In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I don’t recall when John the Baptist told Jesus, I am baptizing you on your name.

According to reports on Jesus baptism, it is ok with your or anyone else's memory that it is impossible to recall such thing :))). Perhaps somebody else on forum can explain similarity and differences on Baptisms made by John and all later Baptisms made by Jesus's Followers. 

After Jesus's Resurrection they have been instructed HOW to do Baptism. One element of John's way of baptism obviously continued - immersing in water. 

Also, as i recall, John proclaims baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin, and says another will come after him who will not baptize with water, but with the Holy Spirit. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.....and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. - Mat 3

After desert temptations:  From that time Jesus began to proclaim, (not disciples) “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near ...Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the good news^[d] of the kingdom and curing every disease and every sickness among the people.  - Mat 4

Then Jesus  summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness..... These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,⁶ but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ⁷ As you go, proclaim the good news,(not doing baptism)  ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near. - Mat 10

His disciples came and took the body (John the Baptist) and buried it; then they went and told Jesus. - Mat 14

After Resurrection: 

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” - Mat 28

Well, nothing pro et contra, just chronological line on who said what to who :))

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

While it is a personal decision to dedicate oneself to God, uttering words out load or in silence would be irrelevant.

I can understand what you said, but IF Words are not spoken (in one way or another) than it is opposite  to Jesus command :))

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

In their case, simply put, just like Jesus, Paul is following Jesus footsteps by the power of the great commission. I “charge you” or I “commission you” to go forward and proclaim the good news of God’s Heavenly Kingdom. Paul understood the teachings of Christ. However, if you notice, Paul DIDN’T baptize them with water, but instead by laying his hand upon them that the Holy Spirit was granted.

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire

Well, by this verse and what you have said perhaps Jesus thought about such model of Baptism? And not with water?

[Srecko Sostar]

21 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The fact that you compare crime and sin as the same, when crime is a sin, but what constitutes punishment from God and what constitutes punishment from God’s secular authority are two distinct avenues of God’s authority

I just said how terminology in JW Church is more, often based on word "sin". In NWT Bible there is only one single word in whole book with wording - "crime". In Luke 23:4 where Pilate, as non Jew, supposedly, using word "crime".

Some other translations using word "crime" on various places in Bible. 

I just noticed how word "sin" is more popular and somehow prevailed in JW spiritual, everyday vocabulary. 

 

sin noun [ C/U ]

 US  /sɪn/

an act of breaking a religious law, or such acts considered together:

[ C ] In most religions, stealing is regarded as a sin.

A sin is also anything considered wrong:

[ C ] It is not a sin to drop your kid off at soccer practice and stay in the car to read a book.

 UK  /sɪn/ US  /sɪn/

C2 the offence of breaking, or the breaking of, a religious or moral law:

 

crime noun [ C/U ] US  /krɑɪm

an action or activity that is against the law, or illegal activity generally

People say something is a crime if it is wrong

illegal activities ,  an illegal act

 

[Srecko Sostar]

19 hours ago, Outta Here said:

The differentiation between a violation of Jehovah's law as a sin and not a crime would be a "soulical" percepton.

In the old days, people used to travel in various ways, and there were roads and also city streets. However, I do not remember that there is a divine law on traffic in the Bible or in other Jewish scriptures. :))
So, if the law did not describe or prescribe something, then that particular thing does not exist neither as a sin nor as a crime. :))
As the Bible speaks of divine law, which is a completely different category from secular law (no matter what they punished and some of the same actions by people), then we could still say that the words sin and crime have different origins and meanings. No divine law says whether or not a car driver can drive down the street and at what speed. Because of this, people, not God, have passed traffic regulations and laws. This human law has no concept of sin but an offense (traffic violation) and some others deal with concept of crime, not with sin.

Bible spoke about Secular Authority who carry "sword" and punishing violators of the Human Law, not of Divine Law. Of course, various human societies made changes through centuries and abandon biblical concept of "sin" in general, but they adopted the term "crime". Perhaps because, religion and state have to be separated.

And for that reason, JW Church was called to clear problems (especially actual issue of various child molestation made by members to other members) because of clerical ideas about elder-member privilege communication, two witness rule, Judicial Committees as Parallel Legislative System to "worldly" Legislative  and similar.

This sort/way of solving inside problems as religion community coming from Concept of Sin. On other side, JW Church as Institution, was not showed much will to report such "sinful crime" because they, generally, made distinction between "sin" and "crime". They decided how elders are appointed  to deal only with "sins", but Secular Authority with "crimes", and even if it is the same act.  (Richard Ashe  ....  

 

[Evacuated]

13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

if the law did not describe or prescribe something, then that particular thing does not exist neither as a sin nor as a crime.

Matters not how this topic of sin v crime is reasoned/wrangled/presented by you and others who reflect your view. Regardless of religious/moral/ ethical persuasions or stance, this the soulical perception of matters. You seem to think that what lies in the mind of man is what determines the existence of sin or crime. This is a soulical perception. You are effectively demonstrating what Paul descibed regarding this matter, although I am not sure if that is your intention.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Is "soulical" even a real word?

It sounds sillycal.

[Srecko Sostar]

Sin vs Crime

Picture can look as this version 1:

JW members in Russia committed no Sin against nobody.....,

 

In version 2, picture is changed by Bible verses:

JW members done Crime against Secular Authority who Governed with JHVH permission and against what God set in place .... And by that committed a Sin against God. 

... So Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. Consequently, the one who resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

 

In version 3, picture is changed by next Bible verse:

But Peter and the other apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than men. 

 

In version 4, picture is paint by GB decisions and interpretations in particular case.

for example: Mexico, Malawi, Bulgaria, Russia, etc.

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It sounds sillycal.

But like "cynical"

 

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Is "soulical" even a real word?

Depends what language you speak.

[Srecko Sostar]

13 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, The Holy spirit with Jesus became a visual effect, rather than those that receive God’s Holy Spirit.

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. ² Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. ³ They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. - Acts 2

very visual effects :)))

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I think more people understand the word Grok, compared to the number of people that understand "soulical" ... and that ain't many, in either case.

Somehow I visualize a Slinky, walking down the stairs.

...Is that real English?

[Srecko Sostar]

34 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

After all, judgment day is a reality.

 

35 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

earth back to paradise with "sinless" people.

After judgment day (Armageddon) JW waiting, all people will stay to be sinful ..... for at least 1000 years :))