HollyW

Not atall, bruceq, I find that in the course of conversation, some folks may simply state their own beliefs and they may do so with some conviction. But are they reasonable persons who are willing to listen to another viewpoint? If so, I can share with them what the Bible says, doing so with the conviction that it will find welcome response in the hearts of lovers of truth. However, I find you are not a reasonable nor a reasoning person, nor a lover of truth. Therefore, my time is more profitably spent elsewhere.

Don't you see what you're doing? Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah either so you've built your argument on sand and can't seem to dig yourself out. If you ever find yourself able to reason on the scriptures, maybe then we can resume our discussion. In the meantime, I hope your day goes well for you.

Hopefully you will try to reason on the Scriptures for a change instead of putting up the ineffective block of dismissing the entire Bible just because it was written by Jews. Let's look at the scripture I posted, 1 Cor. 12:3, in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English: Because I inform you of this: there is no man who speaks by The Spirit of God and says, “Yeshua is damned”, neither can a man say, “Yeshua is THE LORD JEHOVAH”, except by The Spirit of Holiness.

Bruceq, could you do me a great favor and quote who you're replying to? Thanks. There are many scriptures that prove the Trinity teaching of three persons who are the one God, but the one that has had the most impact on me personally is 1 Corinthians 12:3 "Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit."

Well, as I posted, the WTS says reading the Bible by itself, without WT pubs, will lead you to believe in the Trinity, Hell, immortal soul, and celebrate Christmas to boot.

Is there anything wrong with reading the Bible exclusively, without WTS publications?

Moses? Isn't this about the early Christians? All the Apostles, even Paul, were Jews who became Christians. I don't know what you think is wrong about that.

But the writers were Jews who became Christians. The Jews you speak of who reject the Trinity also don't accept Christ as Messiah, so how wise would it be to allow them to form opinions for us.

Sure they did. The sort of Bible reading they are referring to is described in their sentence just prior to that one: "to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home". And they sure didn't describe it the way you did, did they.

Hi Ann, I'm coming into this discussion a bit late (to say the least) so someone may have pointed this out already, in reply to what I bolded in your post, did you know the WTS has expressed the view that if you read just the Bible, without any WTS publications, you will believe in the Trinity?

I'd say they are the ultimate Protestants. They protest all other churches and religions both Christian and non-Christian.

Has the Revelation Climax book been updated or replaced recently?

From what you've been saying in answer to why the brochure has left out any mention of discipline for inactive JWs who return to the WTS, I would conclude that it was because that's exactly the point the governing body wants to convey---an amnesty, or indulgence, even if you've been going against WTS teachings for 40 years. Martha mentions only three things specifically: celebrating holidays, participating in political events, and attending church. As far as I know, JWs are the only ones who consider those things to be wrong, hence my statement "gross (to JWs) wrong-doing".

You sounded judgmental. Is that mean?

Let's see.....returning to the WTS after 40 years of continued, deliberate, gross (to JWs) wrong-doing must mean true repentance to you, whereas one slip-up confessed a couple months later (without ever becoming inactive) makes that JWs' true repentance questionable. If you were the latter JW and were lovingly disfellowshipped and endearingly shunned by your fellow JWs while working toward being reinstated, while Martha returns after 40 years of debauchery and is welcomed back with open arms (and is required to shun YOU), you're okay with that because you believe the men who decide these things must have Jehovah's ear on the matter and that's why they left out any mention of discipline for inactive JWs who return to the WTS.

Notice, Teresa, that you are disagreeing with the founder of your religion, C.T. Russell, because HE is the one who set out the proof that his calculations for 1914 were Biblical. None of his proofs proved to be true. It is HIS REASONING you are arguing against, not mine. Again, read what HE said the end of the Gentile Times would mean to his audience that October you have been invited by your governing body to picture yourself in: Wisely you did not attempt to say any of these proofs of his occurred.

Is that a sneer, Anna, when you put "Christian" in quotes? I ask because that's what you said the WTS was doing when it put quotes around the "Bible reading" some JWs had said was sufficient.

Hi Anna, You're saying then that the brochure doesn't mention anything about being disciplined after 40 years of wrong doing because waiting that long shows they must be truly repentant. Interesting.

There are seven events that should have happened, but did not. At the beginning of the book you're studying now, "God's Kingdom Rules", there's a letter from the Governing Body with an invitation to imagine yourself in the dining room at their headquarters in NYC when Russell comes in and announces, "The Gentile Times have ended; their kings have had their day." The letter in the new book doesn't provide the background for such a statement, but if we are to imagine ourselves there then let's take a look at what Russell's announcement that morning actually meant to his audience. Had what he had been telling them was going to happen, happened? Had the Gentile Times really ended? He had written a book in 1889 called The Time Is At Hand, and it had become one of the volumes of his Studies In The Scriptures set; in his Forward for the 1914 edition it was claimed that it had reached a distribution of one and a half million copies. In it, on pgs. 76-79, Russell lists seven proofs that would show whether or not 1914 was really the end of the times of the Gentiles as he claimed it would be---and as JWs today are still claiming it was. So let's look a the list. It's from his publications online at http://www.ctrussell.us/ and here's what it says: Did, or have, any of those events happen? No. So by what Russell himself said, that shows his calculations for 1914 were not based on the Bible.

Which confirms what I said in an earlier post, it really doesn't matter to you if the Gentile Times ended in 1914 or not.

I didn't present it as a quote, I said it would be similar to how beliefs had already been changed:

Why would you assume that when you recruit those of other faiths from their own Christian churches to become JWs? A majority of JWs already claim to have chosen option #3, thereby indicating a former association with Catholics and/or Protestants. When persons are in great danger from a source that they do not suspect or are being misled by those they consider their friends, is it an unkindness to warn them? They may prefer not to believe the warning. They may even resent it. But does that free one from the moral responsibility to give that warning?

After extensive research, I chose #3.

Notice that is not the type of Bible reading the WTS describes that they are objecting to: They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. When has the WTS adhered to the Bible, though? Did it adhere to the Bible when it was teaching that all of the 144,000 were the faithful slave? The article itself describes exactly what was entailed in the type of Bible study some JWs were doing: reading the Bible without WT publications, either alone or in small groups at home. But you then see the quote marks as negating what was just said. I'm sure the WTS does sneer at Bible reading that is done apart from their publications that interpret it for you because that would mean their publications aren't needed any more. The WT article expresses the same idea that Russell expressed when he said if his followers left off reading his Studies in the Scriptures they would go into darkness, which the article says is the teachings Christians have been teaching for 100 years (it's actually longer than that ;)) And, yes, reading just the Bible shows that there are three separate and distinct person who are the one true God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The angels set a good example of the joyful celebration of Jesus' birth. Christians are in good company celebrating the birth of our Savior and King. There are plenty of examples of Godly warfare in the Bible and each Christian can exercise his or her own conscience when it comes to war. JWs have no leg to stand on with this because the WTS itself teaches that there will be a number of JWs so large as to be uncountable who will go to war against other JWs at the end of the 1,000 years when they are supposedly perfect in every way: spiritually, physically, mentally, and morally.

Good question, Abigail, because if the Gentile Times didn't end in 1914 then Russell was not resurrected to heaven in 1918 and your belief would change to him being non-existent now. In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 BC. Revelation 12:6 says 1,260 days. Revelation 12:14 calls the period a time, times, and half a time; in other words, three and a half times. In fact, both expressions stand for three and a half years, which the WTS says extend in the Northern Hemisphere from the spring of 1919 to the autumn of 1922. Christians believe they are 1,260 literal days, just as the WTS does, but they have not occurred yet because they will be the last half of the great tribulation, which is yet future. Christ has not returned yet. The founder of the WTS religion has already presented seven proofs, the fulfillment of which he said would prove that his calculations about 1914 were based on the Bible. All seven proofs failed. What do you make of that?