HollyW

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

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?

Good point, Shiwiii.  It made me think of the principle at James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."

Heartbreaking.

I figured it was in the controversial forum because what the article says about the Catholic church is true of the WTS also.

There could be two ways to look at it:

1. What the businessman of Medelling Columbia said about his church could very well echo what some Jehovah's Witnesses say about their church;

and/or,

2. if it's okay for the Catholic church to change what they said was the truth, it's okay for the WTS to do likewise.

No?

On 9/16/2016 at 9:16 PM, JW Insider said:

Since our new definition of "this generation" can technically carry this system well past the year 2100, there may, unfortunately, be several new years which historians will claim was the year the world went made.

GKR p.12: the anointed ones who are still alive and part of "this generation" are getting on in years; yet, they will not all die off before the great tribulation begins.

Well, first off we can't hide any of our sins from our heavenly Father, and it is to Him we should confess and from Him receive forgiveness:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

From the excerpt you've posted out of the elders manual, putting more than a few years between the wrongdoing and a confession to the elders could avoid a judicial hearing and discipline.

Anyone else have some thoughtful input about this brochure?

Boy or girl?

3 hours ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

No. I think you may have missed the point. The unrepentant generally don't return. 40 years is particularly long, and gives hope for others who may yet return. Repentance is the key factor here.

I possibly did miss your point. What was it?  The "gradual process" you spoke of then wasn't a time of isolation? 

In judging if repentance is true or not, the elders would take into account how long it took the returnee to return, wouldn't they, just as they do with those who never became inactive but don't confess serious sin in a timely fashion.  I mean, if they can question the sincerity of ones repentance because it took him or her two months to come forward, wouldn't taking 40 years to come forward cast some doubt on whether the person's repentance is really true? 

Look at it this way:

But the Christian should set an angel in the right place in his affections and motivations.  This would mean recognizing an angel's position as God’s Chief Agent of life, the Messianic King, God’s High Priest, and the one who gave his life as a ransom. 

Be sure that deep in your heart you accord an angel the highest respect, a sacred position, one not to be desecrated.

18 hours ago, Mr_VHC@WNF said:

 Anyone who has been away for an extended time, would be subject to a gradual process of coming back. while a physical return may be short term the spiritual return is long term.

Someone inactive that returns, cannot still be practicing gross sin.

Many don't return until they get their lives in order. But if they are to be welcomed back, they may have a Bible Study. They may not initially go out on field service, until they are sufficiently ready. Some articles explain that it is like a wounded lamb being carried back to the flock in the upper folds of a shepherds outer garment. It will need nursing and sufficient care before it can run around again. Similarly with re-activating ones. A full spiritual return can take years for some. This may be because some continue to feel the guilt of their inactive life long after ceasing practicing sin. So, while Jehovah is always ready to forgive, we ourselves are generally the ones who make it a difficult process. Isaiah 1: 18

You aren't talking about them getting disfellowshipped when they come back, are you?

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

No, not somewhere else. I have made a personal judgement indeed in accepting that Jehovah through Christ has appointed the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to direct an operation to "preach the good news of the kingdom", particularly with reference to it's heavenly establishment in 1914.  

There's enough evidence to show this appointment never happened.  After all, it wasn't the only appointment the WTS presumed to have been given and later had to admit was a false claim.  Up until 2013, JWs had been told to believe it had been found being faithful and discreet in 1919 and been appointed over all the Master's earthly interests.  That may equate to being faithful and discreet to you, but the reality is that they were just downright wrong and had been for many decades. 

This book from 2014, "God's Kingdom Rules", points to all the evidence, if one bothers to check the facts, such as what Russell's statement that October morning really meant and what he was basing it on.

I hope you take the time to examine it and accept its invitation to go back to that period of time and do diligent research in accord with the WTS' own exhortation to examine the teachings of any religious organization with which you are associated.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus is "a god" in the sense of being divine.

I think the WTS says that Jesus is "a god" in the sense of being a mighty spirit creature, but not quite as mighty as the true God, as explained in the Bible Teach book: because of his high position among Jehovah’s creatures, the Word is referred to as “a god.” Here the term “god” means “mighty one.” [p.202]

Doesn't it even feel out of place to be setting apart an angel, or a god-like creature, as Lord in your heart, no matter how "mighty" you might think he is?

5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Possibly you do not understand what I meant by the phrase "review the judgements Jehovah makes".

Possibly I don't.   But since it came up in our discussion about examining "not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated" and the WTS exhortation to "Make haste to identify the visible theocratic organization of God that represents his king, Jesus Christ. It is essential for life. Doing so, be complete in accepting its every aspect." I naturally took your meaning to in some way be connected with that examination.  Was it?  Or were you going somewhere else with it?

5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

8 hours ago, HollyW said:

"Are its teachings going to be in full harmony with God's Word at some point in the future?"

Excellent question.  

Whether indicating intention or being used predictively, both implications would always be answered "Yes" in connection with Jehovahs Witnesses.

 I thought you might like that question better than the one the WTS came up with, which was: "Are its teaching in fully harmony with God's Word?"  They pass the examination, don't they then --- as does any other religious organization with which any person is associated.  

5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

That's good. With regard to the true significance of the year 1914, I am not really in a position to critique the manner in which Jehovah enlightens His servants other than observe the fact that He does. Other posts have discussed at length why the year 1914 has received sufficient attention to highlight it, both prior and since it's occurrence, regardless of it's true significance.

As previously mentioned, for me, even the disproportionate vehemence of those who oppose the application of the events described at Rev. 12:7-12 to that year serves only to draw more attention to it's significance. 

That sounds like you'd find it totally acceptable if/when the WTS drops its teaching about 1914, just as they've dropped nearly everything so far that they used to teach about it.

5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Well, progressive understanding has enabled us to move on from unnecessary slavery to the typical/antitypical method of exposition as you probably know.

Well, let's pray they progress in a direction that will bring their teachings to be in full harmony with what God's word says then.

5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

But if Jesus could reference (Luke 19:40) that "the stones would cry out" if necessary to enlighten others regarding Jehovah's purposes, then surely Jehovah can provide correction to the men on the Governing Body by any means He deems expedient at the time?

Where are you coming from @HollyW?  

Who knows?  They could be receiving enlightenment from what "stones" have posted here.

Has no one read or placed this brochure then?

5 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

JW's use the term "undeserved kindness" while the rest of the christian world generally uses the term "grace".

Is there a difference?

"Amazing undeserved kindness, how sweet the sound......"

Just doesn't work, does it.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Someone who was never "just" an angel, but who has always been the Son of God, and who evidently served in the capacity of an archangel, someone who had many angels at his command. (His Father, Jehovah, also has myriads and myriads of angels at his command.)

Well, you also say Jesus is a god, another god besides the only true God, the Father.  

Is the Bible telling us to sanctify another god in our hearts as Lord?

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I still do not believe humans are in a position review the judgements Jehovah makes.  

Clearly you are not in agreement with your religious leaders then, because they're saying it's vital to ones salvation that humans ascertain which group of other humans Jehovah has judged worthy to be his sole channel of communication to mankind and then to do and believe whatever that group tells you to do and believe----in their words: listen to them as you would to the voice God.

How can that be ascertained if we are not to review the judgment Jehovah and Jesus made in 1919 when they are said to have rejected every Christian group except the WTS?

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

One thing that is clear is that these judgments are not based on limited human capacity..

How is the whole appointment thing in 1919 not based on limited human capacity?

13 hours ago, HollyW said:

"Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men?"

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

For me this will always be a question for the present and not the past in view of the principle at Proverbs 4:18. 

Perhaps then the question your religious leaders have said to ask when examining any religious organization we are associated with should have been, "Are its teachings going to be in full harmony with God's Word at some point in the future?"

I understand your view of Proverbs 4:18 is that the light has to be turned on to a new understanding gradually, like rather than expose someone to light who has been in a dark room for a long period of time it would be best to exposed him to light gradually.  So you look for new understanding

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

If understandings need correction, Jehovah will provide it for His servants  

I understand your view of Proverbs 4:18 is that the light has to be turned on to a new understanding gradually, like rather than expose someone to light who has been in a dark room for a long period of time it would be best if her were exposed to light in a gradual way rather than all at once.  So you look for new understandings and corrections to come in a progressive way, based on your interpretation of Proverbs 4:18.

Going back to what I had posted earlier about the teaching that Jesus had returned in 1874 and applying this principle of being in the dark and needing to be exposed gradually to the light, like maybe on a dimmer switch, there would not have been enough light for Russell in all those years up to his death in 1916 for him to see gradual light beginning to shine on 1914 as the date of Jesus' return.  After his death, Rutherford had a bit more light but still not enough to see that 1914 was the correct date, not 1874.  It wasn't until the year after Rutherford's death that there was finally enough light for those in the WTS to clearly see that 1914 was the accurate date.  

But is that how this has happened?  Clearly the light that would have revealed Jesus' return in 1914 was turned off for all those years the WTS was teaching that his return in Kingdom power took place in 1874.  That light was off throughout both the lifetime of Russell and that of Rutherford.  It wasn't until 1943 that the light on 1874 was turned off and the light on 1914 was turned on.  In short, it wasn't a gradual progression of the light getting brighter that you interpret Proverbs 4:18 to mean.

This turns out to be true with other corrections and adjusted understandings.  In some instances they even went back to teachings they'd discarded in favor of new light.

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

as He did with Apollos (Acts 18:26). What is important is how we respond to His correction and enlightenment, not that we get everything right. Apollos was "aglow with the spirit" despite teaching inaccurately.

If Apollos represents the men on the Governing Body to you, who do Aquila and Priscilla represent?  IOW Who does Jehovah send to the men on the Governing Body to correct their inaccurate teachings?

1 Peter 3:15  But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts,

Is the Bible telling us to sanctify an angel in our hearts as Lord?

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Amen to that.

Truly, Amen.

Notice that the application being made of John 8:32, "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free," in what I quoted is said to be fulfilled by examining "not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated."  As "lovers of truth", it says, we should ask (and answer ) "Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men?"

Would you not expect the teachings of a religious organization that claims to be the sole communication between God and mankind as the appointed faithful slave of Matthew 24:45 to be in full harmony with God's Word?  You've already indicated that you believe the teachings the WTS was using to prove whether or not its predictions about 1914 were based on God's Word at the time of its appointment as that faithful servant were "nonsensical gibberish."  There are more of those teachings that qualify in that description, I might add, such as the child born in Revelation 12 was the antichrist and Michael in that same chapter was the Catholic Pope.  Nonsensical gibberish indeed!

But, leaving off from the truly nonsensical, let's take a look at three teachings that surely would have caught Jehovah and Jesus' attention.

The first one is that this group they were thinking of appointing as the faithful slave of their household was teaching that Jesus' coming in 1914 had already occurred---in 1874.

The second one is that they were teaching for sometime both before and after 1914 that one man, Charles Russell, had already been appointed as that faithful slave.

The third one is that the first resurrection had begun in 1878. (see the 4/1/86 wt for the importance of this.)

So we should ask the question the WTS article says to ask: Are these teachings in full harmony with God's Word?

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This  a logical view, but unfortunately is taken from a human standpoint with all the limitations that imposes so, really, what would be accomplished?.

 

Well, it might accomplish what the WTS says it would by fulfilling John 8:32: "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

[w69 3/15 p.165-167] We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. It should be the sincere desire of every one of us to learn what God’s will is for us, and then to do it.—John 8:32.

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Obviously, they would have to make that evaluation. And I suspect Jehovah and Jesus' evaluation of what qualifies a faithful servant would have a little more substance than what is cited here.

I tend to agree with that suspicion.

If they really did inspect the writings of the WTS publications, they would have been looking for them to be providing spiritual food at the proper time, as the parable there in Matthew 24:45-47 indicates.  I don’t think you believe (and I certainly don’t believe) that Jehovah and Jesus would consider “nonsensical gibberish” to be the high quality food their faithful servant would be serving as food at the proper time.

I’m sure you agree that Jehovah and Jesus would not make their decision about appointing a faithful slave based on what the WTS is currently teaching today, but on what they were teaching from 1879 to 1919.  Surely their decision would be based on the quality of those teachings in that time period to make sure they were the right sort of spiritual food at the proper time----they would be looking for higher quality substance, just as you pointed out, not nonsensical gibberish.

This brings up an interesting question: could the WTS have God’s backing today if its teachings up to 1919 did not qualify as the spiritual food of the right sort and of the high quality one would expect from a servant of Jehovah and Jesus?

The only way to know this is by taking a look at the teachings Jesus and Jehovah would have been inspecting back in 1919. 

The WTS Governing Body is inviting you to do so by taking you back to that day in 1914 when Charles Russell announced to his dining hall audience that the Gentile times had ended.  Throughout the pages of this book, God's Kingdom Rules, there are numerous references to what the Bible Students (as JWs were known back then) were preaching from 1879 to 1919. 

What standards would God use to evaluate teachings before He gave anyone His backing?  Well, those teachings would have to be in accord with what His word, the Bible, reveals; they would not be teachings based on the opinions of men or on tradition.

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Even if we are speaking only of the history of the world, and therefore focusing on interaction with humans, I would include not just Jesus birth, but his life. I had a feeling that this is what Melinda meant when she included both his birth and death as God's gift. If I had to choose between his birth and his death as separate events, I would choose Jesus' death as the greatest, even if his birth was the happiest. But I notice that the book of Hebrews includes not just those events, but includes his birth, his preaching, his miracles, his death, his resurrection and his being seated at God's right hand as the greatest "event." In some ways his entire life was 'God speaking to us by means of a Son.' Jehovah had a way to communicate "directly" with us in spite of the huge chasm between God's holiness and our unworthiness. 

 

I'm glad you appreciated the question and thank you for your very fine reply.

While I do agree with both you and Melinda, I was expecting a much different answer for the one event JWs believe is the greatest event ever to occur in the history of the world.  I was not expecting you would say Jesus' birth or death so it was a pleasant surprise to find the replies on here tending toward those events.

Thank you to all who have participated.

On 9/15/2016 at 4:52 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Holly quoted: "Nonsensical gibberish"

Well, this is up to the individual to determine isn't it?

It is of no consequence what  "events you would be expecting when you imagine yourself in the dining room that day in October 1914 when C.T. Russell announced that the Gentile times had ended."

What is of consequence is that they did actually end, regardless of the expected events.

It was an announcement that was based on what you call “nonsensical gibberish.”  The current governing body of the WTS describes the reaction of Russell’s audience as one of joy and excitement, with “sustained, enthusiastic applause.” Knowing, as you now know, what it was based on, it’s difficult to imagine your reaction being the same as theirs is said to have been. 

In your opinion, Eoin, were these seven proofs nonsensical gibberish to Jehovah and Jesus when they reviewed your religion to determine if its teachings qualified it as a faithful servant to give their household high quality spiritual teachings?

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

Jehovah gave his son by sending him to earth to die as a ransom for mankind.

See what the angels said about the event: (Luke 2:10-14) . . .. 11 For today there was born to you in David’s city a savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this is a sign for you: You will find an infant wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger.” 13 Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God and saying: 14 “Glory in the heights above to God, and on earth peace among men of goodwill.”  

  As we all know Jesus proved faithful unto death and provided the ranson for us. In doing this he carried out God's greatest act of love as quoted above in the Watchtower: "Such people stand to benefit from God’s greatest act of love, as we read at John 3:16: “God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”                                                  (See Gal 4:4; John 1:29; Matt 20:28)

 If you're saying the greatest event to occur in the history of the world is the birth of Jesus, I agree with you.

Just to clarify, the question wasn't what  the greatest act of love is but the greatest event. As you posted about this event, heaven rejoicing, from Luke 2:13 "And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God"

Thanks for your replies.

Thanks, Melinda.  Is there a specific event you associate with John 3:16?