JW Insider

4 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

Here's some proof  from a fragment from the LXX translators that was recently found.  They are called the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There were no Dead Sea Scrolls in any of the fragments you showed.

2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

(And as an aside, because the Americans were attacked first, the RESPONSE was self-defense, NOT murder.... The responsibility for all the deaths on BOTH sides of the conflict rests with the Japanese Military High Command, and with all those that gave their allegiance and support to that Empire.)

Yes, "War is hell!" which makes the above quote only a little bit off topic. Still, fwiw, it might be fun to take up this idea you just made and see how much of it holds up to common sense.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Torture is ONLY torture, if the INTENT is to torture .... just as first degree murder is completely different than an accidental homicide.

Just thought I'd point out that this is wrong, imo. I would think the following is more accurate:

Torture is ALWAYS torture, whether there was intent to torture or not. A person tortured through an accidental one-minute dip in carbolic acid is just as tortured as the one who was purposefully dipped for one minute in carbolic acid. The person who was purposefully tortured prior to a bombing because he might have information about it, can be tortured just the same as the one who goes through the ordeal after exploding the bomb.

Also, torture is still torture no matter what the intent, just like homicide is still homicide, even if one is accidental and the other is first-degree premeditated.

Torture is also wrong. God has allowed it, but my God, who is slow to anger and merciful, would not allow something he cannot completely reverse the effects of. 

22 minutes ago, Bible Speaks said:

Sorry to offend you.

Sorry you thought you offended me.

I wasn't offended in the least. Just pointing out something I see about once a day on this site, and it's something that reduces the credibility of the site as a discussion forum. I've even seen complaints from authors on this site, for not getting permission or crediting sources. Not picking on you, either. Many have done it. I've left off a source, now and then, too. Only bringing it up for the sake of the reputation of the site overall.

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Even the highly regarded BBC cannot resist the  temptation to indulge in gutter-press standard reporting when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses.

This report on the Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipping process is rather misleading. It associates the disfellowshipping action with totally unrelated experiences and leaves the impression that this action is taken: 
1. when a person leaves an abusive relationship 
2: when a person does not attend the annual memorial celebration of Christ's death.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a shame because I have relied on the BBC as an excellent source of information on the abuse scandals within the Catholic Church and have usually found their religion section to be reliable.

On the second point, I can state for a fact that most disfellowshippings, on average, take place within a 190-day window after the Memorial. All disfellowshippings take place within a window of time that is either 183 days before or after a Memorial. So the average amount of time between a disfellowshipping and the time of the Memorial is less than 90 days. See what you can do with numbers?

On the first point about leaving an abusive relationship, I would have to admit that this has happened. A few months ago I told the example of my own sister under a different thread. I'll copy it here:

On 3/11/2017 at 9:08 AM, JW Insider said:

This was my sister's experience. She was always told to err on the side of enduring abuse, even if it meant not going for needed treatment at a hospital - for violent abuse. Her husband, my brother-in-law, remained a ministerial servant after at least half-a-dozen complaints. My sister was disfellowshipped for finally "defying" the elders' recommendations and separating from her husband saying she had no intention of ever trying to patch things up with "mildness and submissiveness"

But this was about 35 years ago, and this person in the BBC article is saying that something like this happened much more recently. I have not seen the type of thinking that produced such disfellowshippings in the last couple of decades. I have serious doubts about it.

More seriously, however, a person who leaves the Witnesses for doctrinal reasons is considered very differently from a person who decides not to return to the Witnesses after immorality, improper divorce, or simply drifting farther away from association with the congregation. I have been personally involved in a discussion of a person who decided not to associate for doctrinal reasons, and a discussion of going after him for disfellowshipping came up. The conversation went something like this:

First Elder: "His father says he called us a cult"

Second Elder: "At least he came to the Memorial."

First Elder: "So he probably isn't really that antagonistic."

Second Elder: "Or he's just trying to make his parents think he might come back some day, that he still has a chance."

The conclusion was not to go after him, but watch if he causes any commotion. But if a person really is causing divisions and contentions as an ex-JW or apostate, I'd be just as concerned whether he showed up for Memorial or not. I agree that it has nothing to do with disfellowshipping.

@Bible Speaks

These items you post are often very nice, but it is considered very rude to plagiarize. It would not hurt anything to just post the source. In many cases, depending on the purpose, you also should get permission, in addition to posting the source.

The closest I found is here. http://ezinearticles.com/?Do-You-Have-Difficulty-Making-Decisions?&id=1246563 Perhaps you got it from somewhere else:

Do You Have Difficulty Making Decisions? By Ruel V Hinaloc  |   Submitted On June 13, 2008

Do you like it? Should I buy it?" asked Flora, displaying the finely tailored black coat she was trying on. "I like it," said her friend Anna, "but it's your choice to make." Weakened by indecision, Flora placed the coat back on the rack and left the store.

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Why not bring the prophet Enoch into this discussion?

Enoch was born 1,164 years before the Flood (according to Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the number would be similar from the LXX). So any preaching of a warning during his 365 year life would have been nearly 1,100 to 800 years prior to the Flood. Jehovah's purpose to destroy mankind appears to have been "decided" about 120 years prior to the Flood.

(Genesis 6:2-8) . . .. 3 Then Jehovah said: “My spirit will not tolerate man indefinitely, because he is only flesh. Accordingly, his days will amount to 120 years.” 4 The Nephʹi·lim were on the earth in those days and afterward. During that time the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men, and these bore sons to them. They were the mighty ones of old times, the men of fame. 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah.

5 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

LXX translators were members of Christendom

???

11 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I'm not clear on your point here (sorry). In reading Matthew 24

No problem. Perhaps another thread on Matthew 24 would be better than taking this subject up again under this one. In my experience, that topic can produce a lifetime of commentary.

9 hours ago, John Houston said:

Great discussion; and I thought I would include Jehovah God in this discussion. For even though scripture tells us how Jehovah felt about mankind when he gave ark instructions to Noah, had his words/feelings that would later be written down at Ezekiel 18:23 change?  So then what what is written at Genesis 6:7; would Jehovah God allow the wicked the chance to turn around,repent? Only if they knew, were warned! Who warned the wicked of the coming judgment day of Jehovah? 

Noah was faultless among his contemporaries, how did he base his faith on Jehovah in that wicked world? He fathered 3 sons and because of their lifestyle, 3 women left and joined them. And when Jehovah God told Noah to build the ark, these women stayed with them. But none of their families joined to help or board the ark! This lifestyle or arkbuilding was not done in secret. And if Jehovah is unchangable, the Noah's knowledge would move him to speak, just as the angels did when saving Lot at Genesis 19:12,12. So why would these people not be warned? That goes against all that Jehovah is! And scripture tells us that Enoch began warning people, correct? Jude 14,15?

 So these people, like Ezekiel states about, Jehovah were warned. Jehovah has not changed. Our reasoning imperfect and flawed, should always include Jehovah God, not human thinking and such.

These are excellent points. The reason I included what was written in Genesis 6 was because we absolutely need to include Jehovah in this discussion. In Genesis 6, it appears that Jehovah had already judged the world as wicked and only mentioned finding one righteous person, Noah. The way a person is known to be righteous to others is by standing up for what is right in their conduct, speech and of course, the important part that Jehovah sees, the right motivation. I have no doubt that Noah had distinguished himself not only in front of Jehovah, but also in front of others. As Romans 10:10 and Luke 12:34,35 shows, this would have included his speech. Therefore both his example and his speech apparently made him a preacher of righteousness.

(Matthew 12:34, 35) . . .For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things. . .

@b4ucuhear pointed out that Hebrews 11:7 shows that Noah showed godly fear and constructed an ark and through Noah's faith he condemned the world. It's not that much of a logical stretch to surmise that this was the way in which he "preached" but, as b4ucuhear also said, we don't know for sure whether this meant that he actually preached a divine warning. 

The point from Ezekiel 33 is about a person commissioned as a watchman to preach a warning to Israel.

(Ezekiel 33:2-6) . . .“‘Suppose that I bring a sword upon a land, and all the people of that land take a man and make him their watchman, 3 and he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the horn and warns the people. . . .  6 “‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and he does not blow the horn and the people receive no warning and a sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that person will die for his own error, but I will ask his blood back from the watchman.’

The others that Jehovah had condemned in Noah's day were not in the same situation as this, so we can't claim that Jehovah was required to do the same thing in Noah's day as he did for Israel when he commissioned Ezekiel to be a watchman. It was Jehovah who made the warning, but only to Noah. We don't really even know if Noah's family helped him or believed him. They were not said to be part of a band of preachers, nor does the Bible even say that they lifted a finger to help Noah with the ark-building project. We can only guess. I would guess the same as you have, but we can't claim that it must be true just because it's a good guess.

Also, when you read about the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19, you notice that the warning came from Jehovah only to the people he wanted to save. Similar to what happened to Noah, the angels only asked Lot to get his relatives out of the city. We read of no warning to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, themselves. Jehovah had told Abraham that he (Jehovah) had already judged that there were not even 10 righteous people in Lot.

Why else could Jesus say the following?

(Matthew 10:14, 15) . . .. 15 Truly I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah on Judgment Day . . .

(Matthew 11:23, 24) . . .if the powerful works that took place in you had taken place in Sodʹom, it would have remained until this very day. 24 But I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom on Judgment Day than for you.”

My point is that it is a tendency of "human thinking" and "human reasoning" to add to the scriptures. It is always better to remember what you said: "Our reasoning imperfect and flawed, should always include Jehovah God, not human thinking and such."

4 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

the scriptures say that they laughed and scoffed at him

The scriptures do NOT say that they laughed and scoffed at him. (This is the very kind of thing I was trying to address by pointing out. Just because something makes sense, and it might even be true, it's still just speculation.)

1 hour ago, Jay Witness said:

"The consent forms were not admitted merely to show that Seels-Davila understood the risks of treatment, yet elected to proceed," Shogan wrote. "The consents were admitted to prove that Seels-Davila knowingly refused treatments that would have saved her life."

I know a lot of Witnesses who, deep down, believe that you can't really die from lack of a blood transfusion. Some Witnesses can't even bring themselves to admit that blood transfusions save thousands of lives every year. So there is this idea that doctors didn't do all they could, and that the doctors' representatives are only claiming that the patient died explicitly from the lack of a blood transfusion. Of course, there really is a lot of incompetence and malpractice and mismanagement and who knows what all the factors were in this case.

But it's sad situation made even sadder if the reason were primarily based on the family's misunderstanding of the risks.

24 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

This, I'm sure, will lead us into another direction in this conversation, but I'll try to stay on point.

It's my guess that talk of how the "torment" works would still be on point.

25 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

The second death in my opinion would be the "destruction" and that too would fit equally in your association above. The problem is that something cannot be destroyed twice, or it was never destroyed in the first place

I wasn't sure how aware you were of the different definitions we (JWs) give to Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus. Second death is the lake of fire which would then be the same as Gehenna. Those were the only terms to which we would have applied the meaning of "Destruction." Death and the Grave (Hell) would be pretty much the same thing, and therefore the Grave (Hell) is NOT "destruction." That's why there can be a resurrection, whether of righteous or unrighteous. The Grave is not final destruction, second death or Gehenna is.

30 minutes ago, b4ucuhear said:

"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?

It makes sense, but the Bible never says that he became a preacher after being given divine warning.

From the time Noah was given the divine warning, all we know, for sure, is that Noah built an ark and got it ready. And he apparently got his wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law to join him. Perhaps these are the only ones he preached to. Perhaps he only preached about righteousness, and never preached anything about a warning. Perhaps he had only been a preacher of righteousness BEFORE he was given the divine warning. We just don't know.

What we DO KNOW is that Jesus said that the Flood came, in effect, without a warning.

Even the expression "they took no note" -- even if this had been a proper way to translate the Greek -- still does not say that Noah warned anyone. Perhaps they "took no note" of the fact that Noah was building an ark. The idea of a warning is what WE WANT to read into the idea of "they took no note." Undoubtedly, it was also the reason to "translate" it this way.

Perhaps there was no reason for a warning, because Jehovah had already made the decision before he picked Noah and his family as the only ones chosen for survival. In fact, that way of reading Genesis 6 is just as likely as the assumption that Noah decided to go preaching when Jehovah told him to build an ark. Perhaps it's even a more likely reading. Consider:

(Genesis 6:7-14) . . .So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah. 9 This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God. 10 In time Noah became father to three sons, Shem, Ham, and Jaʹpheth. 11 But the earth had become ruined in the sight of the true God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 Yes, God looked upon the earth, and it was ruined; all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. 13 After that God said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth. 14 Make for yourself an ark from resinous wood. . . .

Notice that Noah was already a man who was righteous, and faultless, and walking with God. Notice that there was no reason to warn anyone as Jehovah had already decided to wipe mankind off the earth, to bring an end to all flesh. Noah didn't necessarily even try to convince the other 7 people in his household. He is only told to take them into the ark, not because they are righteous, too, but because Noah was righteous:

(Genesis 7:1) . . .“Go into the ark, you and all your household, because you are the one I have found to be righteous before me among this generation.

So your same point from Romans 10:10 would have produced the "preaching" from Noah long before the divine warning was ever given, and we know nothing about Noah preaching after he was given the divine warning. And whether he preached before or after given the divine warning, we don't know that he himself ever preached about a warning to others. Perhaps that would have been cruel and self-righteous, since they had already been condemned to drown, and Noah was not told that they could do anything if they wanted to.

14 minutes ago, Anna said:

Thank you for explaining.

A full explanation (aka, a REALLY long post) would probably appear like a pendulum swinging between the extremes of never reporting and reporting everything we are asked to report and then some. (Matthew 23:3) "Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe. . ."

Similar to what @PeterR said, my opinions are expressed here as a "thought experiment" for anyone to consider and respond to.

33 minutes ago, Anna said:

However, if we view “legality” as a means of keeping order, and not something that robs one of “Christian freedom” or as per Galatians 3, then we have the right attitude.

Yes, it's possible for "legalism" to exist side-by-side with proper motivation. Jesus dealt with this situation as a necessity during his own ministry when the legalism had not yet been nailed to the stake. Jesus put it this way:

(Matthew 23:23) 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things.

Of course, when the Law is written on your hearts, this refers to the total primacy of the heart-felt motivation: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." But all of us need a bit of tutoring in our motivation, just as the Law was a tutor. But the Law showed us where we came up short, and therefore took away most of the joy.

(Galatians 3:19) Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive. . .

41 minutes ago, Anna said:

But I have never known a pioneer to last more than a few years just counting hours. If that was the only motivation. Because naturally there cannot be any JOY just counting hours.

This is quite true, but counting hours is not the only motivation in keeping up the "status" of being a pioneer. It's the accolades from men that go with the title. The same could also be said of appointed elders, and ministerial servants, and the various types of overseers in the organization, and yet the terms are Biblical -- and these are privileges to be reached out for. Paul spoke of various thresholds of qualification for those "titles."

But one of the legalistic problems with the various pioneer titles is that when considering something to be "full-time" service, there is no such thing as saying one person is in full-time service and another is not. 400 hours a month might not be full-time to one person, and yet 5 hours a month might be full-time for another. (Remember the widow's "mite.") In truth, all Christians must be full-time; that's what whole-souled means.

(Matthew 22:37-40) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, . . .

On 7/21/2017 at 1:22 PM, Shiwiii said:

Sure, here is a brief description on how I see hell. Jesus spoke of Hell/Gehenna in the following verses,

Matt 5:22-30, Matt 10:28, Matt 11:23, Matt 16:18, Matt 18:9, Matt 23:15&3, Mark 9:43&45&47, Luke 10:15, Luke 12:5, Luke 16:23

When Jesus spoke of hell, He spoke about a place most of the time. It was a place of destruction and also an attitude or character flaw. The attitude portion is what He was speaking about in Matt23:15, saying that the Pharisees and hypocrites convert someone into their way of thinking or character and it makes them even more deceived than they themselves because the hypocrites already know the truth but yet stray away and draw others as well. As for a specific place? Well, I’m not really concerned if there is or is not a specific place under the earth or whatever. However, it is a place, a place in time. When Jesus spoke of being cast into hell without an eye or hand, it wasn’t about being tormented day and night forever with two eyes or hands, it was more about the time when hell and death are destroyed ( Rev 20) and Jesus wants NO ONE to have that fate.

There are other verses which speak of hell and I think they elaborate a bit further on the explanation of hell. For instance in Rev 20, when death and hell are cast into the lake of fire. Is it tangible? Is it figurative? It is both? In Rev verse 13 speaks of those who are in hell being delivered up for judgement. So are they contained in some place? Peter in his second letter said that hell was a place of darkness with the capacity to hold those there in reserve until judgement. I do believe hell is a place and the torment is not inflicted by God, but by those persons themselves for winding up facing destruction at the second death and having to wait until that judgment.

If both terms can mean destruction, I can't tell if you distinguish in the same way between Hades and Gehenna. Naturally, I think it makes a lot of sense that Revelation shows Death and Hades thrown into a "Gehenna" (lake of fire), which is a fitting symbolism for the final destruction of Death and the Grave, through resurrection and the potential of eternal life, where the only type of death that remains is total destruction, a second death.  When I first noticed that the 2013 Revised NWT was going to begin translating "Ha'des" as "Grave," I quickly rushed over to Matthew 10:28 to see if Gehenna might appear as "Destruction" with a capital "D."

With this in mind, some have translated Matt 23:15 with

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. -- NKJV

If this term "Gehenna" had become "Destruction" the verse could have read: "you make him twice as much a son of Destruction as yourselves" and then it would match the idea of persons like Judas and a person like the Antichrist.

(John 17:12) 12 When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me; and I have protected them, and not one of them is destroyed except the son of destruction, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.

(2 Thessalonians 2:3) 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.

It would mesh well with other Biblical references.

(Revelation 9:11) 11 They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is A·badʹdon [Destruction], but in Greek he has the name A·polʹlyon [Destroyer].

(Matthew 10:28) . . .fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Ge·henʹna.

Do you believe that the "torment" is only at the time of facing destruction? You mention 2 Peter where the word is Tartarus a word known from Greek mythology, and already used in the OT LXX (e.g., Job) a prison of darkness for the lesser gods/spirits. These spirit creatures are said to be alive and waiting in prison for the judgment. Do you believe that the "spirit" of humans who await resurrection also include those who will be resurrected to judgment? If so, do you think those spirits can be in a kind of "torment" while waiting, or do they possibly feel the "torment" after Hades is destroyed?

3 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I do not want to be included in the same breath as COJ particularly, or anyone else for that matter when motivations are discussed.

Makes sense. I was able to edit it out.

6 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

"In the beginning God made for himself a Son."

Which could just as likely have been supposed by working backwards from the sentiment found in John and Colossians, etc.

The wording in John 1 might also allude to some Jewish "Wisdom" poetry we no longer have access to. Or even an outgrowth of the poetry that already exists, such as in the way Jeremiah appears to allude to Genesis 1:1 poetically:

Jeremiah 10:12-16New American Standard Bible (NASB)

¹² It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. ¹³ When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth;

(Proverbs 3:19, 20) 19 Jehovah founded the earth in wisdom. He solidly established the heavens in discernment. 20 By his knowledge the watery deeps were split apart And the cloudy skies dripped with dew.

(Proverbs 8:22-31) 22 Jehovah produced me [Wisdom] as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. 25 Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, 26 When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters, 28 When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, 29 When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth, 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; 31 I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men.

Then again, the multiple references to a personified wisdom in these allusions to Genesis 1:1 might be evidence of a one-time reference to a Logos/Word/Wisdom. But the fact that it could also be referenced without any such reference may be evidence that what we have is exactly what was originally written:

(Isaiah 45:18) . . .For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.

On 7/22/2017 at 0:30 AM, Anna said:

Therefore I cannot agree with this statement:

On 7/21/2017 at 0:33 PM, JW Insider said:

The idea of a "pioneer" or "full-time servant" as opposed to a publisher is just another legalism based on a measure so that we are "noticed" for our gifts of mercy.

In fact, this is going the way of the sentiments of Carl Olof Jonsson, (and others) whose ideas are very similar to the rest of Christendom, and are a cop out contrary to Paul's admonition to Timothy and by extension any Christian:  "Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times; reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching. For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.  You, though, keep your senses in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry"-  2Tim.4:2-5

I couldn't know what motivations  @PeterR or you or anyone else might have. But I can say that what I said is (to me) merely a truism about legalism, and has nothing to do with taking it easy as you state. Also, I don't recommend that people stop reporting the types of service that help others prepare useful and appropriate publications, convention material, encouragement from circuit overseers, talks about local needs, etc. If you think you'll need 100 magazines next month in service, you should order 100 magazines; if you think you will need 10, order 10. Even in the days when we paid directly in advance for all the publications, I'd still see some Witnesses with rooms stacked with unused magazines and books. The specific need for printed material is no longer a big factor, as we are encouraged to make more use of electronic formats. (In some countries, more than others.)

Obviously, we could also take it too far and forbid the reporting of our service to others, too, but this could end up being just another form of legalism. Our motivation for reporting our time and experiences might be purely meant as an encouragement for others who have trouble finding the time, or our motivation for reporting could be out of the pure joy of reporting on experiences in our ministry that make our sacrifice of time worthwhile. (Remember the joy that Jesus expressed when the 70 evangelizers returned to tell about what kinds of experiences they had just had. Giving a good report can be a matter of encouragement or just a matter of the mouth speaking out of the "abundance of the heart" -- not just preaching, but telling fellow Christians about our experiences in preaching.)

However, the methods by which a "placement" or even a "return visit" can be counted have now made some of these reports mean less because people would be comparing Apple iPads to oranges. The differences in what some elders or family heads might count as a "Bible Study" might also be quite different from what the average pioneer will count. TTH is right that these numbers are not used in such a way that each congregation member knows who is more active than others, except by actual observation while working with others in the ministry, and by a couple of different level pioneer titles. Neither are they used at levels higher than a circuit overseer, in any form other than the aggregate. Other forms of "full-time" service might come with little or no field service, although there is overlap in the use of the "title." My brother, for example, was on a project at Bethel where Brother Wisegarver asked him if he could work 6 days a week for at least 4 months, and skip all his meetings except Sunday. I know several elders whose work on regional building committees kept them from almost anything else for several months at a time, and some have preferred it that way.

My point is that the Law included measurements and even certain threshold requirements to meet the Law correctly. We SHOULD be working purely from proper motivation, but this will not be true of everyone. This is why the Law was necessary as a tutor. But our ministry that is pure from the standpoint of 'our God and Father' MUST include a lot of ministry that is not currently counted as "sacred" service, even if Jesus counts it as "sacred" service. (Looking after orphans and widows, for example.) I do think that if proper motivation is what is explained and encouraged at all meetings, then most of us would rebalance our ministries toward the other forms of service that Jesus counts as sacred. But we would also be looking for more opportunities to buy out more effective time in all our ministries, making time count rather than looking for ways to count time.

My comments about the legalism behind the reports and titles might have sounded discouraging, but it's not so that anyone would do less, or lose their motivation. It's so that whatever we do is a JOY because of the motivation. The points about legalism include the confusion that most immature Christians have about being rewarded for "works." These legalistic ideas are really more obvious when we look at the history of the ways quotas and counting time and placements has worked since Rutherford's time. A quick reading of old Bulletins, Informants, Messengers, Kingdom Ministrys, Convention reports, etc., will make it clear what I mean by legalism in the sense that the apostle Paul spoke out so strongly against. I won't try to prove it here.

But I would agree that we have also moved toward a more sensible and balanced view of time to remove the common "burdensome" nature of counting time and placements.

22 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

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."

That idea in some commentaries could be very valid. But, as you have already said, a commentary is not the same as a translation -- at least it shouldn't be.

There is a tendency in commentaries to conflate their interpretations of ALL the scriptures on a topic into a single coherent idea, in spite of the fact that Jesus may have used this illustration or circumstance to highlight a different idea.

I think it gets back to the idea of the "heart" wanting to think that Noah must have warned everyone, so we want to understood "preacher of righteousness" to mean Noah gave everyone a warning. And he very well might have, but we are speculating if we decide that our favorite definition of "preacher" must fit this particular situation.

Whether Noah gave a warning or not, Jesus' point seems more likely to highlight the fact that they acted as if they had had no warning -- as if there had not been a warning. So it's not a key point of the verse to point out that a warning must have taken place. It changes the sense of the verse and the context to try to add this point. Doesn't mean that there is no truth to the idea of a warning in another context.

I think it's the same way in which many people think that Jesus' purpose (in Matthew 24) was to let the disciples know that there would be advance warning signs. This is what many commentaries WANT the whole chapter to be saying. There are one or two places that sound like something could be taken as a warning, and about 10 places where Jesus sounds like he was trying to say it would come as a thief, suddenly, without warning. It doesn't seem fair that it would be without warning at least to the faithful or at least to the angels, so we overthrow 10 clear verses in favor of one or two that could partially suggest otherwise.

I think that some have looked at this idea and think I'm trying to say that we should not be giving a warning about the end of this system. This is not the point at all. We can always warn people about how deep we must be into the time of the end. The only thing we should NOT be doing is saying "The Time is at Hand!" That's the way in which Matthew 24 (Mark 13, Luke 21) would be misinterpreted, and why Jesus started out with a warning about how easy it would be to get misled.

English Standard Version - Luke 21:8
And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them."

2 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

None of the followers in the first century baptized in a generic formula.  It was always in the Name of Jesus. "But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized." (Acts 8:12)

This is true. And it's convincing up to a point. After all, Jesus had just given them a command under the highest "authority" in the universe. Who would have heard such a command in those very words and then disobeyed it by even one "jot and tittle"?

But neither do Witnesses take it as a "formula" but only as a true statement, even if slightly expanded in meaning from the exact words Jesus used. Matthew also is the only gospel to use the term "parousia" in the question asked of Jesus by the disciples leading up to the "Olivet" sermon. This doesn't mean that it wasn't used at all in the context of the question, but it can also mean that Matthew himself was inspired to use ideas that the disciples had in mind even if not expressed literally. (Matthew himself could have been one of those disciples and would have known what they had in mind.) We know by comparing the gospels that what appears to be exact quotes are only quotes of "meaning" not verbatim quotes. 

So even though it's still possible that Jesus used the words or at least the meaning as they now appear, I agree that it makes more sense that the subsequent actions and statements of the disciples give evidence that Eusebius used the more accurate version.

On 7/20/2017 at 2:02 PM, Brother Rando said:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”

I appreciate the fact that you expanded on this under a new topic heading. I am going to copy my initial response from the other thread "Would you like to know the truth about Hell?"

On 7/19/2017 at 8:15 PM, Brother Rando said:

Yes. Matthew 28:19 was adjusted by the Catholic Church as pagan doctrines were also introduced into God's Word.

[My initial response from last week is in italics below. I'll add some additional points later.]

Yes. I understand it's a common belief, found in many of the modern commentaries. This particular verse has been suspected of textual tampering from the earliest years of textual study and criticism. The problem is that the kind of criticism that would allow us to claim that this particular verse has been tampered with comes along with a lot of "baggage" that would ask us to pick and choose which of hundreds of other verses and passages supposedly "evolved" over the first two or even three centuries after they were first written. We become selective about which passages we believe are correct and which were added or adjusted. We might end up cherry-picking our own favorite themes and doctrines that tickle our ears, and ignore important teachings we don't like.

Textual criticism results in more accurate Bible manuscripts, and the Watch Tower Society relies heavily on textual criticism (done by others) as the apparatus behind choosing an accurate Greek text of the New Testament. But taken to an extreme, the full study of textual criticism also leads to the potential problem of accepting that nearly half the books of the New Testament were not written as eye-witness accounts in the case of the gospels, but versions of prior documents like "Q" and Mark, and that if half of Paul's letters, really are from the apostle Paul then the other half are probably not from Paul at all, they say, based on textual and content clues. They would claim to show that the writer of John could not have been the same as the writer of Revelation. The same sources that claim that Matthew 28 contains glosses would allow us to dismiss 1 and 2 Peter as books from the second century. And hundreds of other supposed "facts" that would weaken our ability to base much of anything on the Bible itself. We would all be on our own trying to determine which of the inspired utterances were really true or not.

Of course, we have no problem with the value of such studies to determine facts about the apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the pseudepigrapha, the Elephantine papyri, or the Gnostic papyri, but some things are still sacrosanct. There is value in such studies, only up to a point.

What I was trying to say is that, YES, it's been a suspected gloss not just in modern commentaries, but even, as I said, from the earliest years of textual commentary and criticism (meaning especially, Eusebius, who owned and had access to the most important libraries of documents from the previous two or three centuries of Christianity). Eusebius had his own prejudices about the Trinitarian formula, but he was also a very astute observer of the process of canonization, living at the last possible time period when the choices for canonical Bible manuscripts could still be considered "in flux." 

What I was also trying to say is that accepting the major theories of textual criticism involved here, are of a type that we have to be the most careful with. These are content and subject-based criticisms, which make a lot of use of the idea of an evolving theology. As you know, the Watch Tower Society makes much use of the scholarship based on such criticism where it relates to the evolving doctrine of the Trinity and especially how textual tampering might have taken place. The kinds of tools that help restore the most likely original manuscript when variations are found is related to this study, because variations were often inserted based on evolving doctrine. But it's another layer of textual-historical criticism that attempts to discover glosses based on evolving doctrine alone.

Eusebius was an Arian (rather than an "orthodox" Trinitarian) and we do not have the original that he supposedly quotes from. It could very well have just been a variation that Eusebius preferred because any mention of the Father, Son and holy spirit together was probably being seized on by Trinitarians. The "simplified gospel" for purposes of mnemonics was often abbreviated in early Christianity to the form of a kerygma, and the methods of explaining an abbreviated theology and Christology was also very likely an explanation requiring "The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit." That "formula" was a good preaching "kerygma" for making points about Christ, points about baptism, and points about the kingdom, etc. If it were used by Jesus in the original, it could also provide a foundation for discussing our relationship with the Father, and our ability to come before his "presence" and how it has continued and will continue through the ages. This is implied in Jesus' words: "Look I am with you all the days until the conclusion [synteleia] of the system of things."

[by "kerygma" I mean not just "preaching" but the stype of abbreviated "bullet points" of the good news that could be easily remembered and then expanded upon in preaching, such as: "Jesus Christ, born of Mary, baptized by John, tried and killed under Pilate, resurrected by God, and now at God's right hand"  or similar abbreviated gospels. There is evidence inside and outside the Bible that early Christians used such "kerygma."]

So, I'm saying that it COULD have been part of the original. I think the Watch Tower Society would be very hesitant to dismiss it for several reasons. One is the danger of relying too much on this type of textual historical criticism. If this is suspect, then everything becomes suspect wherever there is a slight change of wording between the gospels, or between earlier and later letters of Paul or the pastoral letters. Another reason the WTS would be hesitant is because it would admit manuscript tampering during the second century, which we already are aware of,  but we would not expect Trinitarian-oriented tampering to have happened so early in the immediate century after the Matthew was written.

By the way, textual studies of the same type that make some scholars dismiss certain texts as tampered with, have also (in some other cases) made those same scholars dismiss various conclusions of Eusebius. The "two-witness" rule has a corollary in textual studies, too.

I was hesitant myself to add my own view here because it's outside the norm for Witnesses. I have no problem supporting the verse as it appears in the NWT and pretty much all other translations and manuscripts known (which almost all come from after the council of Nicaea). I don't think it supports the Trinity in any way, so it doesn't bother me as a true statement about what Christians should preach. But I also personally believe that Jesus' original words were more likely to have matched the way Eusebius quoted them so often. This does not imply that I agree with all the other conclusions of Eusebius and those who have studied manuscripts giving credence to everything that Eusebius claims.

My earlier comments also were intended to reflect the danger of using this particular verse as a proof that Jesus had not spoken about "hell" (hades and gehenna).

7 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Sure, here is a brief description on how I see hell.

Thanks for the answer to my question. It's interesting. I'm away for a few days and would like to respond when I get back home.

10 hours ago, PeterR said:

Sure. If you think true Christianity is measured like blood pressure then I have no wish to argue with you. I believe JW's are fairly unique among Christian denominations in this regard. Perhaps Jesus' direction in Matt 6:3 doesn't actually apply to us, and perhaps also the Bible just omitted the need to measure people by "hours of work" by accident.

If you truly believe that then I don't wish to dispute with you. Some people are suggesting that it's the right way to handle things, and I'm simply pointing out the mindset and counter-productive fruits that can result by being constantly oriented in this way.

Personally I don't feel that any scriptural instruction is for no reason, but I appreciate that others rationalize differently.

FWIW, I think that you made your point very well, and the fact that you got people to defend a parallel between the way we measure spiritual health with the way we measure physical health made your point even stronger. At least to those who understand that you are coming at this from the viewpoint of first-century Christians.

I heard two two Circuit Overseers (one was a "retired" CO) laughing about how the Apostle Paul would have probably thrown a fit if he saw how much emphasis was put on measuring numbers. It was their opinion that this is exactly what legalism was all about: measures vs. motivation. And it's not just Matthew 6:3, of course. It's the context of the entire "Sermon on the Mount" where it comes from.

(Matthew 6:1, 2) . . .“Take care not to practice your righteousness in front of men to be noticed by them; otherwise you will have no reward with your Father who is in the heavens. 2 So when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. . . .

The idea of a "pioneer" or "full-time servant" as opposed to a publisher is just another legalism based on a measure so that we are "noticed" for our gifts of mercy. So the entire context of Romans (regarding "law") and other letters of Paul are just as applicable. We are being reminded that we probably would not have the motivation to perform such works without the "notice" that these "awarded" titles provide. Yet Jehovah does not reward "service" and "works;" Jehovah rewards only pure, heart-felt motivation. Works can be void of pure motivation, but pure motivation will never be void of the kind of works that Jehovah appreciates. Jehovah rewards only the motivation based on love for Him and love for our fellow humans. He sees our works, and does not ignore them of course, but it's our work done in secret, never reported to anyone, that is evidence of proper motivation. Otherwise, it is just as likely that it is men we are trying to please, not Jehovah. 

As I'm sure you already know, there are literally hundreds of other verses in support of this same idea.

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I think we are done here, I gave to you a list that I posted on the first page and quoted myself

Apparently B.Rando has a style that doesn't lend itself to the kind of discussion I expected either. But it's not often anymore that I meet people who believe in a "literal" hell where a person's soul can be kept eternally tortured. Can you explain your own position on hell.