Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,727

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    450

 Content Type 

Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. JW Insider
    Notice that I only gave 30 minutes for the "little flock/other sheep" public talk though. I think with works well with the new shorter talk guidelines, but, alas and alack, I couldn't find that topic in any of the new talk outlines.
  2. JW Insider
    That letter was from 1980 when Bethel held what Bethelites themselves (of good reputation and in good standing) were calling "Inquisitions" and "witch hunts." Brother Schroeder was out for the head of Ray Franz and used his bully pulpit at a couple of Bethel elders meetings to whip up a frenzy of whatever would be the Bethel equivalent of McCarthyism, Loyalism, Jingoism, etc. He worked fast and most of it was secret. He was protecting himself at the same time and he knew it. When it was all over he was not well liked, even though a lot of other people had been maneuvered into doing his dirty work. But I don't think that the feeling (or lack of it) in this particular letter you posted, was common even 5 years later. (The only exception I would be sure of by that point was Fred Franz, who was all for handling apostasy cases anywhere they might show up, but he was becoming much less active.) Schroeder himself softened after Ray Franz was finally out completely. (Although I'm sure he was disappointed that he could only get him on a couple counts of speaking with a disfellowshipped person.) Schroeder had hoped for a couple things to come out of those moves against Ray Franz, and things actually went the other way for him. I say these things because Brother Schroeder was a very good friend of mine. He was also my overseer at Bethel for research assignments, even for a couple years after I had left Bethel and lived in New York. For several people, this particular bit of information makes me no longer anonymous, and I understand that this creates a very small danger of repercussions. But it is very, very slight compared to what it would have been in the early 1980's. At that time, however, I would not have said anything about doctrinal issues or anything about Schroeder's apparent motives.
  3. JW Insider
    I used the word "marked" because there is no term for "disfellowshipping" in the Scriptures. So I assume that a level similar to our "disfellowshipping" existed for extreme cases, but it must have still fallen under the category of "marking" which obviously was just a reputational warning to protect the congregation. A person can be met with in private, but if there needs to be a public marking or judgment of that person, then the reasons should be as clear as necessary to the congregation. I'm all for transparency.
  4. JW Insider
    Yes, sometimes. But this part was only meant to be partially hypothetical. In spite of mistakes, I have never seen a directive where there is not an attempt -- usually successful, imo, to make it Bible-based. I think that the problems when this has failed has been a lack of input. Not that plenty of good input wasn't available. Before 1978, Bethel elders and "table heads" were full of ideas that they were sharing with other Bethelites. The Writing Department was full of a lot of intellectual honesty. I think the Aid Book project probably contributed to a new appreciation for the fact that so many of these commentaries from Christendom had remained very valuable resources for 100, 200 and even up to nearly 300 years. And yet if someone were to go looking carefully through our own Revelation and Ezekiel commentary from only 60 years earlier, we suspected him of being an apostate -- just for reading our own publications.
  5. JW Insider
    Yes, it's happened, although I hope it's a lot less than you imply. It's difficult to imagine a single congregation or even a single circuit that has had many such ones, at least recently. I have an uncle who is a Circuit Overseer, and he says that in early 1990's all Circuit Overseers (through the District Overseers) were given instructions to see that congregations did not seek out apostates to discipline them, because of "morale" issues. Even if apostates left the congregation and were seen actively picketing the conventions, they were not to make an issue of it. The apostate was already making it clear they were not a JW, so it could safely be ignored. I never verified this. Actually, I tried to verify it and it was denied by someone who should have known. If anyone knows long-time circuit overseers, or anyone who was in that position around 90-92 I'd like to know more about this. Brother Jackson seemed to imply that this was possible based on his testimony.
  6. JW Insider
    I don't know. My hope would be that the Governing Body would send out recommendations and counsel based on the fact that the Governing Body would have been soliciting and welcoming input from everyone on the subject. The counsel they would be giving back out to the congregations would be Bible-based and would offer that same reminder that we are not trying to punish the person with silence; it's not "tough love"; we are only trying to avoid the danger. We are not trying to show our moral superiority, self-righteousness, and we continue to show love wherever we can, even while "shunning" the wrong. Being cordial, polite and even friendly in a public setting or a congregation meeting would be fine for most "marked" persons. Let's say that an extortioner got some brothers involved in a financial scheme and does not appear sorry and has not tried to pay back what was taken from them. We may rightly feel disgusted at the sin. But the "shunning" is not a total withdrawal of speech and association or even shunning from Bible discussions. In this case, it is primarily a recognition that we shun to the extent that would be appropriate so that this brother never can involve us in a financial scheme. The level and method of avoidance for other persons would be appropriate for protection from the type of sin that person is "marked" for. This should have almost no effect on family relationships, except to the extent necessary for protection from involvement in the sin. And, of course, shunning and punishment should never be used for persons who have questioned a doctrine for Biblical reasons. Doctrinal questioning should be encouraged, even from the platform. It would be wonderful if questions during a meeting were more like: "And can anyone see why this teaching might be difficult to explain to someone at the door?" "Would someone like to offer a Biblical reason why this proposed doctrine might not be correct?" "The talk this Sunday will be 30 minutes based on the new outlines: Brother Smithsonian will speak to us for 15 minutes about why the 'little flock' and 'other sheep' could refer to spiritual Israel and spiritual Gentiles. Then Brother Johnsonian will speak to us for 15 minutes about why the 'little flock' and 'other sheep' could refer to literal Israel and literal Gentiles. So we'll want to put on our thinking caps for that one."
  7. JW Insider
    In life, we all "shun" people we find offensive or who we think might endanger us. In the congregation, and in life in general, there will be people with certain "poisonous" attitudes or certain motivations that we find offensive and dangerous, too. We will, in effect, "mark" such persons and try not to associate with them any more than necessary. There are also persons who have an attitude that will endanger not just ourselves but the entire congregation (pedophiles, unrepentant immoral people who try to work their way into households for immoral purposes, people who try to seduce others into drawing off followers for themselves, people who cause divisions through lying, persons who are greedy and are scheming for ways to steal or extort). To keep the congregation clean and safe it seems appropriate to "mark" the unrepentant ones for the entire congregation. Disfellowshipping is just "marking" to avoid unnecessary association. It would seem to be the loving thing to do as a way of protecting others from harm. It's for the same reason that it would be the loving thing to notify the secular authorities if a Witness has been accused of criminal behavior. But, of course, this did not mean shunning the person as a type of psychological punishment, which is how most religions that shun tend to use the practice. In fact, Paul added: (1 Corinthians 5:10, 11) . . .Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. These were persons who were a real danger to others, so that a way should be found to "mark" them for the entire congregation. They weren't shunned as a way to make others feel superior to them, or to use emotional blackmail to draw them back in, but just as a protection. We also know that there was at least one teaching that was considered so poisonous and dangerous as to require "marking" that person to the extent that we don't associate with them at all, not even saying a greeting to them. This was the great danger to Christianity through people who wanted to draw off Christians to a version of Christianity that denied that Jesus had really existed in the flesh. I'll grant you that we go beyond these Biblical guidelines mostly because we are human and want our egos to be stroked through feelings of superiority and self-righteousness. But the basic idea is still valid, just misused.
  8. JW Insider
    I don't actually believe in any "organization" as religion. Some organizations will try to do some good in a certain way that is different from others, but most of what we call religions today are just different groups that used a difference in teaching as an excuse for men to claim higher spiritual authority than other religions, especially the one they just broke off from. This was the same thing when Barbour broke with other Second Adventists (1859-1875), when Russell broke it off with Barbour (1878-9), when Rutherford broke it off with Russell (1917-1927). The organization is just a tool for efficiency so that like-minded people can speak in agreement and more efficiently accomplish the same ministry. If I was born into a Hindu religion, or a Muslim religion, I would probably still be Hindu or Muslim. This doesn't mean that Jehovah would necessarily judge me any differently. He reads the heart -- "the motivation." This is why James could say, in effect, that "true religion means looking after orphans and widows, but without being tainted by worldly motivations." The "world" creates motivations of wanting to make a "showy display," class distinctions, prejudice, pride, etc. People in all religions of the world have the same opportunity to live according to good motivations or bad motivations. (Romans 1 & 2) But if we become acquainted with true Christianity, we are now motivated to have the Law of Christ written on our hearts. This means seeing everything that Jesus said and taught, and seeing how it fits into the royal law of "love" and "doing unto others as we would want done for ourselves." We should be aware that Jehovah's spirit will help to create the desire to serve for any who want to show love for Jehovah. When we read about what happened when He sent his Son, and we are motivated to imitate his example, because it presented the best example possible of how we can show our love for God by ministering to others. If we desire to share in a teaching ministry similar to what Jesus did, then we would look to associate with other Christians who are setting the standard for how to effectively get the word out. We would look for other Christians who try their best to follow the beliefs that Jesus and his apostles and disciples promoted in the first century. No association is perfect, and I don't think we are really counting the percentage of true and false doctrines. We will have all of the same problems we saw in the first century and many more. We are counting on Jehovah's spirit to help us find the ministry that feels the most like what we would expect if we saw the first-century Christians trying to fit into the twenty-first century.
  9. JW Insider
    Depends on the kinds of teachings you are talking about. Most things are repeated so often that you can't miss them. Any child in the organization can rattle off a list of things we don't approve of, and they will be correct. The general idea of baptism is that the person realizes that he wants to associate with a people who have high moral standards and who are best known for getting out there and preaching the good news of the kingdom that will someday step in and solve man's problems and turn the earth into a paradise. (By the way, I didn't include those items on a previous list of core doctrines, but I also agree that God's will through the Kingdom will be done both in heaven AND on earth, and therefore there are a "new heavens" AND a "new earth" that we are awaiting according to his promise. I also think that the basis for preaching about this good news is best done through a world-wide house-to-house ministry, wherever possible, so I should also have included this practice into the core teachings of Christianity, although I don't think that preaching and teaching is the only ministry of sacred service.) A few months ago, our Circuit Overseer and a couple of elders were here at the house and I was thinking about something I had just written over here on the forum. It was following the funeral of an anointed sister, and someone said something about what she might have said last week when she met "Saint Peter at the Golden Gates" in a joking manner, and I said "well now, of course, we say it's only an interesting possibility to say that Peter is already in heaven." I knew I shouldn't have said it, but the Circuit Overseer said that Peter has been in heaven since the spring of 1918. The other two elders quickly agreed, "That's right," "That's right." So I said, "Oh I thought I read somewhere that we didn't put an exact date on that any more," and I quickly changed the subject.
  10. JW Insider
    A belief or teaching that we conscientiously hold does not have to be "thrust in the face" of someone who is not ready to accept that particular belief or teaching. This was a point that Paul made so that Gentile Christians need not offend Jewish Christians. This should be a big hint that doctrinal matters were not nearly as important as love and concern for one another. But it is important to note that on the issue of eating things sacrificed to idols, the Jerusalem "Governing Body" had included this specific item in the list of things they claimed that the "holy spirit and we ourselves" had approved. Yet apparently at some later point, Paul rejected that specific "burden" and said that this particular item did not matter to true Christians if their conscience allowed them to eat things sacrificed to idols.
  11. JW Insider
    @Albert Michelson @TrueTomHarley @Anna @James Thomas Rook Jr., @Nana Fofana @Ann O'Maly @Brother Rando I have just created a new topic noted above to move this conversation away from "Brother Rando's" topic. If anyone has a better idea of what title I should have given it, it's still not too late to change that.
  12. JW Insider
    Notice that "apostasy" is the actual defection, rebellion, and abandonment, not the lack of belief in specific doctrines. Biblically, of course, there is nothing wrong with spreading Bible doctrines even if we are sure that they might differ from some of the doctrines most other Jehovah's Witnesses hold. But it isn't necessary to push Bible doctrines upon those who do not wish to engage in such discussions, same as here on a forum. Even under the legalistic approach of the Flock book, if you can show that your goal is only to teach Biblically-supported teachings, then you do not fall under the category of "deliberately spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth." Notice, too that causing division and promoting sects is always wrong but that it is not technically apostasy, per se. However, as the book correctly notes, "It may involve or lead to apostasy."
  13. JW Insider
    I've aleady said a lot more than my share in the last couple months here. And it has probably dipped the popularity of this particular forum to its lowest levels in a long time. But I would like to share some points that might be right or wrong. They're just opinions. I too have serious doubts about the 1914 doctrine, but I have not been disfellowshipped. It is true that you have to "muzzle" yourself, and as you say, basically take a vow of silence among your friends, even some of your most trusted friends. I have seen brothers who have "covered" for each other by not turning them in, and even lying for them. I've known this to have happened among brothers (and sisters) on issues ranging from drugs, fornication, belief in evolution, disbelief in our blood doctrine, habitual drunkennes, etc -- but I would never imagine that brothers like that would be trusted to understand how to respond to a fellow Witness on the topic of 1914. A recent couple of discussions here have shown me that, for some, almost all semblance of Christianity goes out the window when something so basic to our comfort level is threatened. There are books that discuss this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, too, and I have been surprised and saddened to see the precise, predictable patterns emerge among us. However, if one wishes to stay, work, and serve among Jehovah's Witnesses, as I do, then I'm pretty sure it's possible for almost anyone to remain as a Witness in good standing. There are some with ebullient personalities who will have more trouble than others, but there are other outlets for sacred service that are just as acceptable to Jehovah besides teaching 100% of the current doctrines. (There are 100 other, more important doctrines to emphasize.) There are especially good works, which could be visiting the elderly, offering rides, helping brothers out financially, helping them find jobs, volunteering to help them with food, chores, errands. For me Christianity is not strictly the doctrinal part of the religion on its own, but our form of Christianity is (to me) a clear stepping stone to mature Christianity. The emphasis on the Bible is higher than most religions, and the most important need that it meets is to provide comfort to those who are sighing, learning to throw our burdens on Jehovah, and recognizing that Christianity is primarily the strong bond of brotherhood, the social structure, by which we help and encourage one another to keep our faith. I have never believed that all the doctrines have to be in order as long as our motivations are out of love for God and neighbor. If they did all have to be in order, then no person associated with the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses from 1919 until 2016 even passed the test anyway, because so many doctrines have changed during that time. And ye we have no problem believing that Jehovah accepted these persons as Christians, in spite of the false doctrines. (In 2018, we will no doubt change more doctrines, which means that none of us had all our doctrines in order this year either.) However, I still find that all the important core doctrines fit the Bible much better than any other set of core doctrines I have seen anywhere else. (war, neutrality, morality, ransom, Trinity, hell-fire, torment, soul, spirit, sovereignty, outworking of kingdom in history, millennium, Armageddon, resurrection, salvation) I question plenty of other things too, but do not reject them outright. I could still be wrong on 1914, but at the moment, I currently have no doubts; I'm sure it's wrong, and I'm sure it's wrong to emphasize the date even if it were right. But as a Christian brotherhood, we are not much different in our thinking about the final end than first-century Christians. They, too, expected the final end in their own generation. They too wondered how long that "generation" could go on. They knew that times were getting worse and worse for them and comforted themselves knowing that the time for their salvation was nearer to them every day. So we all remain watchful of our conduct and our motivations, but also patient. 1914 has probably created some unscriptural adjustments to that idea of patience, and has no doubt created an air of anticipation about date for the end of the generation that supposedly started in 1914, and this is spiritually unhealthy. With enough failed expectations behind us, however, we are fairly unlikely to fall into the specific trap of serving for a specific time or season. But humans are humans and the presumptuousness of believing we have been given some kind of special knowledge or special interpretation has affected many, right up to the highest levels of responsibility in the organization.
  14. JW Insider
    Oh boy!! I think that first question was supposed to be rhetorical, right? Clearly you are mistaken in thinking that this is the first time I've pointed out that the answers to such ridiculous questions are sometimes so obvious. The reason I have said the exact same thing on several previous occasions in the last couple years is that it highlights the contradiction you create when you call doctrines from any particular "current" time "God's doctrines." I have to say that it seems so demeaning to an all-powerful God to sully his name by saying that certain false doctrines had to be considered "God's doctrines" just because at the current time, back then, they were being promoted by the Governing Body. Paul actually cursed at the Galatians for putting up with this kind of thinking: that just because the persons who are promoting a teaching are well-respected persons such as Peter, James and John, that they should just go along with it: (Galatians 1:7-9) . . .; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. Yet it was the same people Paul named here that we have called the "Governing Body" in Jerusalem: Peter, James and John, for example. So you can't argue that when Paul says, "beyond the good news that was declared to you" that he was referring to the Governing Body. He was referring to the doctrines of Christ Jesus and Jehovah God as now found in the Bible. (Galatians 3:1-3) 3 O senseless Ga·la?tians! Who has brought you under this evil influence, you who had Jesus Christ openly portrayed before you as nailed to the stake? 2 This one thing I want to ask you: Did you receive the spirit through works of law or because of faith in what you heard? 3 Are you so senseless? After starting on a spiritual course, are you finishing on a fleshly course? So there's nothing new here in spite of you rhetoric. You have always known that there have been false teachings that were considered "God's teachings" at the time. But this very idea brings reproach on the truth. The entire meaning of the word truth is turned upside down if you are required to say that falsehood is also truth and that a person can even be disciplined for believing truth when he is still required to accept falsehood as "God's doctrines." Instead, we can be appreciative of the progress that has always been made. We can cheer on the Governing Body for the wonderful tools they have provided, and the set of core doctrines that we appreciate. We can thank Jehovah that they have been so successful under His guidance, as someone here just said. But calling what is good, bad, and what is bad, good is not what Jehovah wants from us. (Isaiah 5:20) 20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good, Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!  Â
  15. JW Insider
    Sure. From 1919 to 1927 the Governing Body promoted the doctrine that the Great Pyramid was as Russell called it: "Jehovah's witness" and "the Bible in stone." The books stating this doctrine were promoted until about 1933. After Rutherford changed the doctrine, he even called the Great Pyramid, "Satan's Bible." (1928) So if you believe that what was taught from 1919 to 1927 was "God's doctrine" then the Governing Body under Rutherford changed it. Of course, in 1925 Rutherford also used the term "Satan" to refer to the larger part of the Governing Body at that time and he finally got rid of the entire Editorial Committee, which he had previously referred to as "Satan," in 1931. The Watchtower also claims that Rutherford changed Russell's "correct view" of Romans 13 to an incorrect view, and says that it stayed that way in the 1930's until the 1960's. If you believe the current doctrine is "God's doctrine" and that the Watchtower is correct when it says that this doctrine was "correct" under Russell, then you should accept the Watchtower's view that Rutherford changed what you now call "God's doctrine."
  16. JW Insider
    Thanks again for the direct question. I absolutely do believe in the authority of the Governing Body to interpret "Presence, Sign, Gentile Times, etc." And I also believe it is your responsibility, bruceq, to question it, the same way that the Galatians were expected to question the teachings about circumcision and law that were being promoted by James, Peter and John and others.
  17. JW Insider
    True. But TTH already revealed it about himself, and I just assumed that it was common knowledge that his close circle of acquaintances lived nearby. Just did a quick search and counted about six more times in addition to this one. In a couple he mentioned it was the same Rochester where Barbour and friends started out, and the same Rochester where flooding from Lake Ontario is not under control, and the same Rochester where his ancestors crawled out of the sewer. Oh wait, sorry about that last one. I just looked that up again, actually it was a grandfather who designed the water distribution and drainage for the city.
  18. JW Insider
    Yes. Of course. It's our obligation and our responsibility. See the list of scriptures that are currently in the very first post under this topic/thread. And there are at least a dozen more such scriptures that I didn't include. We should always pick and choose right from wrong. It's the very reason for having and training our conscience. Otherwise, you could be led astray by various doctrines. Imagine if no one had questioned it when Russell said that the Great Pyramid was, "Jehovah's witness" as he called it, or "the Bible in stone." How long would Rutherford have gone on bragging about how when he changed the correct belief about Romans 13 to the incorrect belief that this was direct proof that prophecy was being fulfilled through the Watchtower Society? Yes, indeed. You need to say more. How about including the very next sentence in the context. AllenSmith had just said he "KNOWS" that this claim makes me believe this particular lie. So I answered: I know that @Anna wanted me to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you weren't actually scouring my words to find some way to dishonestly twist them. I wonder what she or other readers of your words think now? And I'm back to wondering if you really have no concern to represent Jehovah's Witnesses as honest and studious. You could end up giving the impression that . . . well, I'm sure you already know what impression this gives. But I would ask you to remember that Jesus said "By their fruits you will recognize them." (Matthew 7:20) 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.
  19. JW Insider
    Uh Oh! Does that mean it will be weeks before we hear from you again?
  20. JW Insider
    Sheol? I know that, although you call yourself a Virginian, you live near the Canadian border in Rochester, but Sheol is in Alberta, Canada not far from the Pope and the Devil, and a lake that I think is a shortened form of Lake Lucifer. Are you sure you weren't in Hell, Michigan? On an even more important note, I just noticed that Google says the Area Code for Hell is 734. Don't know if that fact will ever come in handy, but I know it's going to be easy to remember because if you type in "734" on a calculator and turn it upside down, it spells"HEL" although "7734" is better: Oh the things we will learn, the places we will go! Might want to pass this bit of trivia on to Vic if you see him. The Librarian will probably take away my new privileges for this, but what the .... what the ... hay.
  21. JW Insider
    Might be for the best. Sometimes we get wrapped up in the idea that 1 Peter 3:15 means that we must use logic and reasoning to make a defense: (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. But sometimes the best defense is a good offense. (I forgot the scripture citation.) And by that I mean that it's our proactive life of "living the good news" and "living the hope" as it were, which shows up in our conduct. In fact the very next idea in context is: (1 Peter 3:16, 17) 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ. 17 For it is better to suffer because you are doing good,. . . The best way to defend our hope and faith is through our good conduct.
  22. JW Insider
    Not under your "true" name, but who knows, maybe you know "a nice guy" or maybe even a "Virginian" who might want to defend his beliefs?
  23. JW Insider
    You know I'll always respond to a direct question. So the answer is YES, I can absolutely say you were wrong. What you did is make note of the fact that I had pointed out something where the current evidence differs from what the GB is saying about a specific subject, and then you said that I must believe that I had (in your words) "the 'power' and 'authority' to question the dispensation of spiritual food by GOD?" So yes you are absolutely wrong about that. Why? The apostles didn't have the right to want to change his doctrine and neither do the GB have that right, and neither do you or I. Unless you are arguing that the GB do have that right, and I don't believe that's what you are arguing. Therefore, I believe you agree with me. You should be ashamed of yourself Allen! The added words that you are complaining about were not added by me. They were added by the Governing Body. That scriptural quote is the pre-2013 NWT taken directly from the 2016 Watchtower Library! I think the fact that you didn't recognize this shows just how much one can be blinded by their own emotions. I'm not sure if that is what happened to you here, but I have seen examples before where it seemed like anger was the probable emotion involved. At any rate, you are inadvertently claiming that the Governing Body was "dispensing their own thought, NOT God's." Again, you have asked me a direct question, otherwise I would just let most of your snide comments and insults slide. So, "NO," this is not the very essence of wordplay. I am guessing that it was November 2013 when I joined jwarchive, and probably later in 2014 when I first posted anything doctrinal. In truth, since you asked, I have heard you mention this so-called problem of "wordplay" for years, but I have always noticed that it was you engaging in the "wordplay" -- especially if by "wordplay" you meant some kind of twisting of words to make them mean something negative or sinister when I clearly meant something more positive. Take, even this supposed example where you just made the accusation that this is the very "essence" of wordplay. Of course, you might be referring back to the same point where you were trying to make this accusation about me, but were inadvertently attacking the Governing Body for the words they added to the New World Translation. (And the only reason this was taken from the pre-2013 NWT, was because I had just looked up a verse in that version so it was already open in front of me. I actually prefer the 2013 version in this case anyway, but only within the full context of course.) You got it! That's exactly what I believe, and exactly why I used the verse. So what was that question about the freedom to undermine God's intended words all about? Are you still concerned with the way you thought the pre-2013 version of the NWT undermined God's words? Let it go. Jesus and Jehovah, and even elders and the GB, to the extent these elders are taking the lead in matters of faith and love and teaching and good works and other instructive conduct, we should follow their lead, too. Hebrews 13:16-18 itself is also about our local congregation elders, too. In fact, the following article shows that, even though Hebrews 13:17 is especially for the congregation elders, some of the principles here are not merely about elders, but can have application to the entire congregation. *** w10 10/15 p. 18 Do You Take the Lead in Honoring Fellow Believers? *** A Specific Assignment for All Who should take the lead in showing honor? In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul describes Christian elders as “those who are taking the lead among you.” (Heb. 13:17) True, elders take the lead in numerous activities. Still, as shepherds of the flock, they surely need to take the lead in honoring fellow believers—including fellow elders. For instance, when elders meet to consider the spiritual needs of the congregation, they honor one another by carefully listening to the comments made by any of their fellow elders. Further, they show honor by taking into consideration the views and expressions of all the elders when making a decision. (Acts 15:6-15) We should remember, though, that Paul’s letter to the Romans was directed not only to the elders but to the entire congregation. (Rom. 1:7) Thus, by extension, the admonition to take the lead in showing honor applies to all of us today. Obviously, it's true that there are ways in which each encourage one another to follow in faith and fine works. If you see a good example, and are encouraged by it, then by all means follow that example. Personally, I believe that the primary application is to elders, however. So I have no problem at all applying this to elders in the congregation and the elders on the Governing Body. (Hebrews 10:23-25) 23 Let us hold firmly the public declaration of our hope without wavering, for the one who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near. (Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
  24. JW Insider
    Although I agree with everything that you expressed above the point I just re-quoted, I thought that this point had more to do with the topic, so I will comment on it: How are we in the harvest time right now if the wheat and the weeds are still growing UNTIL the harvest? You just said that harvest time is when the bundles are bundled up, some tossed into the fire, and some bundled for a better purpose. Do you not believe that the wheat is still growing? Isn't the good news still being preached? As you might have noticed, this is all part of the same 100% consistency among all the scriptures on the subject that point to a Parousia as a judgment event, the Synteleia as a final end involving the judgment event, and the "Harvest" also involving the judgment event AFTER the wheat and weeds are no longer allowed to grow.
  25. JW Insider
    I certainly didn't intend to sidestep any question. The only question I saw was your original question about "destruction" of Jerusalem, which I already answered as well as I could without sidestepping. Beyond that, of course, I don't know the answer, and was waiting for you to present your own explanation, if you intended to. Or are you saying you also don't know the answer? Or perhaps it was just a question with a hidden purpose? The only other question I saw was the question about what I had inteded as the '4th event' and I pointed out that I had already given 4 events. Did I miss a question?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.