..." Or something like that. I learned something from serving in the foreign language field. We all love our brothers and sisters, but some cultures are more expressive in how they show it - which contributes to a warm, accepting and loving atmosphere. I have also seen cliques become a problem in some congregations and so it is important to widen out. Elders especially can set the tone for the congregation. True they have a lot of things to attend to, but it shouldn't be "all business" - only talking to other elders after the meeting - which can look like a clique in itself. True we can't speak to every individual during every meeting, but when we speak to others, our focus should be on them, even if it means pulling up a chair and sitting beside them while they express themselves (usually for older ones). When we learn about the love Jehovah and Jesus express toward us, it's natural that we would want to imitate them in how we treat our brothers and sisters. It is nice to see the concern reflected in some of the comments here of how inclusive we should be of those who are different.

It is proper to loyally uphold "Jehovah's Judgments" - after all, "perfect is his activity;" "a God who cannot lie;" a god who has justice and love as some of his foremost qualities and the ability to know all the facts and read hearts. None of that can be said of limited imperfect humans who are not miraculously inspired and yet are granted a measure of authority to render judgments within his organization. So when those judgments reflect the standards and direction we receive from Jehovah through his Word, we can view them as reflecting Jehovah's mind on the matter and we should respect those decisions as if they were from Jehovah. Problem: How will we react when so-called discipline/judgment from Jehovah is anything but that? When wicked men and imposters lyingly frame innocent ones to cover up things to protect themselves or their friends? In my experience, I've seen too much of what most rank and file brothers would not accept as possible. When this "discipline from Jehovah" appears to be more of an orchestrated lying machination of the Devil. Yes, it happens. Hard to believe but much much harder for those who are at the sharp end of that pointed stick. What I tell them is that regardless of what everyone else thinks or believes or how they look at you, Jehovah knows. The greatest tests of faith can be from the inside. Look to Bible examples of those who have faced similar injustices - including God's own son. And when when you see how they succeeded, imitate their faith. As a refrain which has almost become a mantra for me: don't let the imperfect or even at times wicked actions of men who may have authority within the Christian congregation decide what your personal relationship with Jehovah - our loving and just father - should be. We are often encouraged to look to Bible examples for strength, direction and encouragement. The fact is that God's Word contains much more than the garden variety imperfections we experience from our brothers and sisters in the congregation and which in no way should be a threat to our faith. Some of these scriptural examples most people would never experience in a spiritual sense and yet they are there. Preserved for our benefit. Why? Because at times there will be some that will need them. In fact, it will be crucial for their faith. That's why it is important for us to be serious students of God's Word. It will have different significance for you as you experience different, even challenging or hard to understand things in your life. It can be an anchor for your soul when things/people are not what they appear to be on the surface. It may require faith, endurance, godly devotion and other qualities to make it through, but others have done it - both past and present. So can you.

BW Chapter 8 pg 44 par 52-53: "Help for Bearing Up Under Suffering." 52 Since Jehovah God allows his loyal servants to undergo severe treatment to refine them and for them to demonstrate their devotion, how could we imagine that the “ungodly man and the sinner” inside the Christian congregation or “house of God” could even “make a showing” before Him along with “the righteous man” inside the same congregation? The psalmist states: “The wicked ones will not stand up in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of righteous ones.” (Psalm 1:5) No, the wicked will not stand as approved but will be condemned. They may be found in the assembly of righteous ones, but they will never make a favorable “showing” before God. Because of what all believers must face in this world, their finally being saved for everlasting life takes real effort, love and faith in the way of righteousness. Hence, their salvation is “with difficulty.” Consequently it behooves all members of the Christian congregation (“house of God”) to avoid being “ungodly” and “sinners” in this “appointed time” of judgment.—1 Peter 4:17, 18; Proverbs 11:31. 53 Trials that we simply could not endure in our own strength may befall us. However, no matter how pathetic our situation may become, Jehovah God can sustain us and totally undo all the hurt that we may experience. When we commit ourselves fully to him, he can strengthen us by means of his spirit to bear up under suffering. Being, as Peter states, a “faithful Creator,” a God whom we can trust, he will not prove unfaithful to his promise to come to the aid of his servants. (1 Peter 4:19) This knowledge can help us to avoid reacting in a God-dishonoring way toward our persecutors. Instead of fighting against them, retaliating in kind, we will want to keep on doing good.—Luke 6:27, 28.

One of Satan's cunning (and most successful) machinations is to attack our faith in a way we don't expect. We shouldn't be so focused on the obstacles outside, that we stumble over what may be right in front of us on the inside. And it's not that we don't have plenty of scriptural examples in the Hebrew scriptures or even warnings in the Greek scriptures (that some may feel uncomfortable to apply within the Christian congregation). Acts 20:29,30: "I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." 2 Tim. 3:13: "But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled." There is NO level within our organization where such individuals have not been manifest. (Publishers; MSs; Elders; Bodies of Elders; Circuit Overseers; missionaries; branch overseers... even members of the Governing Body.) And it's not just apostates we are referring to here. There are other forms of corruption too, sometimes orchestrated by groups of individuals in authority to cover up wickedness. Sometimes because of the level of authority they have, they can get away with these things for years or decades... (1 Tim. 5:24) So what are we to do? Cast a suspicious eye towards our brothers and sisters - in authority or otherwise? That is certainly not what God's Word suggests when giving us these warnings. And in fact, we can't always recognize these men until they reveal themselves by their words or actions. Even when we do recognize something is very wrong, we may not be in a position to do much about it except to "blow the whistle." But even then, if you are exposing men who have authority (or even have "friends in high places"), you may experience threats or worse types of "blowback," even though you may feel - and in fact are - being obedient to Jehovah's divine direction and that of the Faithful and Discreet Slave. It is times like these, when you have done what Jehovah has asked of you, that you leave matters in his hands and continue in YOUR faithful course as a dedicated servant of Jehovah - regardless of the choices other people make. What we don't do is have a suspicious eye toward our brotherhood as a whole or even decisions we may not understand or agree with when we don't have all the facts. We need to have faith and trust that Jehovah is not only aware of the situation (and the suffering it may cause), but will at the right time deal with it, while he helps us to endure these "hard to understand" tests of our faith and even machinations of the Devil designed to destroy our relationship with Jehovah.

That's nice. What about the 95 grand...can I have it?

With respect and hoping the best for you I likewise will post no counter argument. At this point it is clear we can respectfully agree to disagree. We also both recognize that having the last word doesn't make someone right anyway, so I won't include any parting disagreements (even though we both know I have them Just hope the best for both of us and that we will see a bright and happy future for each other as Gods promises are realized.

Hey bro, you aren't making sense here. "non-sequitr" - it does not follow. Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no (or at least very few) scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible contrary to your assertion here. Once again, it's time to check your "facts" - however well-intentioned they may be. There is no indication whatsoever that "It is very likely that Jesus read the Book of Enoch and believed it to be scripture. It was considered scripture by many early Christians as well." (?) To quote Wikipedia: "It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but not by any other Christian groups." Nobody is suggesting any of what you are writing about in this last post. Of course, giving a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible doesn't make sense. Is there anyone who actually believes literal monsters are going to crawl out of the see with a giant harlot drinking wine riding them? Maybe the simple message of love Jesus taught doesn't need much to interpret it, even though many still seem to misunderstand it, and it is also fair to say that human "rules and traditions" shouldn't be come into play here, but that doesn't mean no interpretation of things pertaining to God's will and purposes hasn't played an important role in God's inspired word. The Bible is full of interpretations, many in the very book you often quote - the book of Daniel. Some interpretations were for immediate benefit, others for later. Now as for "unconditional love," it seems you have a romanticized ideal of what that should involve which has no basis in support either from the Bible or any other Holy Book. So you are on your own again on that one - a force of one. It is true, that Jehovah showed extraordinary love in offering the life of his son in behalf of mankind who were in effect enemies. But that didn't mean that "anything goes," or it didn't matter whether people accepted or rejected his son. It doesn't mean that God's love is so expansive that it doesn't matter how we use our freedom of choice as to good or bad, righteous or evil. With that freedom comes accountability, and even though God may show principled love to individuals even when they are imperfect, like every loving parent, there are boundaries that are for the benefit of all and are intrinsic to his standards and the outworking of his purposes. For, if, in extending "unconditional love," he tolerated wickedness without accountability, it wouldn't really be love - especially for those who may suffer because of the wickedness that this "unconditional love" might allow. "Unconditional love" is a myth that has no scriptural basis. It's not what real love is or should be. And the romantic notion that it doesn't matter what you believe or do is just that. A "pie-in-the sky" that has no solid support anywhere. Matthew 12:31-33 "...but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven...it will not be forgiven him , no, not in this system of things nor in that to come." 1 John 5 "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments..." Deut. 30:19 "I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live..." Genesis 2:17 "But as for the tree of the knowledge of god and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die." (If God's love was "unconditional," Adam would not have been sentenced to death and in the process, it would have made God appear to be a liar for not holding Adam accountable for his actions as he said he would. Who could ever really trust Him after something like that? Who could ever put faith in what he says?) Similarly, are we to believe without any scriptural basis whatsoever that God's "unconditional love" absolves Satan of any accountability for all the pain and suffering he has caused and would continue to cause if he were not held accountable? Even in the so-called Book of Enoch, God pronounces doom and judgments against fallen angels and the coming judgment of the wicked.(The Book of Parables). Don't fool yourself. Unconditional love is not really love at all. It is the toleration of wickedness with a nice sounding label.

We both agree that love of God and neighbour is critical in not only fairly representing the God of love in true faith, but also in forgiveness. Question: How then, would that love be manifest in true faith? I would rephrase your statement above to read: "Love is also what many of the great religions 'talk about,' but could you say their fruits confirm that? Getting back to a previous illustration, could you really have any scriptural basis for saying religions that slaughter each other - innocent men women and children - are manifesting God-like love? Because that is the historical reality we are faced with. Many millions of lives have been and continue to be brutally shed in God's name - Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims...ALL of the world's "great religions" have misrepresented the God of love in order to kill even their fellow worshippers in other countries. Crusades, inquisitions, local wars, regional conflicts, two world wars - mostly fought in Christians countries; not to mention the bloody terrorist activity of other groups. In what stretch of logic could that be considered showing love? That is characteristic of Satan's work - "the god of this system of things." But "the great religions of the world" have tried to "impose" their religion on others by the edge of the sword. Often, people either converted or were killed. But that was not what Jesus did was it? What was it that motivated Jesus to preach the gospel with every fibre of his being? What motivated him to direct his apostles and disciples to carry on that same preaching work "to the most distant parts of the earth," and later preaching the good news of God's kingdom in all the inhabited earth as a witness to all the nations before the end comes? Was it not love? Love for his Father and human beings? He was known as "teacher" because the people were in ignorance and those who loved what he taught recognized that he had sayings of everlasting life. It mattered what they believed. It mattered a lot. He taught love by his example, but he did more than that. Out of love, he showed people what was necessary to please God and gain everlasting life. Yes, although he performed many loving miracles that brought practical and immediate benefits - curing, raising the dead, feeding the hungry...- he was not primarily known as "miracle worker" but "teacher" - both in word and in deed. And what was his message? God's kingdom! Over and over again he taught and spoke about it, even making it a central part of the "Lord's Prayer." Why? Because God's kingdom and the benefits it would bring as the only hope for mankind, brought refreshment, hope and an appreciation for God in not only sending his son to die for us, but an appreciation for what that sacrifice would make possible for mankind, including forgiveness of sins. People were in darkness, "alienated from God," like "sheep without a shepherd." It was not acceptable for them to remain in ignorance. Not to be technical, but you are misquoting the scripture in a way that reflects your bias. The scripture actually says: "...the harlots go into 'the kingdom' of God before you" KJ version (not 'heaven') and is similarly rendered in all other translations. That is an important distinction but would take too much time to consider in detail at this point. Anyway...you actually seem to be making the point that Jesus WAS concerned about a person's religious status and the their religious status mattered. Logic: The fact that prostitutes were going before hypocritical religious leaders suggests that one form of worship was acceptable and one was not (or at least more acceptable/better.) John 17:3 - "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you (taking in knowledge of you), the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." 1 Tim. 2:4 - "whose will it is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth." Colossians 3:10 - "and clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the one who created it." Ephesians 4:13 - "until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God..." Colossians 1:9,10 - "...we have never stopped praying for you and asking that you may be filled with the accurate knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension, so as to walk worthily of Jehovah in order to please him fully as you go on bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the accurate knowledge of God" Philippians 1:9 - "And this is what I continue praying, that our love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment, that you may make sure of the more important things..." Hebrews 10:26 - "For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left..." Not to beleaguer the point since there are far too many other similar scriptures, but having "factual" or "accurate" knowledge does seem to be important. Why? Because although one may feel they are worshipping God, they may actually be or contaminating their worship with what God condemns. Baal worshippers and apostate Israelites worshipping phallic symbols or golden calves may have thought they were worshipping God, but was it according to "factual knowledge" of God? An accurate knowledge of God?