Menrov

Why is this topic always considered of great importance to JWs? The reason of His death is of importance. One is not a better Christian if he / she believes in a cross or not.
 

This is another topic in which the WBTS acts with double standards. If the higher education is to the benefit of the organization, it is embraced, but if it is in the benefit of the R&F, it is denied.......
 

To consider Isa. 49:16 Look, I have inscribed your name40  on my palms; (it is about Zion). Or:
ISA.44:5  One will say: “I belong to Jehovah.”+Another will call himself by the name of Jacob, And yet another will write on his hand: “Belonging to Jehovah.”And he will adopt the name of Israel.’
None of the Greek / OT scriptures make any reference to writing on bodies. I surely believe it is a personal choice. Like with clothes, hair dress, jewelry, or anything else one can use as a means to dress or decorate him/herself.

It is not uncommon to be told by (fellow) JW's that only new magazines or books are to be used. Why? Well, for the reasons already expressed: these book contain "old light" or expressions similar to this.
Just consider this; The WBTS is the only source of the material that JW's use. So, all JW's know, believe and accept comes from that source. In other words, the WBTS is accountable for what they published as truth. (even if a JW would disagree, he runs the risk of being DF'ed).
Further: the claim is that the WBTS has been selected to act as FDS since 1919 (was 1918....). Though apparently not appointed (WT 2013) but still FDS and that God has used them (WBTS) as the ONLY channel to educate so-called Gods people. So, one might expect that at least basic doctrines would be correct, without needing one or more corrections. Would God allow people to learn WRONG things?
So, if the WBTS can be wrong, can it be that for example l am right? In other words, could I be the FDS? What scriptural proof is there that directs me to the WBTS as the source of my bible education and explanations?
And who says that what is published today is good?
I therefore believe that when the WBTS tries to block old (pre 2000) books and magazines to be used or reviewed ,it is proof they do not even believe their own material. If the Revelation contained so much truth and explanations valuable for all of us, why is it no longer vaiuable ? According to the WBTS we are close to the end, right? Would such a book then not be most useful?
Apparently not.

It is not uncommon to be told by (fellow) JW's that only new magazines or books are to be used. Why? Well, for the reasons already expressed: these book contain "old light" or expressions similar to this.
Just consider this; The WBTS is the only source of the material that JW's use. So, all JW's know, believe and accept comes from that source. In other words, the WBTS is accountable for what they published as truth. (even if a JW would disagree, he runs the risk of being DF'ed).
Further: the claim is that the WBTS has been selected to act as FDS since 1919 (was 1918....). Though apparently not appointed (WT 2013) but still FDS and that God has used them (WBTS) as the ONLY channel to educate so-called Gods people. So, one might expect that at least basic doctrines would be correct, without needing one or more corrections. Would God allow people to learn WRONG things?
So, if the WBTS can be wrong, can it be that for example l am right? In other words, could I be the FDS? What scriptural proof is there that directs me to the WBTS as the source of my bible education and explanations?
And who says that what is published today is good?
I therefore believe that when the WBTS tries to block old (pre 2000) books and magazines to be used or reviewed ,it is proof they do not even believe their own material. If the Revelation contained so much truth and explanations valuable for all of us, why is it no longer vaiuable ? According to the WBTS we are close to the end, right? Would such a book then not be most useful?
Apparently not.

Hi, thanks for raising. A few things are not clear to me. I hope you can explain. 
1)  he term “born again” refers to a new beginning in the relationship between God and the person who is born again
based on what scriptures is this based? Jesus had already a relationship and was already a child of His Father.
2) the word translated in NWT with again can also mean From Above. I feel the latter is more correct as it would fit Jesus that He was "born" from above. Your view?
3)  When Jesus discussed the subject, he said that those born again would be “born from water and spirit.” (John 3:5) This expression refers to baptism in water followed by baptism with holy spirit.
I am not sure Jesus meant a sequence as there is only one baptism, not two. This note is also of interest:
Jesus’ somewhat enigmatic statement points to the necessity of being born “from above,” becausewater and wind/spirit/Spirit come from above. Isaiah 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10 are pertinent examples ofwater and wind as life-giving symbols of the Spirit of God in his work among people. Both occur in contexts that deal with the future restoration of Israel as a nation prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. It is therefore particularly appropriate that Jesus should introduce them in a conversation about entering the kingdom of God. Note that the Greek word πνεύματος is anarthrous (has no article) in v. 5. This does not mean that spirit in the verse should be read as a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, but that both water and wind are figures (based on passages in the OT, which Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel should have known) that represent the regenerating work of the Spirit in the lives of men and women. . 
4)  That second group of Christians have the 
I understand that this is the official doctrine of the WBTS but was just wondering if you can support this view? I got always confused with this view as Jesus taught that there will be one flock and one shepherd. There are always two opposites: good/evil, flesh/spirit, dark/light, believer/unbeliever, goat/sheep etc.
Thanks

It is always good to read the context. Paul is talking to the entire congregation. they gathered and ate. But they did not eat with respect. They ate because they were hungry and some got drunk.
Objective of the meal: 1 Cor. 11:26 For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
So, does this mean that all WHO DO NOT eat nor drink are NOT proclaiming the Lord's death? If one is in the congregation but does not eat or drink, according to Paul, is not supporting the arrangement. You can ask yourself: why be present?
It is not being an observer but objective was to participate.
Verse 33 explains: 33 So then, my brothers and sisters,12 when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you assemble it does not lead to judgment. I will give directions about other matters when I come.
Unfortunately, the WBTS teaches not to gather to eat but actually to deny the bread and wine and only be there to observe. I cannot find a verse or verses that supports this.
Anyone?
 
 
 

This is another topic in which the WBTS acts with double standards. If the higher education is to the benefit of the organization, it is embraced, but if it is in the benefit of the R&F, it is denied.......
 

607 or any other calendar date, what is the value in relation to your Christian life? Did any other key bible character use dates to support their acts of faith?
For a true believer, dates are irrelevant. All they (should) care about is their faith and how they show their faith towards others. We do not know the exact date Jesus was born, nor when He died. Yes, the day in the month is mentioned but to point this to a secular calendar date(day, month and year) is hardly possible if at all. It is as JW Insider explained, all dates are secular.
If dates or the method to date events, was so important or essential, the bible would have provided that in a way ALL can understand. But as it stands now, denominations use their acclaimed "insight" on how to date biblical events as a unique selling proposition. To differentiate from other denominations.
Further to this specific item: regardless if one agrees / accepts a certain date (i.e. 607, 587 etc ect), it does not justify the prophecy presumably linked to that date (gentile times, 7 times, 1914). In other words,, for us this dating seem relevant because we are taught that the selected date is the beginning of a prophecy, with its own (secular dates) calculation again. But if there was no such prophecy linked to that date that has any relevance for us living today, then the date would not be of any importance either.
If actually there is no prophecy from God related to the date we are speaking about here, is it fair to say that the whole dating is useless?
In conclusion, I believe true believers are not worried about dates. Only their acts of faith are relevant. Regardless on what date these acts are done.

When this came up elsewhere on jw-archive someone quoted the Watchtower article on Valentine's Day. I won't do that here, but I'm sure you know the information. Valentine's Day is still tied, in name at least, to a "saint." That ties it a little too close for comfort to a religious celebration, no matter how non-religious it is. Anyway, that wasn't even your question, since it was about birthdays. And there is nothing "religious" about birthdays.
I have an old talk outline where celebrating a child's birthday was tied to "creature worship" by giving too much undue attention to the child who had not really accomplished anything more than surviving for another year. Of course, the primary reason we give is that the Bible only mentions two birthday celebrations and they were both by wicked pagans who also happened to suborn a murder on their birthday.
At the meeting last night, it occurred to me that we are often asked to make assumptions and treat them as "gospel." One of these assumptions ties directly to our main public reason for avoiding birthdays. I'll just give a few examples so you can understand what I was thinking.
1. They played the introduction to Esther video that makes very bold and direct statements and gives dates with a high degree of authority in the voice. Nowhere do we ever admit that these dates are assumed dates, and that we often use dates that we KNOW are 10 to 20 years off the dates that ALL the evidence points to, just because we need to make those dates fit another preconceived assumption.
2. The Imitate book (ia) says that "Ahasuerus is widely thought to have been Xerxes I" and later it says that Xerxes I (per Herodotus) did the following: "when a wealthy man begged that his son be excused from joining the army, Xerxes had the son cut in half, his body displayed as a warning."  Yet, per the CLAM workbook (Christian Life and Ministry) it says "Once, he ordered a man to be cut in half and displayed as a warning." There is barely even a hint that this is from a source OUTSIDE the Bible. Yet, of course, the comment at the meeting turned this into a FACT, not about Xerxes I, but about Ahasuerus.
3. The meeting also made a special point to say that Esther was modest because she didn't ask for extra jewelry. (2006 Watchtower) Really? Does the Bible even mention as a FACT that extra jewelry was an option? Could she have asked for LESS jewelry, or only six months of those spa treatments she was given instead of the full year? Again, the speaker turned this assumption about jewelry into a FACT.
4. The other assumption was not at first turned into a fact by the speaker, but by an answer given in audience, and the speaker then agreed 100% and made a point to say how thankful we should be for KNOWING these things. (That Mordechai refused to bow to Haman for historical reasons, but forgetting that the CLAM workbook said "Why MIGHT Mordechai have refused...?")
These were still good points to think about, and there are good reasons to discuss what MIGHT have been going through the minds of these Bible characters. My only point is that we have trouble seeing what MIGHT be true when it goes against a view we hold, but we turn the "MIGHT" into "FACT" when it supports a view. Even a point or two in the book study on Elijah went in this direction, but the main point is about the banquets of Ahasuerus:
At the first banquet, there was drunkenness apparently, and this may have been the reason Vashti was summoned, perhaps even summoned immodestly by the king. Yet at the second banquet, ("THE BANQUET OF ESTHER") the king did this:
(Esther 2:18) . . .And the king held a great banquet for all his princes and his servants, the banquet of Esther. He then proclaimed an amnesty for the provinces, and he kept giving gifts according to the means of the king.
What occurred to me is why we never look at the differences between those two banquets and make an assumption from this about celebrations. Here we have a celebration by a pagan that did NOT end up in a murder, but in just the opposite. So we MIGHT decide that there is a lesson here about parties and celebrations. Bad things happen when there is drunkenness and abuse of power at birthdays (or licentious dancing, too, in the case of Herod). Yet, we also have a lesson about GOOD that can come of birthdays when modesty and proper influences abound. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Jehovah God, the Father, calls. And so does Jesus. No contradiction. Because, in will and purpose --even though the Father is greater-- Jehovah and Jesus are the same. ("I and the Father are one"). The "call" in this case is a "command" which results in the effect of raising the dead to life. It is the simultaneous purpose of both Jehovah and Jesus to effect this resurrection and judgment. This may sound contrived and convoluted, but notice that this is the exact same explanation Jesus gives in John chapter 6:
(John 6:38-40) 38 for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 This is the will of him who sent me . . . . that I should resurrect them on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”
(1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
(Philippians 3:14) 14 I am pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God by means of Christ Jesus.
 
 
 

I noticed in the links that Eoin Joyce provided,  the Bible references never mention a tattoo in them. It did give reference to obeying your parents (Colossians 3:20), which I can see that, but no mention of not getting a tattoo once an adult.
1 Peter 3:3&4, these are speaking about a wife and how she should be submissive to their husband throughout the first 6 verses. In fact it is specifically addressed in verse 5. Again, nothing about tattoo's. This applies also to 1 Timothy 2:9 as it is stated again about submissiveness and reinforced at verse 11.
Romans 12:1, this is the only verse that can actually pertain to the subject, however it still does not mention tattoo's. Romans 12:1&2 speak to us about how we are to live in these bodies as a living sacrifice, acceptable to God. We are to live for God, this would apply to smoking, drinking in excess, fornication, slandering and even over eating as these have been mentioned in other scriptures, but does it really apply to tattoo's? I think not. 
There is only one mention of tattoo's in the Bible. Leviticus 19:28. However, the WT accepts that this is not binding to anyone but the Jews. 
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-say-about-tattoos/#?insight[search_id]=aa3524b3-b921-40f1-b8fd-549dc406c9c3&insight[search_result_index]=1
" While the Law given to Israel is not binding on Christians, the principle underpinning this law is worth serious consideration. "
Worth consideration does not equate to absolute NO. 

[Adding link to 2nd pg of discussion, since my Chrome and Firefox browsers won't link to pg.2 from the "2," "Next" or ">>" links: http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/4416-607-bce/?page=2&sortby=date ]
 
This answer certainly will not sit well with some, but I'm a stickler for full disclosure. In the long run, I think we do better when we're completely open and honest with everything we have learned. 
 
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. (John 3:11) 11 Most truly I say to you, what we know we speak, and what we have seen we bear witness to,. . . (Matthew 5:14, 15) . . .. A city cannot be hid when situated upon a mountain. 15 People light a lamp and set it, not under the measuring basket, but upon the lampstand, and it shines upon all those in the house. (Matthew 13:52) . . .every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.” (Philippians 1:9, 10) . . .that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ; There is no support "for our use of this year archaeologically and historically speaking." What might be even more surprising is that there is also no support for our use of this year (607) even Biblically speaking. It evidently started out as a mistake in the 1800's, but we have been stuck with it ever since. I'm aware of members of the Governing Body who have said that we should just "scrap our entire chronology" and "start over from scratch." (Those are almost exact quotes from Brother Sydlik, but Brother Swingle, and R.Franz, and others were of a similar mind. I only heard it from two of them personally, but there was a time when almost half the Governing Body gave evidence that they did not believe it necessary to start the "generation of 1914" in the year 1914: D.Sydlik, L.Swingle, G.Suiter, B.Schroeder, E.Chitty, R.Franz, K.Klein. There were evidently even more members of the Writing Department who believed the same way.) 
The most disturbing quote I remember on the subject was from a brother in Writing: ". . . if we showed humility, we'd be humiliated."
For many years, we (WTS) never thought that the 607 date was the strongest or most important method to reach 1914. In fact, 1914 had already been "proven" through several other methods. But after we discarded those other methods, the only one that still remained was the "7 times" (2.520 years), so we simply assumed that since 1914 was correct, all we had to do was subtract 2,520 years, and that would take us back to the destruction of Jerusalem. 1914-2520=-606. That's why we used the date 606 BCE for so many years -- up until 1943 and 1944. That was when we finally, formally accounted for the fact that there was no zero year between 1 BCE and 1 CE. (This is something that the Watchtower had previously questioned.)
Rather than keep 606, which would mean moving the end of the 2,520 years to 1915, we naturally just kept 1914 and moved back the destruction of Jerusalem to 607 BCE. The actual date for the destruction of Jerusalem (archaeologically and historically) didn't really matter, as long as it was exactly 2,520 years before 1914.
 
After saying all this, I should add that this should not create any doubts in the Scriptures, or the fact that we are living in the last days, or that our deliverance is getting near. It should not create any doubt about the fact that we have been provided with a full banquet of spiritual food, and should be appreciative of everything we have received. This should not reflect in the slightest on the thousands of truths we have learned about Trinity, Soul, Ransom, Jehovah's Sovereignty, Hell, Neutrality, Preaching, New Heavens & New Earth, etc., etc., etc.
This is only meant as a full, true and honest answer, to the best of my knowledge, to the initial question of the post.

[Part One - Just a little more background]
The Bible contains no dates, at least not anything like the dates we use today. There is no such thing as a date like 539 BC, or 607 BCE, or 29 CE, or AD 33, or 70 CE, or 1914. The only types of dates that the Bible uses are expressions like:
(Genesis 5:21-27) 21 Eʹnoch lived for 65 years and then became father to Me·thuʹse·lah. 22 After becoming father to Me·thuʹse·lah, Eʹnoch continued to walk with the true God for 300 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Eʹnoch amounted to 365 years. 24 Eʹnoch kept walking with the true God. Then he was no more, for God took him. 25 Me·thuʹse·lah lived for 187 years and then became father to Laʹmech. 26 After becoming father to Laʹmech, Me·thuʹse·lah lived for 782 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Me·thuʹse·lah amounted to 969 years, and then he died.
(1 Kings 15:25-34) 25 Naʹdab the son of Jer·o·boʹam became king over Israel in the second year of King Aʹsa of Judah, and he reigned over Israel for two years. 26 He kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah . . .  . . . 33  In the third year of King Aʹsa of Judah, Baʹa·sha the son of A·hiʹjah became king in Tirʹzah over all Israel and reigned for 24 years. 34  But he kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, and he walked in the way of Jer·o·boʹam and in his sin that he caused Israel to commit.
A portion of the Bible therefore includes a chronology system, that appears to track the number of years from Adam to Noah (and the Flood). Another portion appears to track the number of years from Noah (through Shem) to Abraham. Other sections track the time from Abraham to the Exodus. Then it gets a bit murky. Even so we know we are not too many years off between the Exodus and the Judges and then to King Saul and David. There is a also a lot of information to help track the time from David through the last Judean King Zedekiah. But even these "synchronisms" between the lines of kings leaves several open questions, which can be interpreted in various ways. Of course, not long after Zedekiah and the return of the Jews from Babylon to Judea & Israel, it gets murky again. And we have no chronology to track the time from, say, Zedekiah until Jesus is born.
In other words, you could know that Methuselah was born a certain number of years after Adam was created, or even that Shem or Abraham was born a certain number of years after Adam was created. but you would still have no idea when Adam was created, or what year the Flood arrived. We also have those murky or incomplete portions. That means that we know, for example, that Jereboam's son Nadab became king over Israel in the second year of King Asa of Judah, but we don't know how long that was after Adam or Noah or Abraham.
Still, the main point is that even if we did have a perfectly linked chronology from Adam through Zedekiah, such as the one seen in Genesis 5 or 1 Kings 15, above, we would still have no way to tell how long ago that time period started or ended. We would not be able to identify specific years, only relative years.
The only way we can start attaching specific years, like 4 BCE, or 70 CE, or 539 BCE to any of these "relative dates" is if we decide that we will accept non-Biblical dates, otherwise known as secular dates.
4 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 33 CE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 607 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 587 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date 539 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. The reason that is important is because the question about whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE or 587/6 BCE is often framed as if one of those dates is Biblical and the other is secular. They are both secular! Everyone in the world, incluing historians, scientists, archaeologists, Bible scholars, the Watch Tower Society and the Governing Body must rely completely on secular dates to figure out how many years ago a Biblical event might have happened. 
So what do we do?
We need to pick a secular date that we think we can trust and begin trying to link Biblical events to it.  Then we see if we can't create a chain of linked events backwards and forward from there. In fact, we need to pick several secular dates because the Bible's relative chronology does not really link the time around Adam, Noah and Abraham all the way through the time of the Judges and Kings. And after the Temple is rebuilt after the time of Ezra, the timeline stops again, so we'd need to find another secular date to see if we can match the time of Jesus birth, baptism, death, and any other events in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
We need to find some secular dates that we can trust! This is exactly where 539 BCE becomes so interesting. That's the time when Cyrus conquers Babylon, right? Yes, and it seems to be a perfectly good secular date for that event. If we accept it, we also get a pretty good idea when Jerusalem was destroyed. In fact, by accepting 539 BCE we ARE accepting the same secular chronology that pinpoints the destruction of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year.
(2 Kings 25:8, 9) 8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man.
This is the whole problem! We like 539 BCE, as the final year of a Babylonian king, but don't want Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to be 587 BCE. We want his 19th year to be 607 BCE, instead. But we have a lot of trouble taking one without the other. In fact, if we say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year must be 607 BCE, then that's the same thing as saying that Cyrus conquered Babylon in 559 BCE instead of 539 BCE.
It makes no sense to say one is Biblical and one is secular. They are both secular and if you say you trust that 539 BCE is correct, then that's also the same as saying you accept that 587/6 BCE, NOT 607 BCE, is the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore the WTS has always been looking for a way to try to accept one part of the secular chronology without accepting another part of the same chronology.  Those attempts have never worked out, but this is what we'll need to discuss next.
 
 

We (WTS) used to think that 6,000 years of man's existence ended in 1873 and thus 1874 was the beginning of the thousand years. This is why the primary books of that time period were called "Millennial Dawn." The 1,000 year "day" had just dawned, and "we" were in the early morning of that day.
The fact that so many Bible chronology "proofs" led to the year 1874 was the reason that we kept that date "on the books" as significant for so many years. Up until around 1930. Changes became official for removing 1874 from our chronology "portfolio" in 1943/1944. After that, we kept 1878 as a significant prophetic year "on the books" even up until past when I was born (1957). So, although I don't remember it, we still studied that date at our "Congregation Book Study" in my lifetime.

This is another topic in which the WBTS acts with double standards. If the higher education is to the benefit of the organization, it is embraced, but if it is in the benefit of the R&F, it is denied.......
 

"judicial committees" were held in the gates of the city and later in front of all the congregation."Since the local court was situated at the city gates, there was no question about the trial being public! (Deut. 16:18-20) No doubt the public trials helped influence the judges toward carefulness and justice, qualities that sometimes vanish in secret star-chamber hearings."  -Awake 1981 Jan 22 p.17
 

I think not only we will never have had problems with pedophiles but many other problems would be solved if trials were held in the front of the congregation.