Srecko Sostar

I also asking myself, more and more, why spending time here on arguing with people about JW Issues :)) 

.... the hand of justice is slow but attainable ..... after cca 100 years. 
or ... God is Almighty and He decide how His People is finally ready to accept this big change in theocratic instruction matter
or ....Finally Heavenly Chariot made 180 degrees move and surprised JW Brotherhood because this news will strengthen their Unity  
:)) 

GB is run by Witnesses ? This is exclusive new information! Shall we wait Official Announcement from JWTV? or to believe You? :)) 

What if you are ordered to do some other crazy thing like.... never use a credit card?

 

@The Librarian @JW Insider The whole idea of you guys following other men as to what is "permissible" is repugnant to people who have been taught critical thinking skills.
Science has left religion and customs of desert nomads from 5,000 years ago literally in the dust.
Time to find newer books to spend your days on.
Have you considered learning a new skill in coding? Maybe medicine / health?
Much more productive than spending your time as a people wondering if beards are ok or why you are all forced to wear suits and ties for walking down the street.
 

It seems how @Space Merchant and @Equivocation  find common religious language on this and other topics. I wonder does this belong to "interfaith dialogue" because two members of different, even opposite religions support each other in doctrinal matters. :)) As i know JW Church forbidden to his members any kind of Ecumenism :)) 
   
Equivocation (also known as: doublespeak)

Yes probably. In the same book that said they knew Christmas was wrong but kept on celebrating it at Bethal until 1926 ish. 

Luke 17 v 1&2. 

Yes and to think they let congregants smoke tobacco into the 1970's without a problem, even though they knew it was totally wrong in the late 1800's.  But no beards, just to prove they were the boss. It's called dictatorship, nothing else. 
 to quote TTH " Though nowhere forbidden by scripture or Bible principles, no "rule" was applied with more vigor than the "no beard" rule, "
Dictatorship Tom. Domineering at it's best. 

@Anna  Quote  "In any case, the mind boggles as to why a teenager would prefer living on the streets and sofa surfing to living at home abiding by a few rules until they are able to leave home and fend for themselves properly."
Answer : Because that is the real world. If you had a good childhood then you probs will not understand, but if you had a very strict JW upbringing then you might. A lot of teenagers do not want to go to the meetings and do not want to do the door to door ministry. They want to have fun. If they are at school five days a week being bullied by both teachers and other pupils, then they want to blow off steam at the weekends, not be bullied by domineering JW parents. And if they are at work 5 days a week, then likewise. 
When our son left school we gave him two years 'freedom'. We didn't pester him to find a job to pay us money, we didn't even tell him what time to get out of bed in the morning. The reason was he was so badly bullied at senior school that he was almost a total wreck. The bullying was caught on security camera one time and the police were called in. The bully boys were suspended from school for a while but nothing else happened and when they returned it started again. So we gave our son two years to recover from it all. It worked, he gradually opened up to us more and found new friends He's fine now. But a lot of JW parents, ones that we know well, are not so loving or understanding to their children. Some JW parents are 'Elders and wifes'. That is even worse for the children as those children are expected to be 'extra special' good little JW's. 
Like I keep telling you lot, but you don't want to believe it, I've known the JW Org / Watchtower Soc since I was around 20 or younger, and I'm 70 this October. So 50 years of it all. In different congregations, in different towns/cities. So what i say I say from first hand experience, not just read in JW literature or seen on JW videos or on 'apostate' websites... 
And I'm a total individual, with my own thoughts, which seems to frighten TTH and others, as they always pretend I'm part of a group of something or other. 

I guess that Legal Department with whole Team/s of Lawyers will stay on Earth to support elders :))))

The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. 
source: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/
This is general and public prove, that GB made such (not only minor mistake, but life important) mistakes in doctrines and instructions while leading people (members) with some "commands" that went/going against God and people.  
They can call that "adjustments", "brighter light", "path of righteous".... or somehow else. But GB Responsibility is complete on that. They have no excuse!

I am so sorry.  My bearded husband suffered similar; persuaded by the elder body to become a ministerial servant and then an elder; as they recognized his abilities to “lead”, and their dire need for someone who could.  Then, beat up by other elders for having one…for a good many years.  He was even accused of turning a congregation “apostate”.  It is no wonder our children refuse to search out truth, since they saw only distress and suffering put upon their parents by the treacherous acts of “Jehovah’s organization”. 
Isa 28:5-13

Firstborn or First created?
Colossians 1:15 - ‘the firstborn (Greek: prototokos 4416) of every creature’.
JWs use this verse to teach that Jesus was created at a point in time as an angel.
They ignore the evidence and insist that the word ‘firstborn’ here means ‘first created’, ‘the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons’.
The Bible teaching:
1) ‘Firstborn’ (Greek: prototokos) does NOT mean ‘first-created’ (Greek: protoktisis). First-created (Protoktisis) is never used of Christ in New Testament.
Question:Where is it used of Jesus in New Testament?
Question: Why didn’t Paul use the term ‘first-created’ (protoktisis) in Colossians 1:15 if he meant that Christ was the first one created by Jehovah?
2) Ask: What does ‘firstborn’ (Greek: prototokos 4416) mean?
Answer: ‘Pre-eminent, Ruler, Sovereign, First in rank’.
It is used in other passages which refer to Christ:
i. Romans 8:29 ‘that he might be the firstborn among many brethren’. ‘Prototokos’ presents Christ as the pre-eminent member of the group (S. Zodhiates NT, p 1249).
ii. Colossians 1:15. ‘The firstborn of every creature’ Christ is the one pre-eminent and supreme ruler over all creation (S Zodhiates NT, p 1250). v.16 ‘By him were all things created’ means that Christ Himself is not part of Creation (John 1:3).
iii. Colossians 1:18 ‘He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the
beginning (arche), the firstborn (prototokos=Ruler) from the dead; that in all
things he might have the pre-eminence (proteuon)’.
‘Arche’ means ‘first cause’ (Revelation 3:14, Colossians 1:18) and is parallel to
‘prototokos’ in Colossians 1:15,18, both asserting Christ’s pre-eminence.
Note: ‘Proteuon’ (pre-eminence) present tense is used only in Colossians 1:18 and indicates not an acquired right to be ruler and pre-eminent, but an inherent right by virtue of His nature. Christ, being the Creator, deserves to have pre-eminence.
iv. Hebrews 1:6 ‘And again, when he bringeth the firstbegotten(prototokos=Ruler) into the world, he saith ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him’.
Alternately, translate this as ‘And when He again brings the firstborn into the
world’, refers to Christ’s second coming when Christ as King will be worshipped
by the angels. Christ is exalted even above all the angels.
v. Revelation 1:5 ‘And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the
firstbegotten (prototokos=Ruler) of the dead, and the prince (arche = chief) of the kings of the earth.’ Here ‘prototokos’ means that Christ is first of those to be
resurrected, and prince (arche) means ruler of earth’s kings at His second coming.
Note: JWs compare Christ as the firstborn of all creation with the firstborn son of Pharaoh. This is nonsensical, because it is true that Pharaoh parented his son, but it is not true that ‘all creation’ parented Jesus.
3) We must understand what the original speaker or writer intended by the words which he used. The ancient Hebrews used the term ‘firstborn son’ when referring to the preeminent son, regardless of whether or not he was the first son born to the parents. The son with the title ‘firstborn’ had the right of primogeniture which meant that:
i) He acquired a special blessing (Genesis 27);
ii) He became heir of a double share of the father’s wealth (Deuteronomy 21:17);
iii) He replaced his father as the family head. He had authority over his brothers;
iv) He represented the father in civil and religious matters;
v) He had some holiness because through him flowed the common blood of the tribe (Genesis 49:3; Deuteronomy 21:17).
Key: The term ‘firstborn’ does not refer to the first one born, but to the pre-eminent one in the family. Consider these examples where the son with the title ‘firstborn’ was not born first:
(1) David was the last born son of Jesse, yet Psalm 89:27 says of him: ‘Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth’. (v.20 onwards refers to David).
(2) Ephraim was the second born son of Joseph: ‘The name of the second called he Ephraim.’ (Genesis 41:50-52). Yet ‘Ephraim is my firstborn’ (Jeremiah 31:9). This was because of his pre-eminent position. Manasseh was born first to Joseph, but Ephraim became the firstborn because of his pre-eminence.
(3) Jacob (Israel) was the second son born to Isaac, after Esau, yet God says of Israel, ‘Israel is my son, even my firstborn.’ (Exodus 4:22). Esau says of himself, ‘I am Esau thy firstborn’. (Genesis 27:19). Esau means that he was born first and should have the birthright. God means that Israel, though born second, took the pre-eminent position. Hence, in this sense Christ is firstborn because of His pre-eminence, not because He was created first as JWs think.
(4) Solomon was born to David later, and the line of the kings came through Solomon,yet Amnon was born first (I Chronicles 3:2).
(5) Isaac was born 13 years after Ishmael, yet Isaac took the pre-eminent position in the family.(Genesis 17:19).
(6) Judah was the fourth son born to Jacob (Genesis 29:35), yet Judah received the dominion and line of Christ, even though Reuben being born first forfeited his right of primogeniture due to fornication (Genesis 49:3,4)
4) Firstborn can be rendered metaphorically, not meaning born first. Examples include:
i) Job 18:13 ‘the firstborn of death shall devour his strength’. As the firstborn son held the chief place, so Job refers to the chiefest (most deadly) disease that death possessed;
ii) Isaiah 14:30 ‘The firstborn of the poor shall feed’, means the poorest of the poor.
Conclusion: Firstborn does not mean born first or created first. Rather, it is a title of first rank, or pre-eminent position. Paul calls Christ the firstborn (prototokos = Ruler).
Ask: What does Psalm 89:27 mean by calling David firstborn, when he was the last born son?
Ask: Why didn’t Paul use ‘first created’ (protoktisis) of Christ in Colossians 1:15 if he intended to teach that Christ was the first one created by Jehovah?

Because a debate does not end when the points and conclusions are made. What remains open ended are your horrendous claims. The fact you never been in a debate yet start one shows how foolish you truly are, depraved.
You speak of vocabulary and yet you cannot even say "Restorationist". lol Perhaps it is you who needs the dictionary far more than I.
Biblical Unitarians are not Restorationist, however, we take up the study of the Bible seriously, and we study religion, more so, Theological study and discussion is something we take up when it comes to learning about Jesus' church.
The study of religion as defined in short: Religious studies, also known as the study of religion, is an academic field devoted to research into religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives.
I stated to you 4 times before I study religion even though I am a Biblical Unitarian, i.e. Islam, Judaism, etc.
It is funny because even the Christology of Restoraionist has been addressed 7 times to you, yet your ignorance and appeal to motive shows you to be a bigger fool than realized.
That being said, the debate does not end because you began the debate regarding baptism and now into preaching the gospel and second, the claims you made are still in demand of answer and or forfeit.
I agree with the teenager, you are perhaps quite idiotic when it comes to debate especially when you start one with a Christian who lives for debate - fool's errand on your part, simpleton. For his words hurt you because of your reaction to what he had said.
If you want to run from a debate you started, that is find with me.
 

If @Jeff Danby is a JW, you have thoroughly confused him, since he believes that “Israel” is comprised of the anointed ones, as do I.    That may soon change with shocking “new light” when “Jehovah’s spiritual temple”/organization/idol becomes known as “Israel”.  Will you be ready for baptism then?
 
 
Exod 12:23 - "When the Lord passes through to strike Egypt and sees the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, he will pass over the door and not let the destroyer enter your houses to strike you."
Heb 11:28 -  "By faith he instituted the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn might not touch the Israelites."
Isa 14:12 - "Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens! You destroyer of nations, you have been cut down to the ground."
Isa 33:1 - "Woe, you destroyer never destroyed, you traitor never betrayed! When you have finished destroying, you will be destroyed. When you have finished betraying, they will betray you."
God, and Christ are our judge, not our executioner.  

To make a very long story very short, almost to the point of abbreviation .... and trying to stay on topic ....
In the past 57 years, I have been in the "little back room, Room 101", about 17 times, being "counseled" by Elders that did not like "something" about me ... that I worked a lot of overtime, that I rode a Honda 350 motorcycle to the Kingdom Hall, that I "refused" to provide a telephone for my wife,  ad nauseum ... and I REALLY HATE BULLIES! ... but I digress ... and about 8 or so of those times it was to get me to cut off my beard.  One time it was because of my mustache. During the 60's it was because my hair came down just perceptively below the collar.
In one congregation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, I had no problem with the beard ... and even got a recommendation letter to go work at the Bethel Branch Office construction in Peru ... and in all others, I was castigated, and even forbidden to go out in Service until I shaved off my beard.
After eight discussions, and no valid scriptural reasoning, all joy in doing what I was doing was destroyed ... but it bothered me A LOT that stuff like this was being inflicted on the global Brotherhood, in almost EVERY congregation I had ever attended. 
If they could do it to me... they WERE doing it to other Brothers ... and things similar to this.
Based on all available real evidence, it seemed to me that in order to be a watchtower approved Elder you had to be qualified as follows:
1.) clueless
2.) petty
3.) irrational
4.be a "Company Man", through and through.
5.) and have no pangs of conscience whatsoever for being a bully.
To be fair, I have also run across Engineers and Doctors that shared these traits, but they did not operate in an environment that ENCOURAGED this behavior.
The other day I mentioned in a comment that I envied Anna, and she replied that she knew that ... because she still seems to have the joy in the Truth that has been systematically beaten out of me.
I miss the man I used to be.
A lot!
I did have a choice, however ... either "get with the program", or keep my self respect.
It has gotten better over the years, but only marginally, but I have endured things far, far worse that these things I have mentioned ... and I will endure things like this also.
When my Dad died, about ten years ago, he asked me to shave off my beard ...  he also never liked it .... and  I have been clean shaven since then.
I loved my Dad.
I HATE BULLIES!
I am 72 now, and in marginal health .... and can see the end of the "conveyor belt" on which I stand, and it bothers me.
I am too old and fragile to carry on my back bags of heavy stones for someone else's entertainment.
 
 
 
 

This is pretty sad. I think a lot of it had to do with the more Anglocentric makeup of the GB in past years. The motive of giving the appearance of unity is not a bad one. Our styles of dress reflect our unity of worship. It's nice to be able to drive through a neighborhood or even visit another city and recognize Witnesses from quite a distance away. But now, there is more concern for writing counsel that advises an entire world of customs. There is a need to generalize the counsel since every country gets the same counsel.
A lot of people think that Rutherford started the no-beard policy as a control measure to make sure that the Russellite cult was weeded out from among the Bible Students. My great grandfather was among the Chicago Bible Students who had many beard-growers because they thought so highly of Russell, who wore a beard. He was well-known in Russell's circle of associates, but would not have "advanced" under Rutherford if he did not cut his beard.

I remember seeing on the news years ago some minority protest group complaining "Washington never pays any attention to US!"
My immediate thought was "I wish Washington would not pay any attention to ME!"
If the GB all go to heaven, perhaps God will have them counting clouds, or something.

But you are alluding to a situation that has not even happen yet, therefore you are at fault, and you can be called out for that. Tell me Srecko, as the Kingdom of God had already removed all injustice from the earth, from far and frow? As the End Times Tribulations ended... The honest Bible reader will simply say no, but such events are soon to come.
It would have been correct on your part, if Jesus has indeed returned and wiped out all instances of badness done to all of mankind, but we are waiting and we are vigilant for no such things have taken place yet concerning Jesus' return in God's glory.
Do you even know which Lord you are speaking of granted you were trying to connect Jesus to Psalms 148?
Come on, Srecko, take your own advise lol
That being said, one can teach a clown the distinction between God and Christ, as is with how a verse connects with a whole passage. And clowns are not idiots.
 

Very Understandable and Acceptable Explanatory Statement :))))
.....with all questions and answers that this sentence - JW’s are now allowed to have - contains in itself. 

he sits down in the temple of God
TTH, in what Temple of God, and where is this Temple of God, where your Atheistic Man siting? 
I would assume how Paul was talking about Christ Church as Temple?! Or you have another perspective?
If we take this thought as new way of thinking, then we can say that one Class of man existing in WT Society (because JW people believe how this Organization is God's Temple on Earth) that acting as god , showing himself to be a god, and governing over God's people.
So, this fits well in your idea of Atheistic Man who negate any divinity to any other gods, but consider themselves as god. In final result they are atheistic, as you suggest, because atheism in their own eyes/mind, annuls the existence of any other god - in fact reverses the existence of any other god on them alone to be god.
But term Atheistic, in lexical meaning, refers to person who not believe in existence of god as supreme being. By this general, and acceptable meaning of word "atheist", this idea of yours Atheistic man who sits in Temple, will be of short living. Maybe, you will find another name or substitution name for Man of Lawlessness. :)) 

You began at verse 3.  Before this, the NWT says,
 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2  not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.
Here, the translators took the liberty of changing the coming presence of “our Lord Jesus Christ” to the “day of Jehovah”. 
“Now we beg you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him,
2 that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as [if it were] by us, as that the day of the Lord is present. (Darby)
“This day began in 1914 when Jesus was installed as King of God’s Kingdom. And it will continue right through to the end of the Thousand Year Reign, when Christ will ‘hand over the kingdom to his God and Father.’ (1 Corinthians 15:24) Faithful Christians have looked forward to the Lord’s day for many centuries. Now, it is finally here!  Wt 88/10/15  pp. 10-15
….”either by an inspired statement or a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us”…
If the letter appeared to be from true anointed ones, but really is not, then it comes from the pen of false “christs” – fallen anointed leaders, who have “gathered together”, the anointed to hear and be stumbled by, their false claim.
Matt 24:24; Rev 13:11,14-18,7 
This is part of the sign of the "man of lawlessness".  Today, the anointed (TEMPLE ) submit to a "Gentile" rule - elder body - supplanted over them.  2 Thess 2:4; Rev 11:1,2  (1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17; Eph 2:20-22)
 
 
 
 

Does everyone who leaves the WT become Trinitarians and hellfire advocates?  Speaking of hellfire, JWs do not believe this, yet on the same footing,  believe God will destroy mankind (man, woman and child) with a descriptive, well-illustrated, "hellfire" at the culmination of Armageddon.  This appears to be an "apostate" teaching.  Jer 19:5  Apostate teachings are "lawlessness", as well as all discarded teachings of JWs which reflect lawlessness against Christ's teachings.  John 15:16
 
 

Thank you John.  Even more so, it is the GB's personal "clergy", that replaces God's anointed priests.  Matt 24:48-51