Shiwiii

That is not what The Praeceptor said, do you believe that The Praeceptor not a witness?

So you believe that the law was not within their heart and Jesus didn't really mean what He said? Also, what is your take on Jesus speaking about the thoughts within their heart? Was this just mistaken and worded incorrectly by John?

interesting interpretation. I look at other scriptures that speak about the heart and I just can't fit the idea you presented into the scripture. For example why would Jesus use the phrase "in your heart" if it didn't really fit? Luke 5:22 " Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts?" Surely, Jesus knew that the thinking portion of our bodies is not the heart but rather our brain. Did Jesus mean just close to the brain? Or how about here: John 5:42 " but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts." Was Jesus really saying that the love of God could be in a human heart?

Thank you, I've had a few more things on my plate than one would wish. I noticed that, it seems that the governing body has inserted themselves in place of Jesus. They, the gb, have taken it upon themselves to provide salvation. That is the exact example you gave with the parallels with Catholic's and their priests. It extends not only from the elders to the regular JW's but the gb is the same to the elders. It is the same hierarchy structure.

great point!

Fair enough, as the word used is hēgeomai, but is that with the implication of administering punishment? While you may hand that sort of application over to these men, I do not see it that way. Is there an instance when we should accept correction from those taking lead? Sure, but to what extent? To rule and reign over my conscience and my relationship with God? Never. My relationship does not depend on the ideas or "rules" of men. Just like many other religions of the world who impose punishment over their followers above and beyond what is written, the Bible tells us that is wrong. Going beyond what is written is forbidden. There is a big difference between being encouraged by council and imposing punishment for breaking "their rules". A perfect example is that of military or police service for a member of the WT. If you were to choose that course for your life, Would you not be punished, or rather shunned because you are going against the "rules" established by the WT? Of course you would be. But did anyone in the Bible tell a Roman soldier he must quit being a soldier if he is to become a believer? Your first statement I agree with to an extent , but can anyone adhere to these principles fully? Hardly. So that makes each one of us sinners, not able to live up to the law. Hence the reason why Jesus came and died for our sins. Ephesians 1 tells us that we are made holy and blameless by the blood of Jesus and yet we are still sinners. We are only clean by means of Jesus and our belief in Him. To clarify my point, we are in a relationship with Jesus and it is this relationship that sets us apart, as a congregation. There is no man who can tell me I am not a part of the congregation in which Jesus followers are in, regardless of my sin. This is because my heart belongs to Jesus, and fail I will, I still strive to seek after Him.

I asked you for scriptural support, you gave none.

Could you please provide your scriptural support for this? I don't think I have read the phrase "sin of Satan" nor its description. you equate the men who correct you with God Himself?

I do not see that in this scripture. That is your assumption, and is perfectly fine to have that opinion, but it does not change the fact that this is not said here. What is said is that one should be humble and accept direction to those who are taking a lead. Nothing is said of administering any sort of punishment. Return to whom? men or God? To men, yes. To God, no it is between them and God and not a group of men. That is my whole point.

To what level is adultery vs stealing? Does your scriptural reference distinguish this? No, it dos not. Try again. I have just asked a question if the men of the WT are the ones to determine repentance or is it God, can you address this?

my point exactly. Who are they to determine the genuine repentance? Is that not God's job?

This is a great response and one we should all try and live by, however you did nothing to address anything I said. You see, I have no problem with what you wrote, in fact I agree with most of it. The problem I have is that instead of discussing what I wrote, you chose to abandon the conversation and speak about building character. Like I said, I agree for the most part. Unfortunately it just doesn't pertain to the conversation.

How is this statement accurate in light of scripture? Ch. 1 par. 9 9 How will God’s Kingdom come? When we pray, “Let your Kingdom come,” we are asking that the Kingdom take decisive action. When the Kingdom comes, it will exert its full power toward the earth. It will remove the present wicked system of things, including all man-made governments, and bring in a righteous new world. (Dan. 2:44; 2 Pet. 3:13) I can see how Daniel applies to an extent, but the 2 Peter 3:13 does not. What did Jesus say? Luke 17:20&21 "Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.” How do you reconcile this book with scripture?

Aranua, I think you were replying to me on this post. I don't think I am leaving YHWH out of anything, but rather it is the men who call themselves elders who have left YHWH out of it and took it upon themselves to determine who is repentant and who is not. I mean, think about this for a moment, Who establishes the "rule" or criteria for how long a person must "study" WT material before they can be baptized? Is it YHWH or is it men? Looking at the Bible, specifically Acts 8:29-39, what did the Ethiopian have to do? What were the requirements for him? None, but yet there are these requirements made by men within the Org? How about the requirement to show up late and leave early for meetings to prove your repentance to the elders, if one were disfellowshipped, and for how long must one be under this bondage to be considered "good enough"? Did Jesus require this of the thief next to Him in Luke 23:42&43? What was the requirement?

Right, and I agree with you on the point that God knows, but Is there a real difference between willful and out of weakness? Even in weakness we have a conscience. Where in the Bible does it say the degrees of severity of sin? My thought on this matter is who does elder so and so think he is by determining who is and who is not repentant? Is that not God's job?

The comparison between the saving of people from their suffering and the suffering of Jesus are two completely different things. Jesus' suffering was for a direct purpose, to save those who believe in Jesus. The suffering of people has only the purpose of bringing that individual to God, and that is not always a guarantee that they will.

Which scripture do you have in mind to support this? I'm just curious.

You do realize that it wasn't because God didn't want to or couldn't save His own Son, it was to fulfill His purpose. It seems by your statement that you think God couldn't save His own Son.

Who is the one to measure the severity of sin? Who is to determine if the sin is gross? Men of the KH? They are the door to the sheep? Is the one who lies any different than the one who commits adultery? Which one is more gross? Also, who among us does not sin?

This isn't even possible. That is why Jesus came, because we cannot do this on our own. Man could not live according to the law of Moses that was given to him by God, so Jesus came to fulfill the law.

Doesn't Hebrews 1:3 say that Jesus is the EXACT representation or image of God? Not just like, or a representative, but exactly. There isn't a way that Jesus is not exactly like His Father. "3 He is the reflection of God’s glorye and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins,g he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." How can you say that Jesus is anything but God? Should we not see it just as it says? Jesus is exactly the same in nature, the nature of God Himself.

actually that is not what it says. The thoughts make no difference here on Earth after they have left as they cannot interact with those still here, thus they are forgotten. Ecclesiastes 9:5 talks about what is being done "under the sun" It is repeated many times and in each instance it talks about what is being done "under the sun", meaning while we are still alive on Earth. Some examples of this are : Ecc 1:3 " What do people gain from all their labors at which they toil under the sun? " Ecc 1:14 "I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind." Ecc 2:8 "I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me." Ecc 4:1 " Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed— and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors— and they have no comforter." Ecc 6:12 "For who knows what is good for a person in life, during the few and meaningless days they pass through like a shadow? Who can tell them what will happen under the sun after they are gone?" Ecc 9:6 "Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun." The verse you mentioned says nothing of the dead being unconscious, but rather their thoughts are meaningless to those who are still here.

It's My job, That's why. I've been called to assist.

You Cannot Have A Lessor perfection, It Either is or Is not.

It's personal conscience to be hypocritical, I agree. Take what you can from others and never give into that in which you take. Hmmmm.