Which is more important?

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#41 Sep 20, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really!? They want to control me!?
Let me ask you how are they benefiting from oontrolling me? Last time I checked the gb don't live in huge mansions our drive expensive exotic sports cars, so why do they want to control me!?
I never said control was about gaining financial rewards.

The JWs are a high control group.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#42 Sep 20, 2013
array wrote:
<quoted text>Consider some obvious questions that may rightly be raised by the new teachings as presented in the July 15, 2013 Watchtower:
• If "Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings did not occur in 1919," but his coming as Judge is still future (page 8), does that not obviously mean that the "faithful and discreet slave" has not yet been identified by Jesus, since that is the first thing that he will do upon his arrival? Clearly, any claim to the title of "faithful and discreet slave" is not only premature but also highly presumptuous.
• The Watchtower says that in "1919, a time of spiritual revival, Jesus selected capable anointed brothers...to be the faithful and discreet slave and appointed them over his domestics." (page 23) Did Jesus select at that time the President and Board of Directors of the secular Watch Tower Society as his "faithful and discreet slave," men who were voted into office by paying members of the Society; and that to the exclusion of all other anointed ones? Do the constant changing teachings and failed prophecies since 1919 give evidence that the Governing Body is indeed the "faithful slave," the only one qualified to provide the domestics "their food at the proper time"? Or do we not rather see a fulfillment of the foretold "man of lawlessness" who has elevated himself within God's temple?(2 Thess. 2:3,4, 8-12)
• If none of the twelve apostles were succeeded by other "apostles" upon their death (except for Matthias who replaced Judas Iscariot), why do the present Governing Body members believe that they individually are chosen to succeed the ones who are said to have been appointed by Jesus in 1919, but who have since died? According to one recent Watchtower, the "claim of apostolic succession has no historical or Scriptural basis." (w03 9/1 p. 6) Does the claim of a Governing Body succession have any "historical or Scriptural basis"?(Acts 1:15-26; Rev. 2:2)
• If all of the anointed ones are the "domestics" together with "the great crowd of other sheep who make up the vast majority of the 'one flock' under Christ’s leadership," does that now also mean that the "great crowd of other sheep" is likewise included in the new covenant, the same as anointed ones; and Jesus is their mediator as well?(Previously the "domestics" referred only to the anointed.) What's next? Everyone partaking at the Memorial, as Jesus commanded?(1 Cor. 11:23-26)
• Another point: According to Jesus, the "faithful slave" is pronounced "happy" only because his master, upon his arrival, finds him feeding his domestics. Any slave who fails to do that will not be rewarded with being appointed "over all [the master's] belongings." (Matt. 24:45-47; 25:24-30) Therefore, how will the master judge the slave who claims that he was "afraid" of "the faithful slave" because this one prevented him from taking care of his master's business? The Watchtower answers that such slaves need not worry: "Does the faithful slave receive a greater reward in heaven than the rest of the anointed? No. A reward promised to a small group in one setting may ultimately be shared by others." (page 25) Too bad for any slave who failed to obey his master, but instead had put his trust in such deceptive promises!(compare Matt. 24:24,25; 25:24-30)
These are just a few of the many questions that come to mind when we consider the contents of the July 15th Watchtower. Can you distinguish between the "inspired expression of truth" and of "error"?
http://perimeno.ca/FoodforThought.htm
Where the heck did my first response go to this wall of text? Oh well from the first question I can tell that you did not read the articles at all and simply c/p this wall of text. Come back when you have carefully read the WT you are so much against.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#43 Sep 20, 2013
Oh my this site is acting stupid.
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#44 Sep 20, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
In addition once the Christian congregation was established it was required that a person associated with the true Christian brotherhood. This is evident in the book of Acts and all of Paul's letters.
Again, it should be no different today unless you can show me otherwise.
Did the Ethiopian eunuch ever associate with them after his baptism?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#45 Sep 20, 2013
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said control was about gaining financial rewards.
The JWs are a high control group.
Why? What's your basis for thinking they want to control me? You have zero basis for your argument.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#46 Sep 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the Ethiopian eunuch ever associate with them after his baptism?
The bible actually doesn't mention him again, but you would love for me to believe he never did wouldn't you? He kept going on his way does not mean he never associated with again with the apostles and older men.
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#47 Sep 20, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible actually doesn't mention him again, but you would love for me to believe he never did wouldn't you? He kept going on his way does not mean he never associated with again with the apostles and older men.
At the very least we could say he hardly ever associated with them, correct?

How often do you think the Queen gave him time to make the trip an associate?
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#48 Sep 20, 2013
So if the Ethiopian could not regularly associate with the inspired men God had appointed, then regular association with uninspired men today is even less relevant.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#49 Sep 20, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the heck did my first response go to this wall of text? Oh well from the first question I can tell that you did not read the articles at all and simply c/p this wall of text. Come back when you have carefully read the WT you are so much against.
umm care to show where this is scriptually wrong, you haven't, are you not interested in what Gods word says.

Think!

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#50 Sep 20, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the heck did my first response go to this wall of text? Oh well from the first question I can tell that you did not read the articles at all and simply c/p this wall of text. Come back when you have carefully read the WT you are so much against.
show what it is you object to, are you interested in what Gods word says.

and yes I c/p this because it was Awsome and showed clearly what the bible said, saved me time. Now show what it is that is wrong scriptually, defend the bible if you think it is wrong.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#51 Sep 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
At the very least we could say he hardly ever associated with them, correct?
How often do you think the Queen gave him time to make the trip an associate?
lol boy are you reaching. is this the best you can do? Do we reallyneed to getinto all the circumstances of a person not being able to regularly associate?
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#52 Sep 20, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text> lol boy are you reaching. is this the best you can do? Do we reallyneed to getinto all the circumstances of a person not being able to regularly associate?
The facts stand. The only thing that needs to be invented is what you try to establish in following people God did not appoint over anything.

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#53 Sep 20, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the heck did my first response go to this wall of text? Oh well from the first question I can tell that you did not read the articles at all and simply c/p this wall of text. Come back when you have carefully read the WT you are so much against.
if the proof is in the pudding duh boy care to show where this is wrong...

show it.
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#54 Sep 20, 2013
array wrote:
<quoted text>show what it is you object to, are you interested in what Gods word says.
and yes I c/p this because it was Awsome and showed clearly what the bible said, saved me time. Now show what it is that is wrong scriptually, defend the bible if you think it is wrong.
Nice link. I don't think they gave their apologists enough time to sort through all the fallacies of their reinvented doctrines yet.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#55 Sep 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts stand. The only thing that needs to be invented is what you try to establish in following people God did not appoint over anything.
The facts is though the enuch may have not been able to freely assoicate because of his circumstances and he didn't reject and refuse to believe the apostles and older men are who they said they were.

It's no different today, despite circumstances, unless you can show me otherwise.
Blessed

Wausau, WI

#56 Sep 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
For a follow up- Can you have one without the other?
With jws the answer is No !

They even are told not to read the bible all alone but read with the dangerous cult 's other materials ...
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#57 Sep 20, 2013
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts is though the enuch may have not been able to freely assoicate because of his circumstances and he didn't reject and refuse to believe the apostles and older men are who they said they were.
It's no different today, despite circumstances, unless you can show me otherwise.
The blind can't be shown anything.

1.Jesus stated that whoever wasn't against them was for them. He didn't say that about the watchtower clowns.

2.If the Ethiopian eunuch didn't need to associate, then the only important thing is faith in God. The only one he interacted with, mentioned only one time, was Phillip.

3. Jesus appointed those taking the lead of the 1st century congregation. After nearly 100 years the watchtower is still trying to figure out who the FDS is and when they were supposedly appointed.
Stan

Colorado Springs, CO

#58 Sep 20, 2013
Blessed wrote:
<quoted text>
With jws the answer is No !
They even are told not to read the bible all alone but read with the dangerous cult 's other materials ...
I know. I just like to have them express themselves so it is clear for others to see the differences between what they teach and what the bible teaches.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#59 Sep 20, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
The blind can't be shown anything.
1.Jesus stated that whoever wasn't against them was for them. He didn't say that about the watchtower clowns.
2.If the Ethiopian eunuch didn't need to associate, then the only important thing is faith in God. The only one he interacted with, mentioned only one time, was Phillip.
3. Jesus appointed those taking the lead of the 1st century congregation. After nearly 100 years the watchtower is still trying to figure out who the FDS is and when they were supposedly appointed.
1. Jesus also said this: Matthew 12:30He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters.
your understanding of Luke scripture does not harmonize with what he stated here.

2. The enuch circumstances did not permit him to associate freely, but there is nothing in there to indicate that he could reject the apostles and older men and his faith in God would still be valid.

3. You have yet to show me that being a part of God's people is not part of having faith in God. Though the gb may change their views I have yet to hear a more satisfying answer as to what Jesus was speaking about regarding the fds.
UNchained

Louisville, TN

#60 Sep 20, 2013
Duh-boy,
Were the teachings of the apostles and older men inspired by God?
Duh-boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Those who take the lead amongst God's people today are inspired by God's word the bible, which is a product of God's holy spirit.
As far as I know all the governing body has is God's word the bible, prayer, and holy spirit sufficient for each day. With this they are doing better than any other professed sheperd on the face of this earth. Better meaning the understanding of the bible surpasses all others. The teachings are the pudding, if you disagree with what they teach from the bible, then none of this means anything to you and it's hard for you to see why I believe they are who they say they are because you and other reject the simplest teachings.
"The teachings are the pudding, if you disagree with what they teach from the bible, then none of this means anything to you and it's hard for you to see why I believe they are who they say they are because you and other reject the simplest teachings."

Do you have any idea WHY I and others reject the simplest teachings from your leaders?....

Sodomy (or the unnatural intercourse of one male with another male as with a female), Lesbianism (or the homosexual relations between women), and bestiality (or the unnatural sexual relations by man or woman with an animal) are not Scriptural grounds for divorce.
10/1/56 Watchtower
Page 591

******

Shortly, within our twentieth century, the “battle in the day of Jehovah” will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom.
“The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah”—How?
Page 216

********

Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people.

When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others.
11/15/67 Watchtower
Page 702

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CHURCHianity: Jesus Pretended to Die for you! (Aug '16) 8 min ihveit 1,547
My first Jehovah's Witness meeting. 10 min dollarsbill 208
A Trinity Discussion for Bobby 15 min dollarsbill 5,275
The Plain Truth About Christmas 31 min ihveit 536
Purple fireproof clothing? Yes or No 38 min dollarsbill 22
Attn: Forum 42 min GreatSouthbay4040 18
Debating the Trinity is useless. 1 hr ASOG 26
My dilemma(leaving Jehovahs Witnesses) 1 hr Alank 440
F&DS are doing the marking for those to survive? 4 hr Spike 286
Nub and El Cacique's corner 10 hr Alank 299
More from around the web