Shiwiii

Crash course? please explain this crash course and why it does not apply today, but instead a requirement for a year long study is needed? 
 
If he was already a part, then why did he say that he had no understanding of what he was reading? He had no idea who Isaiah was talking about. Surely if he were part of God's people, then he would have known something. Didn't the Jews have an idea that Isaiah was talking about the Messiah? Was this man a Jew? Besides all of this, what was the one thing......not some man made list of requirements or questions......one thing that this man needed from Philip?

Just because this is a controversial section and this point made gave me a thought.
 
Did that thief beside Jesus study for a year? Or how about the eunuch that Philip baptized? 

you're asking something too rational my friend, that was taken away by the gb long ago.....remember? 
"At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not."--- November, 2013 Watchtower

you're asking something too rational my friend, that was taken away by the gb long ago.....remember? 
"At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not."--- November, 2013 Watchtower

you're asking something too rational my friend, that was taken away by the gb long ago.....remember? 
"At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not."--- November, 2013 Watchtower

 
Beth Sarim? That's why.
 
Hey it worked once, lets try that again but this time make it big enough for all of us. 
 

you are witty  
WT representatives were told many times that they would not change what is "proved by Bible" or what is "supported by Bible". And we all know how that was ended many times.
 One of this statement told by Gary Breaux  is;  GB WILL NEVER CHANGE TWO WITNESS RULE.
Would you, dear Anna, apply these Proverb also for Gary and his colleagues?  

http://ex-jw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Court-Trial-Testimony-Redwood-City-1-25.pdf
Check page 4

PRIESTS?? 
Jehovah's  Witnesses have priests?? Since when? :)))))))))) JW org say to public little contrary - JW have no priests or clergy.
Why you using Catholic priesthood privileges according to Catholic Church canon law, doctrines and want to apply false Babylon the Great measures and instructions and doctrines to "only true JW religion"?       :))) funny and sad at same time!

@Srecko Sostar you are being personally downvoted for spreading the news about our organization and that's sad. This isn't an apostate fabrication. Does reality trigger JWs on here? Us JWs have to face the reality of what's happening instead of digging our heads in the sand. We may face these questions in the ministry. 
Honestly, the organization needs to be 100% transparent right now about their child abuse policies, because we act as representatives for them when we go out. I shouldn't have to view some weird PDF of the Shepherd's Flock book to get a grasp of the org's policies (which I still don't get). 

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OSBALDO PADRON,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT
SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D070723
(Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00067529-
CU-PO-CTL)
 
Nonetheless, Watchtower refuses to comply
with the court order and maintains the court was just wrong. In this sense, it refuses to
acknowledge the authority of the court and repudiates the procedures and rules all
litigants are supposed to follow in superior court. In these extreme circumstances, we
conclude the superior court was authorized to issue the monetary sanctions below. Also,
we see nothing in the Civil Discovery Act that expressly prohibits the superior court from
imposing monetary sanctions like the ones issued here. Indeed, we find Watchtower's
conduct so egregious that if it continues to defy the March 25, 2016 order, terminating
sanctions appear to be warranted and necessary.
It is clear that those responses, at least in
part, were in consideration of future litigation and liability that could arise from the
placement of known child molesters in positions of leadership and authority within the
Jehovah's Witnesses organization.
Here, Watchtower has abused the discovery process. It has zealously advocated
its position and lost multiple times. Yet, it cavalierly refuses to acknowledge the
consequences of these losses and the validity of the court's orders requiring it to produce
documents in response to request number 12. And, in a further act of defiance,
Watchtower informed the court that it would not comply with the March 25, 2016 order
requiring it to produce documents responsive to request number 12. The court, following
Lopez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th 566, as an incremental step toward terminating sanctions
if Watchtower persists in its unjustified conduct, imposed monetary sanctions. On the
record before us, we are satisfied that the superior court's order was not arbitrary,
capricious, or whimsical. To the contrary, the superior court has shown great patience
and flexibility in dealing with a recalcitrant litigant who refuses to follow valid orders
and merely reiterates losing arguments. We therefore affirm.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Padron is awarded his costs of appeal.

While I agree with you to an extent, I also disagree. The point you made about the abusive relationship and skipping the memorial is true for the most part. I would also not expect that type of reaction to those instances. I think the point being made is not actually WHY one is disfellowshippped, but rather the unnecessary reaction by ALL once one is DF'd, even to the extent of family. I've heard of instances of one getting DF'd  for silly reasons, but yet the reaction is the same. The punishment, in my opinion, does not fit the crime. To God, sin is sin and it has only ONE consequence unless you have Jesus' covering. Us as humans are not God and that is also why there are degrees of consequences when breaking the laws of men. To have to live like you have no family because that family is holding to what the gb says instead of the compassion Jesus had, is cruel. 

Yes. A 70 year period that ended in 539 would have to have started around 609. And this is a pretty good match for when Babylonian power reared its head over Assyria. The capital of Nineveh fell in 612 and Babylon took advantage and became the next world power. 609 was the year that Josiah died. Josiah was considered by many Jews to be the next potential Messiah, a king like David.
In fact, notice that 609 is exactly the year that the Watch Tower publications point to (indirectly) when it speaks of the end of the Assyrian empire. (Remember that the WTS arbitrarily adds 20 years to every date prior to 587 B.C.E., so that 607 B.C.E.is actually 587 B.C.E., and therefore 629 B.C.E. is actually 609 B.C.E.)
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Actually, Ashur-uballit was trying to reconquer it after having been driven out. This record is in harmony with the account relative to the activity of Pharaoh Nechoh recorded at 2 Kings 23:29, which activity resulted in the death of King Josiah of Judah (c. 629 B.C.E.). This text states that “Pharaoh Nechoh the king of Egypt came up to the king of Assyria by the river Euphrates”—evidently to help him. “The king of Assyria” to whom Nechoh came may well have been Ashur-uballit II. Their campaign against Haran did not succeed. The Assyrian Empire had ended. So this is an excellent match for the 70 years of Babylonian domination from 609 to 539, spoken about by Jeremiah:
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ . . . Just as the Watch Tower publications have explained it in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
“These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) . . . Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
So that is ONE period of 70 years that started in 609 and ended in 539.
The Bible, in the book of Zechariah, also mentions another period of 70 years that starts around 587 (destruction of Jerusalem) or even 588 when the siege began, and ends around 518. Since it's been so many months I'll repeat some portions of the post you referred to, where this was explained:
------- the remainder of this post copied from a previous post (JWI: 4/14/2017) above -------
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .“O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
(Zechariah 7:5) . . .‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years. . .
(Zechariah 8:19) . . .‘The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month will be occasions for exultation and joy for the house of Judah. . .
*** w96 11/15 p. 5 Does God Require Fasting? ***
For example, at one time the people of Judah had four annual fasts to commemorate the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (2 Kings 25:1-4, 8, 9, 22-26; Zechariah 8:19)
According to our current understanding of the chronology that includes the supposed destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE, then this produces a contradiction, because we date the book of Zechariah as follows:
*** nwt p. 1662 Table of the Books of the Bible ***
Zechariah
Jerusalem rebuilt
518
520-518 [BCE]
If Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, then 518 BCE is 69 years later, and therefore matches Zechariah's theme of 70 years of withheld mercy and indignities, and wailing and fasting over Jerusalem, which is now being rebuilt.
If Jerusalem had been destroyed in 607 BCE, then by Zechariah's time, in 518 BCE, it would have been 89 years of wailing and fasting.
Neither date is "Biblical" and neither date should really matter that much, but it is curious that 607 BCE is totally impossible from the perspective of secular evidence, and it becomes very difficult from the perspective of Biblical evidence. Yet 587 BCE is totally supported from the perspective of secular evidence and provides an excellent match to the Biblical evidence. There should really be no reason why we are not rejoicing that secular, historical, archaeological evidence for 587 BCE once again shows the Bible to be accurate and sound from a historical perspective.

No, that was the question I posed to you. Based on your writing here, we are in agreement. The Spirit of God IS the Spirit of Jesus and any mention of a person having the Spirit within themselves, have the Spirit of God in them. 
Expanding on this a little, it is the belief of the wt that only those who are anointed have this Spirit, then the wt has declared that the rest (earthly hope in their view) DO NOT BELONG TO JESUS as they do not have the Spirit of Jesus within them. If read within context and of what we are talking about in Romans 8, Jesus DID NOT come to save them (Matt 1:21 on context with Romans 8:9) according to wt.
 
This is a leap and assumption not found in scripture. NO WHERE is there a limitation on who belongs to the New Jerusalem. There is no reference to 144k outside of Revelation, and certainly no reference to a spiritual Israel. This was all invented by the wt/gb about 144k. If one is to take this number literally, then why is it not taken literally where they come from? Or who makes up this group? Male Jewish virgins would be the answer. To take only part of the scripture and apply it and not the rest is man creating what man wants to see, not what God has declared. 
agreed
I disagree, there is no replacement of Israel or else there would not be anymore mention of Jews and their place in God's plan (Revelation 2:9, 3:9, 7:4-8). In fact your use of Romans 11:25 says there was a temporary hardening of the hearts of Israel, so that the gentiles could come in. Into what? Israel. Then all of Israel will be saved. The Gentiles are Jews by means of the Spirit as you rightly pointed out in Romans 2:28&29. Israel is not going away or being replaced, but rather being added to. 
 
yes, I agree.
I feel that the "marriage" is not Christ's appearing, but our acceptance of Jesus as our Lord and Savior. 
you are going to have to demonstrate with scripture how you tie 144k and the "Bride". Its just not there, and what I see the "Bride" is amounts to much more than a limited number (Galatians 4). 
 
agreed
 
again, please connect 144k. All of your explanation falls apart for me without direct correlation of 144k and the "Bride". 
 
yes, I do. However, no limitations can be set upon God's temple, and those who make up that temple, that God Himself does not limit and scripture does not tell us the number of those who make up the temple of God. Thus God has not told us the limits, it is only by man that those limitations exist. 
 
 
great discussion, Thank you and I look forward to the next part. 

I agree with all you said here, with one small exception. You mentioned "only one spirit", while I agree, I wonder what you believe about the Spirit of Jesus found in Romans 8:9&10, as I do not think we are on the same page about this.  Is this Spirit of Jesus the same spirit you believe is in the other scriptures you quoted? Here in Romans 8, scripture clearly states that if you do not have the Spirit of Jesus within you, you do not belong to Him (Jesus). 
Where in scripture do we see any limitation? please provide scriptural support.
Where is there a mention of a Spiritual Israel in the Bible? A replacement if you will. I see no spiritual Jerusalem, only earthly and heavenly. I agree that the new covenant is under the free woman and that it IS separate from the first covenant, but I see nothing that excludes those of the first covenant from salvation. 
 
Temple/New Jerusalem/ Bride, yes I agree they are all the same and Galatians tell us that those in this group will outnumber those of the first group. Galatians 4:27 which is a quote from Isaiah 54 says they will outnumber, so there cannot be a limitation to only 144,000 because there are far more than that in the first group. You see, this is where we must understand each other and support our belief with scripture before we can dig deeper.
There is a bias within some interpretations that some have just accepted without question, and if we do not use scripture to straighten these things out, we will never get past what we have been told. Like the Bereans, we must examine what we are told against scripture to see if what we are being told is true.

yes it has. I cannot be angry at other's opinions, everyone is different. The part where I get what you call "angry" is when the conversations turn into personal attacks with no basis other than a difference of view. 
I will read this, but I cannot accept that it is YOUR opinion. It is the opinion of the wt, while you may agree it still is not put forth in your words and vision. 
 
I omitted the actual parts of scripture to keep the thread from becoming too long. We can read the fullness above in previous posts. 
 
I'm not quite sure were it is derived that Sarah is God's wife. I'd like if you could expand on that if you can. 
If we take the scripture you gave (and I did too) Galatians 4:26, it says that she represents "Jerusalem from above" and compare that with Revelation 21. We see that Sarah/Jerusalem from above is the Bride of Christ/wife of the Lamb. 
Revelation 21:
2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 
9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,
 
I feel this clearly tells us that Sarah represents those who make up the Bride of Christ. These that are of Sarah/Jerusalem from above will outnumber those of the first covenant (Israel). 
 
I agree to a point. We can go deeper later. The reason why I say this is because the way I read this and the way you read this is totally different even though the words are the same. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I think you see this statement as having a limitation to who are joint heirs. I just don't see it that way, but we can discuss that later once we wrap our minds around "Jerusalem from above".
 
 I agree on the first century Jews being represented by Ishmael and the covenant. I do not agree that God has cast Israel aside and replaced the Jews. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 speak of those who slander the Jews or claim to be Jews and are not. This contrast alone should prove that God still has a plan for the Jews. If God condemns those who claim to be Jews but are not, then there has to be some value to being a Jew at that point in time (future as revelation is future). 
 
 
Angels do not reproduce and thus the term "barren" wouldn't really apply.
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
we see here that angels are not given in marriage, and marriage is for the populating of the Earth as God said in Genesis. This continues to explain why the rest of your statement needs more clarification, but we will get to that later. 
I don't think we are at this point yet, but I am looking forward to this when we get there. 
 
Again, we must first understand each others opinion on "Jerusalem from above" before we can dive in to the other parts. That doesn't mean we have to agree, but understand; supported by scripture.  Otherwise we are playing a game of ping pong, bouncing from this topic to that topic. 

Why oh why do jws allow these men to dictate their lives like this? Can't they make up their own minds on things? Or would that allow too much freedom?  

I have a hard time with most of this because it assumes things about the 144k that just isn't in the Bible. 

lol, superstitious much?

So you reject the Biblical support I have given you so that you can continue to argue that a king announces himself. 
Like I said, sure there may have been one or two who have announced themselves, but like anything else there are exceptions to the standard. But you hold fast to the notion just because I do not agree with you. ok, you're right....sheesh. 
Shall I post this three times so that I one up your double posts for emphasis? lol

If somebody today made a "sin" and after that come to the state of repentance and god forgive him,  he is free from that sin.
If tomorrow he made new"sin" of same kind or another kind and after that come to the state of repentance and god forgive him,  he is free from that sin.
Answer Yes or No have to  come from Above not from me  :)))))))))) please read Bible more frequently and mediate, it will be helpful... maybe. :))))))))   

How about that ... I have the answers even before you ask the questions ..... !

yes it has. I cannot be angry at other's opinions, everyone is different. The part where I get what you call "angry" is when the conversations turn into personal attacks with no basis other than a difference of view. 
I will read this, but I cannot accept that it is YOUR opinion. It is the opinion of the wt, while you may agree it still is not put forth in your words and vision. 
 
I omitted the actual parts of scripture to keep the thread from becoming too long. We can read the fullness above in previous posts. 
 
I'm not quite sure were it is derived that Sarah is God's wife. I'd like if you could expand on that if you can. 
If we take the scripture you gave (and I did too) Galatians 4:26, it says that she represents "Jerusalem from above" and compare that with Revelation 21. We see that Sarah/Jerusalem from above is the Bride of Christ/wife of the Lamb. 
Revelation 21:
2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 
9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,
 
I feel this clearly tells us that Sarah represents those who make up the Bride of Christ. These that are of Sarah/Jerusalem from above will outnumber those of the first covenant (Israel). 
 
I agree to a point. We can go deeper later. The reason why I say this is because the way I read this and the way you read this is totally different even though the words are the same. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I think you see this statement as having a limitation to who are joint heirs. I just don't see it that way, but we can discuss that later once we wrap our minds around "Jerusalem from above".
 
 I agree on the first century Jews being represented by Ishmael and the covenant. I do not agree that God has cast Israel aside and replaced the Jews. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 speak of those who slander the Jews or claim to be Jews and are not. This contrast alone should prove that God still has a plan for the Jews. If God condemns those who claim to be Jews but are not, then there has to be some value to being a Jew at that point in time (future as revelation is future). 
 
 
Angels do not reproduce and thus the term "barren" wouldn't really apply.
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
we see here that angels are not given in marriage, and marriage is for the populating of the Earth as God said in Genesis. This continues to explain why the rest of your statement needs more clarification, but we will get to that later. 
I don't think we are at this point yet, but I am looking forward to this when we get there. 
 
Again, we must first understand each others opinion on "Jerusalem from above" before we can dive in to the other parts. That doesn't mean we have to agree, but understand; supported by scripture.  Otherwise we are playing a game of ping pong, bouncing from this topic to that topic. 

This answers NOTHING of what your position is. If I wanted to hear from the WT, I'd look it up myself. I want to know how YOU fit the two. If it is the same, then by all means put it into your own words and support it with scripture and I'll be happy to discuss, but If all you are going to do is point to a website, then forget it. This is a discussion board to bounce our ideas, thoughts and understandings off of each other in order to grow more in depth of our understanding about this world we live in and the people that exist here.