Jump to content

JOHN BUTLER

Apostles, Judas, GB, Raymond, Satan, Holy Spirit

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN BUTLER -
Space Merchant -
414
5649

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

On 1/28/2019 at 8:10 PM, Equivocation said:

whelp, I just see you as lukewarm or misguided, and a teaspoon of paranoia raising off of your skin. You can agree or disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses, but to be as  stale as chips in a bag..... Well, Pops, it fits the bill, and I just paid it and tipped it too.

Who is this newcomer so skilled in verbiage...

 

On 1/28/2019 at 8:10 PM, Equivocation said:

Oh does mío.....

and strange tongues?   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

xact same thing that Allen Smith accused me of stating, too. It's still just as untrue. Fred Franz did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. I've sometimes been the first to correct that false notion when naive opposers have made such a claim about Fred Franz on this very forum. For Fred Franz it was not about him endorsing 1975. Fred Franz considered it "an appropriate time for God to act" based on the unscriptural idea he held at the time that the creative days must have each been 7,000 years long, and that God's great rest day, should appropriately include the 1,000 year reign and still end end within a very short period of time after the year 2975. (The year 2975 was listed in the chart in the 1968 book, "Life Everlasting In the Freedom of the Sons of God.") The Watchtower that same year said:

Let me take a stab at this. Your claim is you don't have any reservation on the validity of Fred Franz talk. You mention your proof is not the manipulated version that can be found in any apostate site, most common AD1914. It seems to be the favorite with a greater amount of lies and nonsense.

My question JWinsider, What did you mean by this statement, then?

"I listened again this morning and got a slightly different opinion of it. I realize that Frederick W Franz was actually using deception, pure and simple, to get people to think he was saying one thing while not quite saying it, saying something only slightly different. And it was working very well. He had a good part of the audience "reading between the lines" as you can tell by their applause."

 

What kind of a double standard are you claiming to have if the same result you think Fred was doing, you are doing also, meaning, being deceptive? Does this make sense with your updated explanation?

 

Where's this Allen Smith comments to get a fair perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Anna said:

I don't need to cite any scriptural quotes from the WT to make that  point.

The scriptures make no distinctions between true Christians, only their destination.  In fact the scriptures make no distinction between anyone with regard to the value of life, all peoples lives have equal value in God’s eyes. Otherwise the scriptures wouldn't be able to say that Christ died for all.

The distinction is approval or disapproval from God on how they live that life.  

John 10:16 

 
    Hello guest!

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
 
NWT “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold;
    Hello guest!
 those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.
 
This does show a distinction. It shows that Jesus was only talking to the Anointed. 
 
@Anna Quote " I think the WT that talked about the anointed wished to highlight that there is no difference between the anointed still on earth, and the earthly class, apart from their future destinations. "
 
You make this statement with nothing to back it up. I've asked you for scriptural backing and you refuse to give any. You do not even quote which W/T it came from. Maybe it just came from 'your own mind' ? 
 
I at least have given a scripture which proves that Jesus was talking to the Anointed only. He said 'other sheep' and said 'those too', meaning a different type of sheep / people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Anna said:

"...there is no partiality with God"- Romans 2:11

It's not about partiality, it's about position and responsibility.  

A manager would use a foreman / chargehand to give instruction to the workers, but the manager may like the workers as much as the manager likes the foreman / chargehand.. However the foreman / chargehand would have a higher position within the company than the workers would... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Butler,

I noticed you don’t downvote people like Anna, JWinsider, TrueTom, James Thomas Rook, etc. even though you disagree with them, and at times have a strong opinion of them. I can honestly state you are being obtuse. Do yourself a favor and grow up. I don't mean spiritually since you have already crossed the line on that, but mentally.

I’ll help you with this down vote. Bear witness that your actions mean nothing other than being a stain in your life. I feel sorry for you.

There I gave you a smile. I thought you were funny. So don't cry Kid. 

The old saying, 'If you don't like the heat then stay out of the kitchen', comes to mind.

I give as good as I take from others, you included. I have no idea why you should let it bother you how I vote.  But if it gives you a reason to say something negative about me then I'm sure that makes you happy. 

I love you Kid. Because God's word tells us to love our enemies.  Matthew 5 v 44

    Hello guest!

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Who is this newcomer so skilled in verbiage...

 

and strange tongues?   :)

I think he is someone else using a different disguise. same old, same old ....... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, FelixCA said:

My question JWinsider, What did you mean by this statement, then? 

"I listened again this morning and got a slightly different opinion of it. I realize that Frederick W Franz was actually using deception, pure and simple, to get people to think he was saying one thing while not quite saying it, saying something only slightly different. And it was working very well. He had a good part of the audience "reading between the lines" as you can tell by their applause."

You are asking how I could say that F.Franz was using deception to get people to think he was saying something he wasn't really saying. And you want to know how, if that was true, I could also say that:

Fred Franz did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. I've sometimes been the first to correct that false notion when naive opposers have made such a claim about Fred Franz on this very forum. For Fred Franz it was not about him endorsing 1975. Fred Franz considered it "an appropriate time for God to act" based on the unscriptural idea he held at the time that the creative days must have each been 7,000 years long, and that God's great rest day, should appropriately include the 1,000 year reign and still end end within a very short period of time after the year 2975. (The year 2975 was listed in the chart in the 1966 book, "Life Everlasting -- In Freedom of the Sons of God.")

Very simple. He did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world (or system of things) in 1975 by the fact that he never every claimed that that the end would happen in 1975. As I said, he got people to think he was saying one thing "while not quite saying it."

This is exactly why I said what I did. He knew the assumption that was being made by his listeners. He was creating that assumption by coming as close to saying it without quite saying it. But he would never endorse that assumption. He was not dumb. Far from it. He heard how the audience was laughing and applauding, just as he had heard how the Service Department was responding with statements in the KM about how we might have only have a few short months left, and that it is heart-warming to hear of people selling their homes to spend the rest of this system in the pioneer work. He knew what District and Circuit Overseers were saying about how, if you read the Watchtower carefully, you know what they are really trying to say. "Stay Alive Until '75!" In fact, he knew that this was exactly what people were saying in the 1920s: "Stay Alive Until 1925!"

He knew what people were thinking because he admitted he knew --in the same talk. So he gets the big laugh by talking about all the things that MIGHT happen in 1975, and then adding "but we're not saying." When he says 'and don't any of you go saying' he can tell by the laughter and applause that they are taking it as if they have some secret information that they know because they are entitled to know, but not the rest of the world.

It actually would have been very easy to clarify, but he never did. And I realized that everything he was saying in that talk could be understood ambiguously, and I think this is the same "game" he was playing way back in 1968. For example, he knew that people would be saying: "But what about the scripture where Jesus said, no one knows the day or the hour." Circuit overseers would take this verse and comment, "Yes he said no one would know the day or the hour - but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" How had F.Franz handled it? He addressed that verse by saying that "now is not the time to be toying with that verse." What does that mean? Again, ambiguity:

*** w68 8/15 p. 494 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?
WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam’s creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion. . . .

That means, in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now. . .  it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam, the father of all mankind! . . . Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes.

1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND!

One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”!
36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active?

When you make one or two ambiguous expression in the midst of 10 clear ones, it's understandable and you still have clarity. But when 8 out of 10 are ambiguous and only 2 shows clarity (by mentioning speculation, or possibilities). It's easy to reinterpret the clearer expressions about possibility into the ambiguous ones that can be interpreted as expressing a higher level of certainty and confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, FelixCA said:

What kind of a double standard are you claiming to have if the same result you think Fred was doing, you are doing also, meaning, being deceptive?

I'm saying that all the argumentation was put to use in order to counter the cautionary statements, even cautionary statements of Jesus himself. And look at the expressions and how carefully they were crafted to come as close as possible to saying what people were admittedly thinking. And they were encouraged to think that these conclusions were the ones that God would consider the most appropriate and most fitting and the one that would best fit his loving purpose. Note the question at the bottom of the page for this paragraph in "Life Everlasting:"

30  LIFE EVERLASTING-IN FREEDOM OF THE SONS OF GOD
43 HOW appropriate it would be for Jehovah God
to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand
years a sabbath period of rest and release,
a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of
liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants!
This would be most timely for mankind. It would
also be most fitting on God's part,
for, remember,
mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book
of the Holy Bible speaks of as the reign of Jesus
Christ over earth for a thousand years, the millennial
reign of Christ. Prophetically Jesus Christ,
when on earth nineteen centuries ago, said concerning
himself: "For Lord of the sabbath is
what the Son of man is." (Matthew 12:s) It
would not be by mere chance or accident but
would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah
God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the
"Lord of the sabbath," to run parallel with the
seventh millennium of man's existence.

--------

43. What act on God's part would be most timely for mankind
and most fitting in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose?

The answer obviously is that it would be most fitting for God to make this upcoming 7th period of 1,000 years to be the start of the millennial reign of Christ.

Is God going to do something that is NOT the most timely and most fitting thing for him to do? The paragraph started out saying how "appropriate" it would be for Jehovah to do this. Is Jehovah going to do something that is NOT appropriate, or LESS appropriate than what is appropriate for him to do?

It's also pretty clear from this "hubris" why Frederick Franz was sometimes called "the Oracle." This is an expression I heard myself more than once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Is God going to do something that is NOT the most timely and most fitting thing for him to do? The paragraph started out saying how "appropriate" it would be for Jehovah to do this. Is Jehovah going to do something that is NOT appropriate, or LESS appropriate than what is appropriate for him to do?

Isa 55:8,9; Num 23:19

Fred Franz had more faith in himself, than in God.  Prov 3:5,6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Witness said:

Fred Franz had more faith in himself, than in God.  Prov 3:5,6

On this particular matter anyway. The next line after Prov 3:5,6 is verse 7: "Do not become wise in your own eyes." I think that the majority of witnesses back in the 1970's were already aware that any discussion of prophetic books or chronology was always written by him or was a repetition of ideas he had already written. This goes all the way back to discussions of every Bible book or passage that touched on prophecy since 1942. In the 1968 Watchtower he was actually arguing against points he himself had made in 1955. But books and articles on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Revelation, Daniel, Haggai, etc., along with obscure meanings of Jesus' parables were all from him, and except for his own changes, no one else dared "mess" with those explanations until he died.

These interpretations of prophecy, also, were not written in such a way that they were open to questioning. There was one explanation and it was "the truth" until he changed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Very simple. He did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world (or system of things) in 1975 by the fact that he never every claimed that that the end would happen in 1975. As I said, he got people to think he was saying one thing "while not quite saying it."

1

Perhaps someday you should pay “close” attention to your own words to find the same deception you think Fred Franz was offering without clinging to the word “assumption” to make your case about 1975, "while not quite saying it."

Upvoting what is clearly a misguided view by “witness” understanding just made my case stand on solid ground. If no one has ever asked you to resign, let me be the first to offer it.

It is better to have never known righteousness. 2 Peter 2:22

You already have everything in common with Srecko, Bulter, witness and all that oppose the Org. Being lukewarm for the sake of fear is no defense.

 

by the way "fact that he never every claimed" your choice of grammar here makes no sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Witness said:

While you believe there is no distinction needing to be made between the anointed and all believers in Christ, it wasn’t so in the apostle’s day.  The commission to preach was given to them

Well yes, that's because the other sheep weren't figuring in the equation yet. But as soon as they were,  they supported Christ's anointed.

19 hours ago, Witness said:

You say there is no difference, but I doubt you understand that the anointed must follow the path of Christ.  They must sacrifice their life for the rest of the children to come.

I don't know what you mean by that they must sacrifice their life for the rest of the Children. Wasn't Christ sacrifice all that was needed for ALL the children? The scriptures you cite don't explain anything you are saying here. All Christians should follow the path of Christ, regardless of them being anointed or not.

19 hours ago, Witness said:

Do you know what the fulfillment of the New Covenant brings to all of God’s children?  “Healing of the nations”.  How?  By “New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven” as the Bride.  Rev 21:2  Who comprise New Jerusalem? Who are the dwelling of God? 

I did make a distinction between those anointed on earth, and those in heaven. I said the anointed in heaven are very different from anyone on earth.  The anointed on earth have a calling to heaven, but until they are sealed at the time of their death, they are not part of Jerusalem above yet. The anointed can fail in their faith just like any other Christian. I do not subscribe to the once saved always saved ideology. It's not scriptural. In the first century there were anointed ones who left the faith. However, once sealed and in heaven, they have immortality. But while on earth they do not.

19 hours ago, Witness said:

JWs believe the organization is their “temple”, complete with a false priesthood and “christs”. Matt 24:24  This is why the anointed are considered useless and no different than all JWs, until the coming Kingdom of God.  

I have never heard the organization compared to the "temple" or a priesthood. Can you post a quote indicating this? Jerusalem above is comprised only of the Christ and the anointed in heaven.

19 hours ago, Witness said:

By the organization teaching that the anointed are just along for the ride, Jesus’ answer to those who failed to recognize these “living stones”, reverberate loudly,

Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”  Matt 25:44-46

???? Haven't the great crowd always supported and helped the anointed? Especially at the beginning when there were more anointed than the great crowd? Now the anointed are in a minority, but the great great crowd still supports them, they work side by side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:
NWT “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold;
    Hello guest!
 those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.
 
This does show a distinction. It shows that Jesus was only talking to the Anointed. 

Yes, he was talking to the anointed, and I never denied there was a distinction between the two, there is obviously, a BIG distinction. One goes to heaven, and the other stays on earth. And there will even be a bigger distinction once the heavenly group are in heaven, they will be immortal, whereas the earthly group will not. But as regards the value of life, everyone has the same value. Jehovah doesn't look upon an anointed brother here on earth and says he has more worth than a brother, or a sister, or a child who are not anointed. God does not judge people by the job/ function they have, but by what is in their heart.  ....." For the way man sees is not the way God sees, because mere man sees what appears to the eyes, but Jehovah sees into the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7

11 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:
@Anna Quote " I think the WT that talked about the anointed wished to highlight that there is no difference between the anointed still on earth, and the earthly class, apart from their future destinations. "
 
You make this statement with nothing to back it up. I've asked you for scriptural backing and you refuse to give any. You do not even quote which W/T it came from.

 

    Hello guest!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading that W/t,  Paragraph 10  contradiction by GB against God's word.

As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but the anointing from him is teaching you about all things and is true and is no lie. Just as it has taught you, remain in union with him.”  1 John 2 v 27

But GB says in Watchtower  "These ones need spiritual instruction just like everyone else." 

Look at the scripture they are using,  and you do not need anyone to be teaching you;

Complete contradiction of God's word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anna  Quote "God does not judge people by the job/ function they have, ..." 

Luke 12 v 48 b.

Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.

Says it all i think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FelixCA said:

by the way "fact that he never every claimed" your choice of grammar here makes no sense.

LOL. Thanks.  It wasn't by choice, and it's not the first time I have typed "every" for "ever." Among a lot of other mistakes I make is a common one for me where I type "Babylong" for "Babylon" and "imaging" for "imagine." Unfortunately the built in spell-check here will only flag the "Babylong" error.

And for some reason I almost always type "it's" even when it's "its." Another one that rarely gets flagged, so I often neglect to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 3:28 PM, FelixCA said:

Upvoting what is clearly a misguided view by “witness” understanding just made my case stand on solid ground.

Perhaps it's misguided, but it's a view from "Witness" that I agree with 100 percent.

Fred Franz was very intelligent, of course. But when I recorded two interviews with him for over an hour each, I was forced to come to my own conclusions about him based on the content of things he said, and certain expressions he used.

I think most of what you need to know about him comes from his September 1975 Gilead Talk which I have already linked to in the past. I'm not talking about his argument against an active Governing Body that would form a committee, or ecclesiastical body of some kind, although even that says something that he would use that opportunity for a political speech directed at the other members of the Governing Body disguised only slightly by working in some awkward references to the Gilead students. (Like, 'And don't you get the idea that you need to form committees in the countries to which you have been assigned!')

The Watchtower summarized his talk with only vague references to what it was really about:

*** w75 11/1 p. 672 Graduates of Gilead’s 59th Class Urged to Stick to the Work ***
Addressing the graduates, F. W. Franz showed why they were not being sent by any ecclesiastical body such as exists in the churches of Christendom. According to the Scriptures, neither Philip nor the apostle Paul, two outstanding evangelizers or missionaries in the first century C.E., received missionary assignments from the apostolic body at Jerusalem. Both men did their work under the direction of the real head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ. Paul had, in fact, been directly chosen by Jesus as an apostle to the nations. Later, at the direction of God’s spirit, Paul and his companion Barnabas were sent out from the Antioch congregation. Both men recognized their assignment as having come, not from men, but from Jesus Christ.

I'm referring more to his comments about 1975 in that same talk. The typical anti-JW sites, usually cut off the talk before he gets to these comments because those sites are more concerned with his views against the Governing Body. But I'm sure you can find the whole talk somewhere. It's what he says after he pulls out his Jewish calendar to show how it was now the 2nd day of Tishri 1976, and therefore now, "the 2nd day of the 7th millennium of man's existence here on earth." That statement got what sounded like the biggest cheer of the talk.

I don't know if he intended it, but it recalled the day that C.T.Russell came down to the dining room on October 1st, 1914 per the Watchtower of that time period (and later changed to October 4th, and currently stated as October 2nd) to announce that the 'Gentile Times have ended!'  F.Franz then rambled on about some wonderful, "startling, surprising, happifying things" of numerical significance, since this was the 59th Class, meaning that the 60th was about to start later that year, and "60" should remind us that 6,000 years is 60 centuries. Isn't that amazing!?!?! That this class 59 was only one number away from 60, which somehow gave new significance to 1975.

If you pay close attention to his books on Daniel's prophecy (and others) you will see some of the same types of unspiritual thinking.  For me, F.Franz proved to be a prime example of why we should not put our trust in a man:

(Psalm 146:3) . . . Do not put your trust in . . . a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2019 at 7:29 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Butler, I noticed you don’t downvote people like Anna, JWinsider, TrueTom, James Thomas Rook, etc. even though you disagree with them, and at times have a strong opinion of them. I can honestly state you are being obtuse. Do yourself a favor and grow up. I don't mean spiritually since you have already crossed the line on that, but mentally.

I’ll help you with this down vote. Bear witness that your actions mean nothing other than being a stain in your life. I feel sorry for you.

In fairness, he has downvoted me, and he will no longer have occasion to downvote @James Thomas Rook Jr.. For the next year, James says, we will hear nothing from him...zip...zero...nada...as he writes the successor to Asimov’s trilogy.

Of course, I am keeping a sharp eye out for that work. I may already have spotted it in a recent novel of a mysterious visit from a planet of apostates! “We come in peace,” they say slyly upon deboarding their craft. “See? We have shaved our beards. Take us to your leaders. How many are there of them now? Seven? Eight?” I don’t trust them.

There is a earthing character whom everyone likes named TrueTim. He approaches and extends a hand of welcome, only to be savagely rebuffed. “Get your hands off us, you damned dirty ape!” they bellow. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But GB says in Watchtower  "These ones need spiritual instruction just like everyone else." 

Which is true. The Bible has been written for everyone's spiritual instruction. The Bible is the instructor. Without reading it, the holy spirit wouldn't be able to bring anything out.  John 14:26  "But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you". Jesus was telling his disciples they would recall everything he taught them, and they wrote it down for us, and today the holy spirit will help us to recall what we have read. Holy spirit is also needed to understand what they wrote. Not everyone understands, because if they did, we wouldn't have so many contradictory "Christian teachings" based on the same writings.

In other words:

In context, John was writing about those anointed in the first century. At that time only the Hebrew scriptures were available.  He said the holy spirit would anoint them and guide them into all the truth. They wouldn't need anyone to teach them (perhaps such as the scribes and pharisees?). This is why the apostles were able to write the Christian Greek scriptures. They were under inspiration from the holy spirit. And they were commissioned to spread the good news about the Kingdom and Jesus with the holy spirit helping them.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote "God does not judge people by the job/ function they have, ..." 

Luke 12 v 48 b.

Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.

Says it all i think. 

John, we are going round in circles because we are both talking about two different things. Maybe that’s my fault because I have not explained it very well. Yes, more will be demanded of the one who was given a bigger job. Logically! But that does not change that all people’s LIVES have the same worth. Otherwise you would be saying God discriminates on account of position, that somebody with a higher position has more value in God’s eyes than someone of a lowly position. In fact God has chosen the lowly ones to put the more important ones to shame. Intellect, power, position and wisdom are not deciding factors in whether God approves of them more than another person. God reads hearts.

I was using the word Judge as a verb, not a noun:

Judge  (noun)

1.a public official appointed to decide cases in a court of law.

2.a person who decides the results of a competition or watches for infractions of the rules.

3. a person able or qualified to give an opinion on something.

Judge (verb)

1.form an opinion or conclusion about. come to the conclusion, conclude, decide, determine; consider, believe, think, deem, view;

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anna quote " They wouldn't need anyone to teach them (perhaps such as the scribes and pharisees?). " 

Or a Governing Body ? 

Quote "These ones need spiritual instruction just like everyone else." The clue comes in the last 4 words 

What the W/t writer is saying is that the Anointed need instruction from the GB / Writing dept' just like everyone else.

Quote "Otherwise you would be saying God discriminates on account of position, that somebody with a higher position has more value in God’s eyes than someone of a lowly position. "

If 'Experiences' (in Yearbooks / Watchtowers etc)  are to be believed, then it would seem that God / Jesus Christ has / have saved some brothers/sisters in certain circumstances, but not saved other brothers/sisters in other circumstances. Now both God and His Son work in their own ways, working together as one, and i would never question what they do. I am humble enough to know that their ways are much higher than mine. But they must have their reasons for saving some and not others. (If experiencies are to be believed). 

An example of a supposed 'experience' : A sister was on the ministry and knocked on the door of a man. The man turned her away. The man was later arrested for rape/murder of a woman in his own home. When questioned as to why he did not invite the sister in etc, as she had been his first visitor. The man said that she 'had a man stood either side of her', she was not alone. But the sister had gone in to the ministry alone, so the 'man either side of her' must have been angels guarding her. ... True or false I do not know, but I do know it was offered as an 'experience' at a meeting a long time ago. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    60,861
    Total Topics
    110,878
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,345
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    samuellopez15
    Newest Member
    samuellopez15
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.