THE WATCHTOWER HISTORY OF GOG OF MAGOG

[Dmitar]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

I don’t even read most of sreckos  posts so I’m not sure of what you are referring to…so sorry I cannot give you an answer

He thinks of you well enough to defend your post. That's a problem since he is a former Jehovah's Witness. Does that mean you sometimes agree, the governing body and church elders are overreaching, since you stated at times the Watchtower can be dogmatic?

@Thinking as a people have we been too authoritarian…to dogmatic at times…yes

What authoritarian and dogmatic stance do you and your Jehovah Witness friends here believe the Watchtower has, or has had? The Bible as its Constitution?

[Srecko Sostar]

13 hours ago, Dmitar said:

The misconception @Srecko Sostar has is with ancient judicial system that the Elders apply along with the two witness scriptural rule. He thinks the entire "congregation" needs to decide, instead of the Spiritual Guides deciding. Part of the congregation deciding wasn't dealt with, with the ancient church leaders?

The topic (of the judiciary) is more complex than what I commented on and what you are commenting on. 

Moral principles, God’s commandments, tribal customs, the influence of surrounding tribes and nations and their systems of “legislation” should also be considered.

We have patriarchal, tribal, national and other factors that have contributed to the development of the legislature and the judiciary (prior to Exile time to Moses to Judges to Kings to Sanhedrin to Jesus Church etc).

We have the power of one person to decide (the head of a family or tribe, nation, a patriarch or a king, for example) to a group of people at lower and higher levels of the judiciary (Lesser Sanhedrin and Great Sanhedrin, for example)."

 

[Srecko Sostar]

17 hours ago, Dmitar said:

there in no such thing as a Judeo-Christian

The Old Testament is part of Judaism. The New Testament is part of Christianity. So what is the Bible?

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, Dmitar said:

13 hours ago, Thinking said:

I don’t even read most of sreckos  posts so I’m not sure of what you are referring to…so sorry I cannot give you an answer

He thinks of you well enough to defend your post.

Wrong Dmitar. I was just support some thoughts and reasoning.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, Dmitar said:

13 hours ago, Thinking said:

I don’t even read most of sreckos  posts so I’m not sure of what you are referring to…so sorry I cannot give you an answer

....... Does that mean you sometimes agree, the governing body and church elders are overreaching, since you stated at times the Watchtower can be dogmatic?

As far as I can remember, the publications of WTJWorg, ie the authors of the articles, have confirmed literally that some things said in the literature are nothing but dogmatism. How is the state of dogma confirmed? By imposing a teaching, the construction of which is later changed or completely rejected. While the dogma is in force there are dire consequences for those who oppose it.

WTJWorg is full of dogmatic approaches. Older members should be more aware of this than those who have only recently joined JWorg.

[Dmitar]

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The topic (of the judiciary) is more complex than what I commented on and what you are commenting on. 

This would be incorrect. It might be complicated to you, @Pudgy and @Witness but it is simple once you separate the judicial system from Jewish law, and Jewish Bible law. I have no such ignorance.

The rest of your post is an indictment of that ignorance.

Code of Jewish Law

“A hundred and twenty elders,1 among them several prophets, instituted the recitation of the eighteen blessings of Shemoneh Esreh in a certain sequence.” 2 The first three [are placed at the beginning] in order that one should open by setting forth the praise of the Omnipresent, like a servant who first sets forth his master’s praises and then asks him for a reward.3 The last three blessings are analogous to a servant’s taking leave of his master and departing [after]
Receiving his reward.4 The thirteen intermediate blessings are the request for the reward.

Therefore, if an individual wishes to request the fulfillment of his own needs in the intermediate blessings, he may do so, as will be stated in sec. 119[:1]. By contrast, in the first three and the last three blessings, which set forth [G-d’s] praises, one should not ask for the fulfillment of individual needs. One may, however, ask that the needs of our people be satisfied,5 for [as we see,] the blessing Retzeh6 and the blessing Sim Shalom7 are requests that relate to the needs of
the people as a whole. [The rationale is that] while a servant is setting forth his master’s praise, he may ask
that public needs be satisfied, for [this acknowledgment] that the community at large depends on the master also serves to praise and honor him.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The Old Testament is part of Judaism. The New Testament is part of Christianity. So what is the Bible?

The O.T. is part of how Judiasim failed God. It's an illustration of what Christianity should not do. Jews hold the O.T. only. That's separate from Christianity that also holds the N.T.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Wrong Dmitar. I was just support some thoughts and reasoning.

Then how is my comment wrong, think.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As far as I can remember, the publications of WTJWorg, ie the authors of the articles, have confirmed literally that some things said in the literature are nothing but dogmatism. How is the state of dogma confirmed? By imposing a teaching, the construction of which is later changed or completely rejected. While the dogma is in force there are dire consequences for those who oppose it.

What you and @Pudgy and @Witness are saying since they agree with you, the ancient scrolls are dogmatic? And the Teachings that Jesus was imposing is wrong? 

Can I ask, how much influence these two bad and woeful actors (former Jehovah's Witnesses) have on you?

Now are you referring, there are certain forms of Christianity that lead people astray from God's word by their teaching such as @Witness and Pearl Doxsey that make it dogmatic, which the Watchtower literature has referred to in the past?

If this is your take, then I agree, there are false prophets such as @Witness with her resistance to the truth that make her posts dogmatic.

[Thinking]

22 hours ago, Dmitar said:

How covenant, since my illustration comes from Bible Student supported literature that you yourself just posted.

This time things became personal. Tim knew that this appeal would mean an FBI investigation, but they really got nosy! The investigators even talked to Susie's Dad. That just about did it. Susie understood, but not Mr. Deaver. "If Dave has to go and risk his life," he told her, "you are a traitor by dating this snivelling coward of a conscientious objector. It's bad enough that he is one of those pesty Jehovah's Witnesses, but he's a yellow-bellied coward on top of it."

It's a backdrop of how you think Bible Students are nice. Maybe the ones you've encountered are, just, not all. Some have vicious and extreme views about Jehovah's Witnesses.

Aside from allowing themselves to be influenced by man's traditions, they also have high regards about the CROSS and CROWN. Their signature logo.

Yes I know some are vicious and I have stood up to one of them…toe to toe…and got myself banned from a forum because of it…..and he’s probably here scoffing away privately at two witnesses disagreeing…..

 

And who in the hades is Tim and Mr Deaver  and Susie’s Dad?????

 

[Thinking]

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As far as I can remember, the publications of WTJWorg, ie the authors of the articles, have confirmed literally that some things said in the literature are nothing but dogmatism. How is the state of dogma confirmed? By imposing a teaching, the construction of which is later changed or completely rejected. While the dogma is in force there are dire consequences for those who oppose it.

WTJWorg is full of dogmatic approaches. Older members should be more aware of this than those who have only recently joined JWorg.

The dogmatic views did exist…I do notice no practising witness comments on these sorts of posts but I am going to…one which I am thinking of is Organ transplants..of which many died because if they took them they would be disfellowshipped…and I read some examples of one’s dying true to the faith et cetc…later it was found to be unscriptural and a conscience matter.

in the meantime a number of witnesses died before this dreadful over reaching of the written word was admitted…

This Ditmar is going beyond the written word and being dogmatic because they were disfellowshipped if they went ahead and had one….I often wonder if they were or even offered their disfellowhipment to be pardoned.

I see that…and me admitting that does not count me as a witness that lacks loyalty…because it turned out to be a man’s law…..the same thing applies to the 1975…that came from the top…it was misleading..again going beyond the things written…It did not come from the rank and file.

these things were errors….serious ones…and that’s why we need to be like beroeans and make sure of what is said is scriptural…

That does not make me Disloyal to Jehovah or Jesus….nor the org…because the org changed those views in time and admitted their error….

I read a WT article warning some witnesses to be careful not to idolize Jehovahs visible organization….as the Israelites did in the wilderness and went into panic mode when Moses didn’t come back….some are doing that….some not….

Doesnt make me a bad witnesses (Ditmar) more like a wiser one….if I say so myself.

But I will stand toe to toe with those who trash on the org….because they are lacking trust in Jehovah …there is a difference in admitting errors….and attacking because of those errors…..and you dont get that Sreko  and nor do some others here…including Ditmar.

[Anna]

57 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I do notice no practising witness comments on these sorts of posts

Recently we have been commenting more on topics in the closed JW only club...

[Dmitar]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

And who in the hades is Tim and Mr Deaver  and Susie’s Dad?????

Since the Story is about how Jehovah’s Witnesses "reject" the notion of active military service because it goes against bible principle, does it matter who they are?

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

The dogmatic views did exist…

Do you think this is a thing of the past? And that there is no dogmatism today?
If you believe that then you are seduced, unfortunately.

“New lights,” like the overlapping generation, Gog and Magog, GB going to heaven, etc. are nothing but a construction of the human imagination. When such ideas are translated into the official text of publications then they become official teachings. Any intellectual resistance is an alarm for elders who are obliged to suppress the appearance of opposing views or criticisms. At that moment, it becomes clear that this is a dogma, which needs to be kept above water in order to stay alive.

If a JW member commented in a private or public setting that he saw no justification for believing in, say, an “overlapping generation,” and if that meant free discussion of all present, without punishment, then we could say the organization is not dogmatic. That she is ready to be subjected to "examinations of the spirit" by her own members. Because they are legitimately called upon (by Bible) to question the correctness of teaching.

[Dmitar]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

The dogmatic views did exist…I do notice no practising witness comments on these sorts of posts but I am going to…one which I am thinking of is Organ transplants..of which many died because if they took them they would be disfellowshipped…and I read some examples of one’s dying true to the faith et cetc…later it was found to be unscriptural and a conscience matter.

Does this ignorance and bad report stem from the FACT, science has gotten better to now have a conscious choice? Instead of agreeing with @Srecko Sostar a former Jehovah's Witness, you just happen to lie about NOT reading his post.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

in the meantime a number of witnesses died before this dreadful over reaching of the written word was admitted…

This Ditmar is going beyond the written word and being dogmatic because they were disfellowshipped if they went ahead and had one….I often wonder if they were or even offered their disfellowhipment to be pardoned.

I believe the "false equivalency" is the point of order to the word dogmatic, which you as a Jehovah's Witness, I guess, and Former Jehovah's witnesses are famous for here. Adding to scripture from Woeful Jehovah's Witnesses has plagued this site for years. Not understanding the advancements of science is another. 

The question for "thinking" visitors here is, should a person that accepted WHOLE BLOOD in the PAST, be the "same" as a person receiving WHOLE BLOOD in the present?

Blood fractions were not possible in the past, therefore a Jehovah's Witness accepted a WHOLE BLOOD TRANSFUSION.

If other Christian sects appreciate the word of God, then

Acts 15:41

"Now, if this decree be obligatory upon all Christians, then can it no longer be a doubt with any Christian, whether he is obliged to abstain from blood and things strangled. And if the direction of any one apostle, inspired of God, be obligatory, certainly it can be no doubt whether a solemn decision of all the apostles, expressly declaring the joint determination of the Holy Spirit, in the point, be also obligatory.

(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 All rights reserved.)

Why these bad actors here are Jehovah's Witnesses is beyond me. However, God knows and that institution knows. This site has been labeled an apostate site.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I see that…and me admitting that does not count me as a witness that lacks loyalty…because it turned out to be a man’s law…..the same thing applies to the 1975…that came from the top…it was misleading..again going beyond the things written…It did not come from the rank and file.

How does the words in Acts suggest it doesn't apply to your way of thinking? And how is that institution you are disgracing, been misleading?

NIV Acts 15:24-29

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore, we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

these things were errors….serious ones…and that’s why we need to be like beroeans and make sure of what is said is scriptural…

That does not make me Disloyal to Jehovah or Jesus….nor the org…because the org changed those views in time and admitted their error….

Actually, it does make you disloyal to God, for not accepting what is written. You are just an embarrassment to that institution for your lack of bible knowledge, that's all.

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

But I will stand toe to toe with those who trash on the org….because they are lacking trust in Jehovah …there is a difference in admitting errors….and attacking because of those errors…..and you dont get that Sreko  and nor do some others here…including Ditmar.

I guess when Jesus was "revising" the Jewish Laws, he was in "error" for doing so. When something new comes along as to interpretation of linguistics, it's an error to further understand it, and make "adjustments" whenever possible.

I will agree with you in one point. The institution's usage of the word error in an inappropriate form, which I have voiced my concern over.

I THINK you would do better as a Berean member, not a Jehovah's Witness.