Jump to content

JOHN BUTLER

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

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JOHN BUTLER -
Space Merchant -
414
5647

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

On 2/3/2019 at 5:35 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

So he helped me. A lot. I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you.

Unfortunately, I don’t share your views and value about, bad association. I am not here for the association but rather show how Ex’JW’s distort Watchtower publications to benefit what is clearly a misapplication of them. The 1943 Watchtower that was posted by Anna comes to show, how vital it is to have good expectations rather than try to satisfy the status quo.

It also appears this is being done with the claim of being an active member whereas if these thoughts and outdrawn misguided conclusions were set before the congregation, they would have nothing to do with such ideology.

Therefore, this place has become a bully pulpit for misinformation, nothing more. I can understand your need to receive opposition input to frame your own books, however, that in itself is no excuse to malign, or distort the truth.

Another area of how the early brethren dealt with issues, was by being direct and frank. A characterization of Fred, seen as a hardnose can be applied to Raymond in private since he was hypocritical in public, but how the early Bible Students which Fred was baptized under and the Jehovah Witnesses that took a different direction.

This example on an exchange comes to mind.

Dear Brother Woodworth:-
Your editorial of July 8, 1931, entitled "Bible Students Radio Echo", has been read with much interest. Both you and I have often gloried in the privilege of scripturally refuting the audacious claims of the various Babylonian sects who boast that they constitute the only divine channel and repository of all truth. How often have you punctured the pompous pretensions of popes, priests, and ministers who have said that they possess God-given authority to judge and excommunicate all dissenters from their views, no matter how conscientious and devout such "heretics" might be!

We have both known and long taught that the Christian is called unto liberty, and that every child of God is divinely authorized to preach the Truth as he sees it. Is it possible that we are forgetting these past sound teachings and have come to ignore that precious heritage of Christian liberty that has long been ours? Are we now willing to adopt the "human ordination" arguments policies of the clergy whom we have so strenuously condemned?


Are we now ready to consign to everlasting destruction sincere Christians who have done no wrong greater than that of proclaiming Christ's Kingdom without first having been authorized by man or by a man-made organization? I cannot bring myself to believe, dear Brother Woodworth, that you and thousands of other Bible Students or Witnesses of Jehovah are giving your willing assent to such God-dishonoring theories and practices as your article implies. Hence, in the spirit of the Golden Rule, and with no thought whatsoever of retaliation, I write this letter in the hope that I may help you to arouse yourself from the spiritual stupor into which circumstances seem to have gradually forced you, manifestly against your better judgment.


In your attack against brethren who are preaching the Kingdom message without authority from the Society, you make no attempt to show that they are teaching error. Your argument is that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is the only instrument that the Lord would possibly use to proclaim Christ's Kingdom (although no scriptural reason for such a conclusion is given); and upon this premise you reason that any independent effort to proclaim the Truth is displeasing to the Lord, no matter how sincere or how effective such an effort may be, and that the Lord will vengefully visit upon such tellers of His Truth swift and lasting destruction.

You will agree, I am sure, that Jesus is the Head of His church, and that all laws governing that
body must come from Him. In spite of this, you have lent your name to a wholesale condemnation of consecrated Christians--your brethren--who are proclaiming the Kingdom message because they love it; and in support of your rash action you have not attempted to produce any authorization from the divinely-appointed Head of the church-evidently for the very obvious reason that no such authorization exists.

Haman Class seek to Monopolize
Both you and I well know that after the apostles fell asleep the early church departed from the faith and from the freedom in Christ which the Lord and His apostles had instituted. Priests and bishops then began to usurp authority; to claim a monopoly of the Truth, and to assert an autocratic control over believers. They claimed infallibility for the pope; all independent Bible study and teaching was banned; the priceless heritage of Christian liberty was taken away; and thus was brought about that dark, dismal period in the church's history during which thousands of Christians were burned at the stake or otherwise cruelly mistreated, when they tried to break away from that unauthorized, unchristian bondage of men and claim the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free.


Finally, a successful break for liberty was made and the Protestant Reformation was launched. But one after another of the Protestant sects soon fell away to the very same error against which they had protested; boastingly to assert that they had the power to open and shut the doors of heaven to whomsoever they would. Is history again repeating itself?

This is the kind of openness the Watchtower framers had. Did, it make these people less qualified for their openness, and direct approach? Perhaps, you yourself would suggest this can be seen as a bad association. If this is the case, it would be applied to justify the end means, not the truth. This type of OPED’s can be seen throughout the Watchtower history, including the Zion Tower.

Also, with this illustration, it should be able to give more clarity to other issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

Yes, Fred was the framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clean under scriptural bases. That didn't make him a hardnose, or an inhumane person to stick with the bylaws of scripture.

Evidently, Fred Franz was NOT a "framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clear under scriptural bases." This was one of the more surprising points in "Crisis of Conscience."

When the Aid Book was being researched and written, it became obvious that the congregations would have been able to utilize all the elders who met the qualifications. By now it probably surprises most Witnesses that there ever was a time when each congregations was "run" by an ONE autocratic "congregation servant" who could hold that position for decades. He reported to a circuit servant who reported to a district servant who reported to the service department in the US or a respective branch servant elsewhere.

When R.Franz showed F.Franz the evidence that an elder arrangement was Biblical, he says that F.Franz appeared to have known this all along but had held off doing anything about it.

(Of course, under Russell and Rutherford, there already had been an elder arrangement, but this is something that Rutherford stopped in favor of the autocratic arrangement he called "Theocratic.")

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

Fred was more qualified than anyone at that time.

Just another take on this, but I think that F.Franz was very unqualified to take on the same type of leadership role that Knorr took on. Milton Henschel, definitely, or even Ted Jaracz. I could see Sydlik probably capable but not in the running due to a condition that was rarely spoken about. In fact Max Larson would have been the most equivalent replacement for Knorr had he been anointed and on the Governing Body. F.Franz was very different, and so many of his early talks in public are forceful only in the sense that they were sometimes "shrill." He was more like a nerdy expert witness on a court stand that no one would speak against because everyone thought he was so much more qualified from the perspective of his intelligence. 

If you listen to his talks going back to 1950 and 1958 (some are recorded), you can see that several times he was given these very small talks that should have been called "Bible Greek Trivia," short snippets of linguistic expertise but on topics that would have seemed insignificant in the context of an international convention. Yet, I understand that when his office filing cabinets were opened after his death, it was obvious he had been the primary writer of all Bible-based articles in the Watchtower since Knorr's presidency (1942) and that he had even been the writer of many articles in Rutherford's lifetime. He wrote almost 100 percent of every prophecy book from 1942 through 1988. Articles that were written by others on these same topics merely copied his previously published material and reworded it. 

Jehovah no doubt blessed the decision to go back to an elder arrangement, and I think that F.Franz knew he could not stand in the way of this change, now that someone else had seen how clearly the Bible defines this arrangement. I sometimes think that Witnesses were protected from something quite chaotic and damaging that would have happened had F.Franz been the bureaucratic head and the unchecked spiritual head of the Society at the same time. The Governing Body arrangement was very timely. Jehovah provides.

Of course that didn't stop F.Franz from writing an article that included some non-Biblical speculation when he accepted the elder arrangement, and a very limited Governing Body arrangement in 1971. In the infamous 'tail wagging the dog' article from December 15, 1971, he wrote:

*** w71 12/15 p. 759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
From this, and from what historical evidence there is available, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated, just the same as the chairmanship of the presbytery or “body of elders” of each Christian congregation rotated among the coequal elders.—1 Tim. 4:14.

This may be an excellent idea. But where in 1 Tim 4:14 is there any hint that there was a 'chairmanship' among the body of elders, or that this 'chairmanship' rotated among coequal elders? The argument had been built from the idea that Peter speaks in Acts 2, and then James in Acts 15.

*** w71 12/15 pp. 758-759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
The governing body does not have officers such as the Society’s Board of Directors has, namely, president, vice-president, secretary-treasurer and assistant secretary-treasurer. It has merely a chairman, such as the governing body of the first century had. Apparently, the apostle Peter was the chairman of the governing body on the festival day of Pentecost of 33 C.E., and the disciple James, the half brother of Jesus Christ, was the chairman at a later date, according to the account in Acts of Apostles.

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

That's why he enjoyed translating scripture into different languages. 

F.Franz was fairly proficient in several European languages and had studied Biblical Greek. He did a lot of work translating Hebrew and Greek into English, but I'm pretty sure he was not involved in translating scripture into any other languages.

On 2/1/2019 at 10:45 PM, FelixCA said:

There is far more that can be said, it would take a book to yield such information.

I found him to be a very interesting man. I'd read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Since we all should know, 144,000 thousand saints is a literal number, my question to Raymond and Fred early on in my life, was, if some saints were still earthbound, would these saints be the ones to automatically be raptured into heaven to complete the cycle.

This is very interesting. It would also be interesting to know the time and place. I'm guessing you are not so young, having spoken about seeing the 1975 issues first hand, and speaking about attending college at around age 30. I'm guessing you are in your 60's, at least. And this question would have been before 1980, I assume, as Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped shortly after 1980. And he wasn't in the United States, as he was still in missionary work until the late 1960's. So this puts the question between about 1970 and 1980.

 But it's even more interesting that you would ask both of them the same question. Was it just because Fred Franz didn't give you a real answer? Why would you go to Raymond Franz to ask? Were these the only two persons you chose, or did you also ask others?

And your question itself is very good. Thinking about that exact question is what led the Watchtower to finally accept the basic concept of the "rapture." I think it had been at least 80 years since a rapture, of any sort, had been considered a valid doctrine in the Watchtower before this was finally written:

*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 par. 15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . .  So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

After all, everything would have to be complete and set in place in heaven so the heavenly kingdom would have full control of all the earthbound survivors.

Coincidentally, this was part of the same reasoning used in the 2015 Watchtower. The "marriage" of the Lamb wouldn't make sense if some of the "bride" were still spending their days waiting to die on earth. And the indication from Revelation is that the 144,000 share in the battle that will conquer the nations as "these" will all battle together with the Lamb.

So your question puts you at least 35 years ahead of the answer given in the Watchtower.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Now, I appreciated Fred’s answer even though it wasn’t an answer. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you, there is no question as to what scripture means. Perhaps I didn’t quite understand then because of my age, but it sunk in as I grew older.

This gives the impression that Fred Franz was aware that you were expressing a strong interest in the "anointing." He got questions about the anointing a lot. A young sister in my hometown Missouri congregation sought opportunities to question F.Franz about this issue. I can understand this especially of those who were born after 1935 and were looking for some kind of validation of their heavenly hope. After all, F.Franz was usually considered the one person, the primary example of someone whose anointing had been made "sure." Not saying it's necessarily true of you, I have no idea, but your additional words seem to fit this idea. After F.Franz says: "If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you there is no question as to what scripture means." And then you say that this "sunk in" as you grew older. 

And then you asked Raymond Franz the same question. And he has no idea how to treat a kid. This is actually believable of so many at Bethel, even persons in high positions. It's because they often never had a child, left home early, never got married (or had to remain childless if they did), and were sometimes raised up under Rutherford's presidency, whose children evidently grew to hate him. So I can believe, even though he was a missionary and had many wonderful experiences with children, that he could have been awkward around a young person with questions for him.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

On the other hand, when Raymond set me aside, he expressed an opinion with regard to rapture. This is when I asked him to elaborate since scripture clearly states the accounts of Enoch, Genesis 5:24 and Elijah, Second Kings 2:11. 

Interesting that you would tie Enoch and Elijah to a rapture doctrine, when the Society's publications of the time always made clear that they were still earthbound no matter what the implication.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

After his comment, this is why stupid children need to grow up to understand, I left it alone. I’m assuming here since he never had kids of his own he had no patience with children.

Wow! That's child abuse, plain and simple. You are saying that sometime between around 1970 and 1980, R.Franz told you: "This is why stupid children need to grow up to understand." That's incredible. Especially since there were so many children in the Spanish congregation he worked with, while at Bethel. Also, one of the first things that he and his wife Cynthia looked into after leaving Bethel in 1980 was whether it might be possible for them to still have children of their own.

If you are remembering this episode correctly, it would explain why you have expressed the kinds of feelings toward him that you have. And why you believe he must have been acting hypocritically as he gained such a reputation at Bethel for patience and kindness.

On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

This, however, would be a good argument for the final rapture of the saints “if” there are still some left. Now, not everyone who partakes will eventually be of the anointed class.

That is undoubtedly true that not everyone who partakes will be of the anointed class. I suppose we could expect some to feel disappointed if they survive Armageddon and are not "raptured" with the rest of Christ's bride. Of course, there are still a lot of things we don't know for sure. Also, for such a person who has partaken, and makes it through Armageddon, I'm sure they will be thrilled anyway to have made it thus far into their opportunity for eternal life.

Share this post


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

Therefore, this place has become a bully pulpit for misinformation, nothing more. 

When was it ever anything else?

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I can understand your need to receive opposition input to frame your own books,

From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. 

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

however, that in itself is no excuse to malign, or distort the truth.

Come, come, we must not squabble. We have the same goal, even if we go about it in different ways. I will allow that I am probably too flippant, and post in that spirit what you take seriously. For example, I did a quick & fictional snippet of Fred. That is my bad, and I apologize.

JWI deals with egghead stuff that I only skim. Things dealing with dates are not my thing. These are not the ‘motivating’ things that cause people to develop a bad heart. Rather, if some have already developed a bad heart, they latch onto the fact that people ‘at the top’ disagree (Duh) and make maximum hay out of it. Or they find that there has been much hashing out over what eventually comes out as a unified whole, and they bail on that account.

The one of good heart sees such disagreement & says ‘Ah, well, they’ll figure it out,’ and carries on without undo fuss. Since we have been wrong many times before, it seems a little foolish to insist that it will never happen again. ‘If they are on the wrong side of this or that bit of prophesy, they’ll figure it out and get on the right side,’ says the one of good heart.

No. I don’t care about such things. Why some do I’ll never know, but it’s a good thing that they do. Everyone has a gift. I like to focus on what I think is more relevant  - the qualities attributed to ‘apostates’ in Jude and 2Peter—an insistence on self-determination, and a disdain for authority. I am in my element when I get to kick back at those who would capitalize on genuine tragedies, such as CSA, to seek to destroy the ones preaching the good news.

With a major ‘reform,’ making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of our critics lose something huge to them - a little like ‘what is Tom Brady going to do with himself after he retires?’ Some face withering away like Roger Chillingsworth. They almost have no choice but to find some pissy little thing that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that to the cows come home.

Since I don’t care about the aspects of theocratic life that you do, I have probably overstepped in some places and drawn your reproof. I apologize. One of the prime things Jehovah hates is anyone spreading contentions among brothers. I won’t do it. When I once ‘liked’ a post of Captain Zipzeronada, a brother who was solid but rigid was stumbled. I apologized to him and didn’t do it again for the longest time - until the old pork chop said something to reveal that beneath his breathtaking pig-headedness, he was  likable in some respects and I couldn’t resist.

Our people do not typically do well online. They take shots at each other for not toeing the line in this or that aspect of service. Or they say: “This is what Jehovah has said:” to people who don’t necessarily care what he has said. They look ridiculous as they try to make the Internet behave like the congregation. As much as I appreciate your goal, if you told your circuit overseer that you were having a hard time purifying the Internet, what do you think he would say?

You have to cut brothers some slack online. If they shouldn’t be here to say it, you shouldn’t be here to hear it. You know very well that Bethel isn’t thrilled about any of us being here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine you have dismissed the OPED I submitted, with how many in charge would be frank and open with their responses. Raymond was no different in private. Perhaps his behavior was more polished in public but that would be something people that liked him would only see.

There are two sides to a coin, and I got to experience both sides. It really didn’t matter to me, since adults at that times were by and large as you stated “child abuse” oriented by today’s standards, not so much by the signs of that time. Perhaps, this is the problem people have today.

They look at every situation with today’s ideology rather than being intellectual and cite with the past.

The ecclesiastical determination allows viewing scripture correctly. The understanding of rapture is defined by how God’s Holy Spirit can and will operate. I believe that has been discussed before.

The inference that Fred was not involved in translating scripture to other languages when at that time there were around 109 languages if memory serves, is not an adequate characterization of Fred’s abilities. I believe that was something that was challenged in court.

While the word “framer” is taken out of context, it was the foundation for best practices for having a judicial system through the congregations, Committee. Which Fred had a fair amount of input on how this committee should be conducted, with various scriptural conditions to support it?

Once again, perhaps this is why you hold loyalty to Raymond. In an ecclesiastical level, there was no one more qualified than Fred Franz.

This, however, will remain one opinion over another. The “actions” of both subjects speak for themselves.

This is why I don’t see how you can effectively contradict arrangements that weren’t part of the Watchtower after 1931.

Before that, each congregation ran independently of each other. There was no central system, even though some continue to insist, Bethel was Pastor Russell main hub when it wasn’t.

Elders in each congregation had the ability to choose for themselves what was best for their congregants. Another reason why other denominations were welcomed to speak at their church meeting. Traveling preachers. If they had internal matters within local congregations, they would form an Ecclesia body of Elders.

“We write to apprise you of the fact that a class of Bible Students of this town have organized as an Ecclesia--24 members --Brother W. Sargent of Halifax officiating; and have voted you in as Pastor and Elder.”

“We have heard of cases in which an Elder refused to speak to one of the Congregation because the latter had not voted for him”

Dear Brethren:

I am writing you this to testify my appreciation of the visit it of dear - Pilgrim Brother Blackburn. I so much enjoyed his sweet fellowship. He seemed so, charged with the Message of love-the Gospel of Glad Tidings­ that there was no room for malevolent backbiting and -slander of fellow-servants . . . Brother Blackburn, in all his discourses, emphasized the possessing of the spirit of -Christ Jesus as the all-important, qualification of Christian character . . . Ali! how can those 'Who have tasted of the heavenly gift be so lacking in the spirit of love as to smite brethren who cannot accept every wild speculation and vagary thrust before them! If those who do such things are thereby manifesting the spirit of the Lord, then I have read the Divine Word in vain.

If the Associated Bible Students were offering "strange fire" when they preach the Truth independently of the Society, not only would their efforts come to naught but they themselves would be cut short, even as your article suggests. But, instead of this, the Lord is richly blessing their efforts, and many have come to a knowledge of the Truth and into full relationship with the Lord as a result of these ministries outside of the Society.

 

 All in all, we choose to believe what Satan has placed before us. If we refuse to acknowledge that effort, we will always play into his handy work. To distort the facts by distorting the truth.

For the Watchtower history, it’s been clear, the framers besides Raymond and former apostates like him, fell in a trap of their own device. Self-destruction by opening their hearts to Satan. Another evidence of this was the writing department in Raymond’s time. Conflict within, what a shame and wasted effort.

 

TTH, it is true some consideration should be given to some that still consider themselves as being part of this organization, but NOT when we are dealing with apostasy. If Raymond resigned and then disfellowshipped for it, how much more slack do you think people here should have? Therefore, you have the same conflict the writing department had back then with misplaced loyalty. But, that's between you and our creator.

 

Share this post


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

But, that's between you and our creator.

That’s a good way to put it. I like it.

If you cut people absolutely no slack, you almost push them out.

We do cut people slack in most areas. For example, if we cut them no slack on ‘loving violence,’ we would REALLY clamp down on those watching sports like American football, which has been PROVEN to drastically curtail life. (See the movie ‘Concussion’) But we don’t. We allow for the fact that all have missed the mark.

This should not be the one area in which we cut people ABSOLUTELY NO SLACK. JWI spouts off on ‘the way things ought to be.’ So what? He has made it clear many times that he recognizes that there must be headship and that he acqiesces to it. He has picked some obscure backwater channel presided over by some 4th-rate school Liberian who really doesn’t like kids and who is counting the days till her retirement, easing her days with wine, while the children play mean tricks on her, lowering a cat from the ceiling that will first latch onto and remove her toupee like in Tom Sawyer, to pour out how he really feels for the sake of his ‘conscience.’ Let him. If he is a windbag, let that be his vice—probably he is not hung up on violent football. Challenge him on points if you like. I have done so, but every time he does, he defends his point so well that I have learned not to do it. I mean, what am I going to say—that his experiences are not his? He will agree in a heartbeat that what he says is subjective.

Plus, he makes his posts so long that people skip over them, unless they are absolutely fixated on the points he raises, and if they are, they may as well get data from him, rather than from people who decidedly think ill of the JW cause and will make up falsehood. No, Felix, it is not that your point is invalid, but there are bigger fish to fry. 

Opposers say ALMOST TO THE PERSON that Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘controlling’ and MANY say they were driven away on that account. You (forgive my bluntness) are here a case in point, striving very hard to ‘control’ him (with good motive—don’t misunderstand). Of course, it is in the nature of the truth that there is going to be authority, but in light of ALL opposers saying it and MANY friends conceding that it can at times be smothering, it pays to give thought to not being unnecessarily that way.

My blog and book experience has led me to think of other areas where change may one day come. Elsewhere I wrote:

It may be unavoidable, but the scriptural counsel to avoid apostates come what may has a serious downside. If a youngster of ours succumbs to the oldest trap of human nature- going somewhere out of curiosity because he has been advised not to, and he stumbles, he finds himself totally unsupported because we don’t know what is there ourselves. All we can say is that he shouldn’t go there, which opposers spin as proof that he should stay in order to escape from being “controlled.”  I don’t know the answer, but it would be nice if there was one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote TTH "From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. "

Plus belittling people. Making fun of important issues,

And advertising your books. 

And from my viewpoint the 'one of good heart' seeks only truth and justice, along with mercy and honesty. And in doing so looks to God through Jesus Christ for the guidance of holy spirit. Also reading and believing God's word, not mans.  

They do not take the easy, cowardly, way out, by serving 'A body of men' and hiding in an organisation that they know is dishonest and has no true love in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote TTH. "Opposers say ALMOST TO THE PERSON that Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘controlling’ "

Opposers do this opposers do that. Apostates do this, apostates do that.

Dear old TTH, he loves to generalise.  Tom, everyone is an individual.

Haven't you watched 'Life Of Brian' ? We're all individuals. 

However if ten people saw a vehicle accident happen and had to give a report to the police, they would all probably give similar accounts.

If you have 50 ex JW's, they will each have their own experiences. If all 50 of them found the Org to be controlling then doesn't that tell you something ?  If you are not blind or deaf, it should tell you that those 50 people found the JW Org to be controlling. 

The only way JW's can get out of that control is by not completely obeying the 'rules'. And it seems that you are saying that the rules are not always enforced. BUT the rules are there none the less. 

Quote TTH "We do cut people slack in most areas."   Please explain.

WHO cuts people slack ? What slack are they cutting ? Do you mean that Elders allow congregants to break the rules ?

So are you admitting that there are those rules in place ?

If so, having those rules in place, is controlling. 

Yes I know we all have to obey rules in everyday life. For instance, which side of the road we drive on, stopping at red lights. 

But the superior authorities will admit they put rules in place, so they are controlling.

So why won't the GB of JW Org ,and you, admit that the Org is controlling ? After all isn't it supposed to be that way ? 

If there are rules it is for the purpose of having control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 2:59 AM, FelixCA said:

Luke 12:32 . . . little flock; . . . John 10:16 . . .other sheep. . . Revelation 7:3-8 . . . the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, . . .

When you juxtapose those 3 verses as you have, it helps to make a case for the idea already presented that the little flock might be Jews and the other sheep might be non-Jews, that is: people out of every tribe and nation. In fact you stopped just one verse shy of verse 9:

(Revelation 7:9) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands.

So we already know that in some sense the 144,000 refer to Israelites, and the great crowd refer to Gentiles. The question is whether the reference is literal. We claim the number 144,000 to be literal, but we claim the reference to Israel is not. In fact, we teach that people of every tribe and nation are a part of that 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel, and that even many who are fleshly Israelites can end up being a part of that great crowd from all nations. Saying these expressions are NOT literal might appear to some people to be the equivalent of adding and subtracting from the Bible.

If the number 144,000 is not literal then it is surely not up to us to decide how many literal persons might make up this group. Since this is a discussion which has become centered on the views that R.Franz presented. I'll just present some of what he said on this so that other persons can reference it, and decide if it has any merit, or to point out the flaws in the reasoning.

At the time, there were only two of Jesus' parables that were believed to include the "other sheep." John 10:16 of course, and the "sheep and goats" parable because it mentions someone doing something for Christ's brothers, considered here to be only from the 144,000.

R.Franz points out that even if everything we teach about the 144,000 being literal is true, and only 144,000 will be in heaven, and a great crowd will make up the new earth  --even if all this is true-- it still doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't referring to literal Israelites in the "little flock" and literal "Gentiles" in the "other sheep" when he used these terms in John 10:16. The best argument the Watchtower uses for our current view of John 10:16 is that Christendom teaches they are literal Jews and Gentiles. This is not a real argument because we use Christendom all the time as evidence that we are right when Christendom's commentaries and scholarship agrees with us.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I did explain. All you had to do was read the next sentence.

You avoid answering the questions I asked though and that was what i wanted you to explain, as you well know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You avoid answering the questions I asked though and that was what i wanted you to explain, as you well know. 

The post itself explains those things.

if you don’t mind, I’ll pass, John. Many others have explained these things for you. I haven’t seen any of them make an inch of progress.

Share this post


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

f the number 144,000 is not literal then it is surely not up to us to decide how many literal persons might make up this group. Since this is a discussion which has become centered on the views that R.Franz presented. I'll just present some of what he said on this so that other persons can reference it, and decide if it has any merit, or to point out the flaws in the reasoning.

At the time, there were only two of Jesus' parables that were believed to include the "other sheep." John 10:16 of course, and the "sheep and goats" parable because it mentions someone doing something for Christ's brothers, considered here to be only from the 144,000.

R.Franz points out that even if everything we teach about the 144,000 being literal is true, and only 144,000 will be in heaven, and a great crowd will make up the new earth  --even if all this is true-- it still doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't referring to literal Israelites in the "little flock" and literal "Gentiles" in the "other sheep" when he used these terms in John 10:16.

Then your exegesis is flawed. While the Israelites do hold some of the 144,000 saints it is conclusive with Jesus mandate by God’s Holy Spirit that the none-Jew (Gentiles) be included. Therefore, when scripture mentions all the tribes of Israel, it can’t be seen other than the descendants of all the tribes that have gotten mixed throughout the generations.

The same flaw found with Raymond. The same ill-conceived argument, when he failed to consider if Jesus was really a Jew because of his Parents. Raymond, just like about everyone doesn’t consider that Jesus was conceived by God’s Holy Spirit, therefore, Jesus was ALL nations (ADAM), not just the heritage of his parents. Was he clinging to his heritage, or was he framing how the Jews and none-Jews would be included?  He was the first Christian, meaning the first none-Jew, by a proclamation not by heritage. If we consider Raymond’s argument, with that logic, where does it leave Apostle Paul?

To that extent, the 144,000 would have the same proclamation. So, don’t think too much into the heritage that the Jews ultimately lost favor for, defying God so many millennia, ago.

Let’s not confuse the original Israelites that Jesus himself claimed to be Matthew 1:1–17 with the Jews in his time. Why else would Paul make a distinction with Romans 11:1 as to the Remnant of Israel? Paul demonstrated that Israel followed God by works instead of faith. That’s why those Jews refused to believe in Jesus and accept him as the Messiah. Had Jesus been born in the time of the Israelites, what do you think would have happened, seeing the son of God present.

We’d be having a different conversation if any, however, the makeup of humanity wouldn’t have been this evil. The same outcome present-day Israel is trying to do by building their own righteousness and their own sovereign state (Kingdom).

With Raymond’s understanding and yours, the 144,000 are already collected by heritage, way before Jesus was born, and serving as kings and priest, presently. This would leave out all the gentiles and converted Jews to Christianity. That is a distention the Watchtower makes when it refers to the false teachings of Christendom.

Share this post


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

This should not be the one area in which we cut people ABSOLUTELY NO SLACK. JWI spouts off on ‘the way things ought to be.’ So what? He has made it clear many times that he recognizes that there must be headship and that he acqiesces to it. He has picked some obscure backwater channel presided over by some 4th-rate school Liberian who really doesn’t like kids and who is counting the days till her retirement, easing her days with wine, while the children play mean tricks on her, lowering a cat from the ceiling that will first latch onto and remove her toupee like in Tom Sawyer, to pour out how he really feels for the sake of his ‘conscience.’ Let him. If he is a windbag, let that be his vice—probably he is not hung up on violent football. Challenge him on points if you like. I have done so, but every time he does, he defends his point so well that I have learned not to do it. I mean, what am I going to say—that his experiences are not his? He will agree in a heartbeat that what he says is subjective.

I guess that would be the point TOM. What part of apostate views can be accepted? Especially when those same ideas are found in apostate sites. Where can we compromise as not to be seen hypocritical by NOT practicing what we preach? James 1:22–25 How can this marvel be seen different just because JWI explains it the same way as opposers. Where’s the intellectual capability with mistaken loyalty.

That in itself makes no ecclesiastical sense. In this case, there is no persuading those that honor God, not to have things seen, contrary to bible standards. Sorry. 😉

But, as you state in such an indirect way. JWI is a power player here and he can say whatever he wants. When he gets challenged by showing those areas of error, people get deleted, which decides where the greater influence lies. I get that, thanks for the warning, I’m on the verge of being erased, by Tom, Anna, JWinsider.

That being said, I do agree it’s your world TOM, the slave must conform to the master. 🤔

Now just because I used the phrase, “that being said” doesn’t automatically make me Space Merchant. JWinsider, LOL! 😄

Share this post


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

We claim the number 144,000 to be literal, but we claim the reference to Israel is not

Can't resist a contribution to this bit of a rather diverse thread if you don't mind.

Jesus said to the Jews at Matt.21:43 "the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits." That was pretty much confirmed by the acceptance of Cornelius into the Christian congregation in 36CE. With the rapid expansion of the congregation into non-Israelite territories and the consequent influx of non-Jews, there was an ongoing attempt to Judaize these Gentiles that was countered by many of the letters and actions of the apostle Paul. One particular letter, Galatians written about 50-52CE is relevant.

One of the statements Paul made in this letter is interesting: Gal.3:28-29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise." There he introduces the idea of a united body of Christians (with Christ) made up of Jews and Gentiles but disregarding their fleshly national origins. He also states that they are (by reason of their being united with Christ) included in the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, "heirs with reference to a promise".  Quck flip to Genesis 22:18, "And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’”. No prize for associating Israelites as the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, and the promise as relating, in part, to all (other) nations getting a blessing by means of Abraham's offspring (or seed). Now Paul has clarified the identity of this offspring as comprising Jesus, plus his congregation, amongst whom there are no fleshly, national, or religious distinctions. He tops it off by referring to this congregation at Gal.6:15-16 as having no need of fleshly circumcision, as being a new creation, and most importantly for the purpose of this discussion, terms them as "the Israel of God".

Now this has a neat connection with the words of Peter about 10 years later, at 1Pet.2:9."But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." These words are written to scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia who are reminded of their reserved heavenly inheritance (1Pet.1:1;4). The words Peter quotes are taken from Ex.19:6 and Is.43:21 which applied directly when they were written to the fleshly nation of Israel. BUT, in the light of Jesus words about the loss of privilege on the part of fleshly Israel, Paul's words about another Israel, united spritually rather than by fleshly descent, and becoming instrumental in the blessing of all nations, coupled with Peter's application of words describing the role of fleshly Israel to this newly constituted other Israel is significant. These words fit well with Jesus' determined pronouncement that another deserving nation would become the instrument to fulfill the blessing to the nations via a spiritual rather than a fleshly offspring of promise. A spritual Israel. And this is not a figurative Israel, it is a literal, spiritual Israel.

So, in view of these developments, and the late date of writing for the Revelation nearly 40 years on, it seems pretty clear that the group of 144,000 described at Rev.7:3-8 must be the same as the "Israel of God" referred to by Paul which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be comprised solely of fleshly Israelite Christians. The idea of them "following the Lamb where ever he goes" fits well with Peter's words at 1Pet.1:4 regarding their inheritance. To emphasise, the reference to Israel is actually literal, along with the complete number of 144,000.  It's just that it is a spiritual, not a fleshly, nation. The tribal split of course is figurative. The location of the group, the historical loss of any genealogical records, the equal split in numbers, the difference in tribal names all lend support to this view.

This , of course is only one thread of scripture that can be brought to bear on the matter. 😊

Share this post


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

JWI is a power player here and he can say whatever he wants. 

All you have to do to be a power player here is to hang around This is a commercial site, after all 

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

When he gets challenged by showing those areas of error, people get deleted, 

The only one who has ever been deleted is Allen, (as far as I know) which both JWI and I tried to prevent/undo. And he DID get abusive at times, which is a little different than obnoxious. Many here are obnoxious with no penalty whatsoever. That’s okay. But abusive is not. Even I was once penalized for being abusive. (for beating up on apostates, to a FAR greater degree than you.) I have preserved the experience, with embellishments, in the introduction of TrueTom vs the Apostates.

    Hello guest!

Butler is right. I shamelessly self promote (but it is for the best)

 

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I get that, thanks for the warning, I’m on the verge of being erased, by Tom, Anna, JWinsider.

None of these have that power. The ones that do, @admin and @The Librarian (that old hen) would not want you erased.  You contribute to eyeballs on this forum, and that drives traffic, which drives money in the form of advertising. This is a commercial site.  The worst you can do from their point of view is to disappear. JWI has been given minor clerical powers. They are mostly so that he can straighten out the messes that his posts mak in the form of launching tangents. The Librarian is a Witness, I would call her an ‘avante gard’ one, which to some means she is not. Admin is not a Witness and is ambivalent in how he feels towards them. Certain posts of his have not been encouraging, but he stays on his side of the fence. Business, you understand.

You have made your point well. Possibly I may mention it again, but I have no plans to bring it up again. An ‘agree to disagree’ thing, and yours is undeniably the majority view among our people. Perhaps it must be that way.

I will be with you as I am with him. In the words of the great American forefather, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will argue mildly for your right to say it!!’

That being said, that being said.

Share this post


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

Can't resist a contribution to this bit of a rather diverse thread if you don't mind.

Glad you're here. Your points made are very good. And, fwiw, I agreed with every single word you said above, except for one sentence. And even in that one sentence I would only change one word. I would change the word "must" to "would likely." And to be consistent, then, I would also insert two more instances of "likely" further on in that same paragraph.

It's because everything you say about spiritual Israel is true. And you make an excellent Biblical argument to tie that spiritual/symbolic meaning to Revelation 7 & 14. But everything you are saying need not reflect the specific literalness of the number, although I'm not personally arguing that you're wrong. It very well could be literal. I'm just saying that we can't say it MUST be literal. And there are several good Biblical reasons why we should avoid saying "must' here.

This particular explanation of the passage in Revelation has stood the test of time among Witnesses for 80-some years. Still, there are many parts of it that are difficult to defend as "absolutes" in their specific Biblical context. And there have been a few arguments in favor of our interpretation that have made use of false reasoning. Whenever that happens, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but false reasoning should always perk up our senses to 'make sure of all things.' We need to know that it does not depend on false reasoning.

I'm sure you are personally aware of the points I refer to. But I'll be happy to play "The Bible's Advocate" here and point out some of the scriptural difficulties and false reasoning employed in support of the teaching.

Revelation is very symbolic, and therefore it seems that we definitely ought to consider whether any reference to Israel could refer to "symbolic" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. Of course, if Israel is symbolic, this might be an argument for considering all the numbers in this context to be symbolic: 12, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, and 144,000. Of the dozens of numbers referenced in Revelation, we already consider about 90 percent of them to be symbolic. We consider:

  • 24 elders to be symbolic, (and 24 harps, and 24 incense bowls),
  • the 3 and 1/2 days to be symbolic,
  • the 7,000 persons killed to be symbolic,
  • the 1,600 stadia to be symbolic,
  • the number 666 to be symbolic,
  • the 7 mountains to be symbolic,
  • the 7 horns of the Lamb to be symbolic,
  • the 7 eyes of the Lamb to be symbolic,
  • the 2 witnesses to be symbolic,
  • the 12 stars to be symbolic,
  • the 1/10th of the city to be symbolic,
  • the 1/3rd of the stars hurled to earth to be symbolic,
  • the 1/3rd of the people killed to be symbolic,
  • the 1/3rd of the ships, 1/3rd of the sun, 1/3rd of the moon, 1/3rd of the earth, etc.,
  • the 12 gates made of 12 pearls with 12 angels at the gates to be symbolic,
  • the 12,000 stadia to be symbolic,
  • the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic,
  • the 12 foundation stones to be partially symbolic (of the 12 apostles),
  • the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, and
  • the 144 cubits to be symbolic.

I've never made a chart of all of the numbers, but there are dozens of them in the book of Revelation, but we take only a very few of them to be literal.

The basic point from Revelation 7, and its context, without any attempt to interpret for the moment is this:

  • John sees 4 angels holding back the 4 destructive winds from the 4 corners of the earth. Then he sees an angel come out of the East with a God's "seal" and that angel tells the 4 angels to keep the destructive winds back until [all] God's slaves are sealed.
  • John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. He hears that there are 12,000 out of each tribe, so that the number 12,000 is repeated here 12 times. (A list where the tribe of Levi replaces the tribe of Dan, and the tribe of Ephraim is called by his father's name.)
  • Then John sees a great crowd that no man could number out of every nation/tribe/people/tongue.
  • These ones, unlike what is said about the 144,000, are:
    • standing before God's throne
    • standing before the Lamb
    • dressed in white robes
    • waving palm branches, shouting: "Salvation we owe to our God, seated on the throne, and to the Lamb."
  • John also sees, not just the great crowd, but also all the angels around God's throne, along with the [24] elders, and 4 living creatures, and they also shout in praise, not because they owe their salvation to God, but to offer God a prayer of thanks, praise and honor for his glory, wisdom, power, and strength.
  • John is asked by one of the [24] elders who and from where are these ones that are "dressed in white robes." The elder does not say "Where is this 'great crowd' from?" The important distinguishing feature is that they are "dressed in white robes." John defers to the elder who gives John more information about them:
    • they come out of the great tribulation
    • they have washed their robes, made white in the blood of the Lamb, which is why they can stand before God's throne
    • they render God sacred service day and night in his Temple (Greek, "naos," often referring to the most sacred and holy part of the temple, where only the priests could render sacred service.)
    • God will spread his tent over them so that they will neither hunger, thirst, nor be scorched by heat, because the Lamb in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and guide them to springs of waters of life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.

==================

So immediately, we see that the Watch Tower's version has a couple of problems that must be overcome through interpretation so that the uninterpreted verses don't continue to give the impression that it's the "great crowd" and not the 144,000 who are standing before the heavenly throne. Somehow we need to put the 144,000 up there in heaven, too. And then we need to re-interpret this heavenly scene where John is viewing things in heaven, and talking to one of the 24 elders in heaven. We need to keep the "great crowd" on earth. We also need to diminish the meaning of the "white robes" because this is how the 24 elders are dressed, and also is the mark of those dead awaiting under the altar "crying out" for those still alive on earth until their full number was filled:

(Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been.

(Revelation 19:14) . . .Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen.

The white robes are mindful of the requirements for priestly garments, but it seems to refer to the clean standing required of heavenly beings so that they can stand before God and his throne, and perform sacred service in his heavenly temple. The 144,000 are not shown to be in these heavenly garments. The 144,000 are not said to be performing sacred service in the Temple. The NAOS, which often refers only to the inner chambers of the temple, as opposed to the outer courtyards, or courtyard of the gentiles, for example, is only mentioned with reference to the "great crowd."

Both these "issues" are resolved by two basic interpretations unique to the Watch Tower publications:

  • The Watchtower makes the 24 elders refer to the 144,000
  • The Watchtower teaches that the NAOS can refer to the outer courtyards of the temple

There's more, of course. But this post needs to be broken up.

Share this post


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

The only one who has ever been deleted is Allen, (as far as I know) which both JWI and I tried to prevent/undo. And he DID get abusive at times, which is a little different than obnoxious. Many here are obnoxious with no penalty whatsoever. That’s okay. But abusive is not. Even I was once penalized for being abusive. (for beating up on apostates, to a FAR greater degree than you.) I have preserved the experience, with embellishments, in the introduction of TrueTom vs the Apostates.

I will not quarrel over the meaning of the words “abusive” versus “obnoxious” since I’m sure its use is meant to justify the wrongful act of another.

I would think a witness would welcome a defender from abusive rhetoric like Butler and this person by the name of James Thomas Rook Jr.

Therefore, I see this as an unconstructive action on how the Pharisees tried to justify the persecution of Jesus, by removing an obstacle of righteousness from within their populous.  No difference here.

As you stated, this is something we are all guilty of by being here, including the librarian. Ephesians 5:1

Walk in Love

5, therefore, be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 wLet no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

 

By your explanation, there was no good reason to have removed Allen, and what is offered, is another form of unjust, justification to retain those that are abusive and against the Watchtower for the sake of revenue. Therefore, apostasy sells.

Then it becomes a matter of what side we're on.


 

 

Share this post


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

What part of apostate views can be accepted? Especially when those same ideas are found in apostate sites. 

I wrote the book on apostates.

Literally.

’TrueTom vs the Apostates”

Everything there is to be known about them I know. They come in many shapes, sizes, permutations, colors, and genres. Some of them may even be misnamed. Some are too young to be apostates, though they must be treated pretty much the same. Call some of them apostates-in-training. They are more like the inexperienced one snatched away by some wave of the trickery of men. (Ephesians 4:14)

Is JWI one them? It is probably good discipline for him to keep hearing it from every Tom, Dick, and Harry Witness that passes through here, for he undeniably is ‘out there,’ but I am not ready to throw him under the bus just yet, if only for fear that he may grab me by the ankle and pull me in, too.

Are his views ‘apostate,’ even if they can also be found ‘on apostate sites?’ There are many of such views that have eventually become adopted by the Witness organization. Were they apostate right up until the moment they were adopted and then revealed truth afterwards? It makes no sense.

There is some verse somewhere about not running ahead. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but it may be in John’s writing. Help me out, someone. Not you, Butler. That’s not good, to run ahead, but it mostly finds expression in those who are promoting a sect. Is he? It’s arguable, perhaps, but imo he is not. 

The prime component of what makes an apostate to me is a lack of submission to theocratic authority, and he goes out of his way to make clear that he has no problem with that. If you can’t even talk about something that (history has shown) might eventually be adopted, then it really IS true that eight men are the only ones authorized to think. Neither they nor anyone else would want that to be the case, I think.

When push comes to shove, he is submissive to appointed authority. Let that be enough on a bayou backwater thread as this. If he set up a booth at the Kingdom Hall: “JWI’s Thoughts,” that would be one thing, but he doesn’t (you don’t, JWI, right?)

Honestly. If he was an apostate I would know it because I wrote the book on apostates and he is not in it. (Yet. It is an ebook, after all, which has already been updated and no doubt will be updated again) Remember, ALL of us are apostate if you stretch the word too far, for Bethel clearly prefers we abstain from sites of off the grid spiritualality and yet here we are.

 

528A1187-AE31-4A1B-8352-0C146786AC6D.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote TTH  " Remember, ALL of us are apostate if you stretch the word too far, for Bethel clearly prefers we abstain from sites of off the grid spiritualality and yet here we are. "

Oh dear thar word APOSTATE. 

 

apostate

Dictionary result for apostate

/əˈpɒsteɪt/
noun
  1. 1.
    a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.
    "after fifty years as an apostate he returned to the faith"
    synonyms: dissenter, heretic, nonconformist; More
adjective
  1. 1.
    abandoning a religious or political belief or principle.
    "an apostate Roman Catholic"
     
    GET IT IN YOUR HEADS THAT, A PERSON CAN LEAVE A RELIGION, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ABANDON GOD OR JESUS CHRIST
     
    And, all f you will know exactly how JESUS spoke to the Pharisees. That would have made Jesus an apostate to the Jewish religion. All Jesus' followers became apostate to the Jewish religion.
     
    No more animal sacrifices, Jesus fulfilled the LAW. 
     
    So why are you all so keen to worship the GB of JW Org, and to hang on their every word. If you GB wishes to misuse the word Apostate are you all so stupid you have to follow them ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    60,861
    Total Topics
    110,870
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,344
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Dafniter
    Newest Member
    Dafniter
    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.