BillyTheKid46

Even though the above quote was addressed to John Butler (and he can defend himself from your evil if he so desires ...) CONCERNING YOUR QUOTED STATEMENT ABOUT ME, you have just convicted YOURSELF, with your own words,  of being a hateful, wicked, malicious liar and a slanderer, BTK46.
NONE of what you just stated was true ... and you made it up completely from your malignant viewpoint on life.
Your malignant, perverted agenda driven  fantasy is not based on ANYTHING factual
Because I did not lie or misrepresent myself, I was convicted, and disfellowshipped .... and NOT for my divergent theology,, or "loose cannon" philosophy, which did in fact come up as I presented a defense for my actions.
I rescued someone from death using means and methods not understood, or sanctioned.
It is YOU that are the liar, BTK.
Under the unwritten "three year rule", I had to wait three years and more to be reinstated, because I would not lie, or fake it, or plead for mercy for myself. ( of which mercy is never shown, anyway, so it would have been a useless request ...). In my letter requesting reinstatement, I only promised I would not do what I did, again ... I did not renounce what I had to do, as I could not, and would not.
YOU ARE THE HABITUAL, WICKED, HATEFUL, LIAR, BTK46 ... AND YOU HAVE JUST CONVICTED YOURSELF.
You lie about EVERYTHING ... even the details about your .50 caliber sniper rifle, and your impossible fantasy of  me standing in front of a Tank with you in Tienanmen Square, China,  with a .22 caliber rifle, you unarmed being so brave, and bowing to no man.
You are a real piece of work!
... with a lot of pieces missing.
YOUR PUNISHMENT .....  IS TO BE YOU.
 
 

Don't believe everything you hear, read and see :)))) 

I no longer read Billy the Kid's comments as I know he is a sick man and probably cannot help himself. 
God's word through Christ says we should forgive 77 times (continuously).  I've forgiven BTK for the way he has insulted me and therefore do not need to read any further comments of his. I do honestly believe that he is unwell and is best ignored as we cannot help him. 

Of course not, BTK46 ...... you are a proven habitual liar ...  your own words prove it.
Now, as documented here on this forum, firmly established with solid proof from your own words .... there is nothing you could possibly do as a response to disprove that established  fact.
Of COURSE you won't respond.
Every time you are caught in a lie, you don't respond, except to change the subject.
...  few things are as sad as a delusional scholar who does not have to lie ... but does, anyway, trying to elevate himself, hoisted aloft by agenda driven fantasy.
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------
ON AN UNRELATED NOTE ... Ever wonder why Caleb and Sophia never age, and presumably will never have cartoon children of their own?

My only fear is that one day the blabbermouth will spill the beans about ME>

You have already proved from your own words you are a habitual, compulsive liar, BTK46.  Your continuing to expound on that theme only lends great credence to the possibility that you are ALSO certifiably insane.
You are your own worst enemy BTK46.
If you want to stay out of a "nervous hospital", my advice is to change the subject to ANYTHING else!

This is almost certainly because the jw.help logo is a blatant ripoff of the “jw.org” trademark.

I hate to say this, and I'm not a lawyer, but jw.help is gonna lose this one badly and should put up a completely different logo and beg forgiveness immediately. It's pretty clear jw.help is “diluting” jw.org by having an official-looking logo and serving as an alternate source of information about the org.
Hopefully they get to keep the name. That's pretty sweet.

Watchtower Society attacks jw.help
The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has blocked our YouTube channel and our Instagram account for alleged trademark infringement. It is to be feared that further Internet appearances will be affected.
We strongly disagree with this alleged trademark infringement. The brand jw.help is protected in Germany. Therefore, we will take legal action to defend jw.help.
On the one hand, we are pleased that our work is even registered as far as the USA, as we mostly turn to a German audience. On the other hand, this approach also shows how Jehovah's Witnesses are trying by all means to eliminate critics and enlighteners.
Please support us in our efforts to continue to educate Jehovah's Witnesses and other sects and to advise and assist their victims. Especially in the current situation, we depend on their donations.
We would like to thank all those who already support us!
http://jw.help/2019/08/29/watchtower-society-attackiert-jw-help/

Oh yeah, the LOVE is so evident.

William Henry Conley. Co-owner of the Riter Conley company that provided steel and manufactured goods during the second industrial revolution. The first president of “Zions Watchtower” which would later be replaced with Charles Taze Russell. Conley eventually didn’t want to be associated with Russell, he didn’t agree with his pyramid theories and thought his 1874 prediction of Armageddon was ludicrous. So he disassociated himself to care for his wife whom he felt was more important than Russell’s cult following at the time. Russell went on to use Conley's $11 million today equivalent to fund his exhibition, and then Conley went on to believe the organization only wanted him for his money which he went to his grave believing. Upon his death, all trace of his existence and founding of Zions Watchtower was erased. An announcement was not made in Zions Watchtower, Russell did refer to him as “an original Allegheny bible student” though. Russell once believed Conley to be anointed, but do to “succumbing to worldliness and falling out, may be given another chance to awake with the great crowd on an earthly resurrection as a man who was hardworking and loyal.” THAT'S all Russell had to say about the president, the first president and founding member. This information wasn’t found out until 45 years later.
Even the @The Librarian mentioned him in his articles such as this one:


Birth 11 Jun 1840 Death 25 Jul 1897 (aged 57) Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, USA Burial Highwood Cemetery • Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, USA Plot Section R Memorial ID 62936475 · View Source  

Now't as strange as folk.  As olde Amos Brearly would say.  

One thing I have said many times before .... with humans, there is truly ...
INFINITE VARIETY
 

Um...uh....let’s just say it is cutting edge scholarship by “just an ordinary man” who wishes to remain anonymous.

Because I have a nose, and they have peckers?
 

Great! Just great! And how am I supposed to knew whether the next comment from you is actually from you or from one of the 18 chickens?

Haven't you finished that yet. Must be a big un. 

No objection there.
Does this necessarily include the  "highly regarded" men in Jerusalem namely Peter, James and John, among others? Didn't those same brothers say:  "Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said,  trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions,  we have come to a unanimous decision to choose men to send to you together with our beloved Barʹna·bas and Paul,  men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". That doesn't sound like those brothers were the trouble makers, on the contrary. So weren't those men who went out from among them "from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1) the ones that caused the problem, and wasn't that the issue Paul and Barnabas went up to the elders in Jerusalem about? (vs.2).
"On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them.But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses" ( Acts 15:4,5). Again, to me it seems clear that those who had the problem, and caused problems, were "those who had been from the sect of the pharisees, and were the same same ones (not literally) that "went from among the elders in Jerusalem" and "came down from Judea". 
Possibly, since those who had been from the sect of the Pharisees were also present at the meeting in Jerusalem, but we also know that they did not receive any instructions from James, especially not with regard to "what they said" (unless you get circumcised you cannot get saved).
 

I'm pretty sure that everything you said in this post was true. But with some caveats that I'd like to highlight. If we take Acts 15 as fully parallel to Galatians 2, as you and Outta Here have done, then I agree that we should not consider the apostles and older men of Jerusalem to be "Judaizers." In Acts, Peter and James are fully credited with doing things correctly, and all blame is placed on the sect of the Pharisees and believers like them.
Evidently, in my opinion, this sect of the Pharisees, or similar Judeans pushing circumcision, were seen (by the Galatians at least) as getting their authority from men like Peter, James and John. Therefore Paul warns them, in my opinion, that even if it were Peter, James and John, or even an angel, that they should not submit. But Paul never says it wasn't them giving authority to the Judaizers. He never exonerates Peter, James and John. He even goes so far as never to actually call them "pillars" but couches their authority in language like "seemed to be pillars" and that it wouldn't matter who they were anyway, because they are just men, and Paul isn't trying to please men. Of course, in other places, and here, too, Paul also goes into a discussion of where his own authority comes from and why no one could say that any of Paul's authority came from Jerusalem. As in at least two other places, Paul sees fit in this context to compare his own authority, with that of the apostles in Jerusalem. 
It seems that if Paul were trying to exonerate Peter, James and John, (as Acts 15 does) then he would not be expected to add so many phrases that diminish their authority, and he would have no reason to highlight his independence from Jerusalem. He surely could have exonerated them by mentioning the decree that they had agreed to. If Paul had still considered this decree authoritative, it was the perfect answer to the Galatians who thought that James and Peter were on the side of circumcision, and the whole problem with the Galatians would be over. On another note, Paul doesn't even mention the "decree" in any of his letters. The closest he gets to discussing the decree is in 1 Corinthians 8, where he appears to contradict what it said about eating food sacrificed to idols.
However, I now believe I was mistaken in trying to tie this Judaizing so directly to Peter and John. And @Outta Here has me thinking it might not apply to James either. Not that they ever were ACTIVE Judaizers, but I thought Paul was including Peter's example, because Peter had publicly sided with the Judaizers even though admittedly temporarily. This had put a stamp of authority on the Judaizers which allowed Paul's audience to believe that those apostles with authority over Paul actually had the last word on circumcision. Judaizers were spoken of as being smuggled in, rather than just coming of their own accord. And Paul said that these men were "from James" implying that James, another man of great reputation and authority among the apostles at Jerusalem, had given a stamp of authority to the Judaizers.  
I'm not yet convinced, as Outta Here seems to be, that saying that a group of Judaizers came from James, is really about the same as saying that a group of Judaizers came from Judea. If he had said, "from John" would that also just mean "from Judea"? I'm sure that Paul is at least saying that James knew their beliefs and that he had sent them, purposely, perhaps not to engage with Paul to subvert him, but to listen carefully to what he was saying to gentile converts about the Mosaic Law. James would therefore be admitting tacitly that he expected a potential problem would need to be resolved and the people he sent would have been most sensitive to what Paul was teaching.
I also don't know if we can say that they worked things out so "amicably" but things did finally work out over time. I mention this for the same reason I mentioned a transition period that is indicated in Acts between chapters 15 and Acts 21. In fact, I think if we look closely at Acts, that it's easy to see that Luke's goal was to leave out a lot of detail when it detracted from the minimum that a Christian needed to know about the past. I'll get to that later, and the rest of this post will just be a background for later reference before talking about the way Luke/Acts selects details.
I once tried to reconstruct the timeline of Acts from the chronology markers, to match it up with Galatians and others of Paul's letters, and this is much easier to do now with the Internet (and the Bearing Witness book), and so many online reference works available. It might seem like a waste of time, but it might give also us some insight into the types of things Luke includes in Acts and what he leaves out. That might not seem important now, but for me, it was a key part of my overall opinion (which could be partially or completely wrong, of course) along with a comparison between Acts, Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians.
Here we can also compare Acts 21:20-26 to Acts 15:
(Acts 21:20-26) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. . . . 26 Then Paul took the men the next day and cleansed himself ceremonially along with them, and he went into the temple to give notice of when the days for the ceremonial cleansing would be completed and the offering should be presented for each one of them.
By this time, Paul had been teaching that Jewish persons need not follow the customary Jewish practices. And by this time, Paul had already been saying that if anyone gets circumcised, then they are under obligation to keep the entire Law. Undeserved kindness+faith was being contrasted with works of Law as the "path to salvation," but by the time Ephesians was written, undeserved kindness+faith was apparently being contrasted with good works of any kind as a path to salvation. Paul had already been teaching about circumcision and extending it to mean any type of putting oneself under law, just as trying to gain salvation by works had extended past works of Law to any good works. Ephesians 2:8-17.
Note that these verses were written to uncircumcised believers, but with an obvious application to circumcised Jewish believers, too:
(Colossians 2:13, 14) . . .He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake. (Galatians 5:2-6) . . .See! I, Paul, am telling you that if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Again I bear witness to every man who gets circumcised that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be declared righteous by means of law; you have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. 5 For our part, we are by spirit eagerly waiting for the hoped-for righteousness resulting from faith. 6 For in union with Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value, but faith operating through love is.
(Romans 2:28, 29) . . .For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. That person’s praise comes from God, not from people.
The bt book mentions these same scriptures and notes that this case in Acts 21 depicts Paul becoming a Jew to those who are Jews to hopefully win them over.
(1 Corinthians 9:20) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. So far none of this is a problem to understanding it the way you (Anna) have presented it.

I liked Thayer's glossary definitions included in the post linked below. But to avoid diverting people off to another topic, I'll just repost that definition:
But it's not a terrible translation, as it really was used in Greek with reference to "brazen hussies." (shameless hussies, and wanton hussies - and brazen hustlers, too, for that matter.) Literally, it meant people who were not so moral as those good folks up in the town of Selge, Pisidia, Asia Minor. It's much better than the old translation in the NWT (loose conduct) which was actually a mistranslation because it implied lesser moral infractions of a more general variety.
Note Thayer's:
ἀσέλγεια, -ας, ἡ, the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής (a word which some suppose to be compounded of the α privative and Σέλγη, the name of a city in Pisidia whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals [so Etym. Magn. 152, 38; per contra cf. Suidas 603 d.]: others of α intensive and σαλαγεῖν, to disturb, raise a din; others, and now the majority, of α privative and σέλγω equivalent to θέλγω, not affecting pleasantly, exciting disgust), unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence:Mark 7:22 (where it is uncertain what particular vice is spoken of); of gluttony and venery, Jude 1:4; plural, 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2 (for Rec. ἀπωλείαις), 2 Peter 2:18; of carnality, lasciviousness: 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 2 Peter 2:7; plural "wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc." (Fritzsche), Romans 13:13. (In Biblical Greek besides only in Wis. 14:26 and 3 Macc. 2:26. Among Greek writings used by Plato, Isocrates and following; at length by Plutarch [Lucull. 38] and Lucian [dial. meretr. 6] of the wantonness of women [Lob. ad Phryn., p. 184 n.].) Cf. Tittmann i., p. 151f; [especially Trench, § xvi.].
 

Just as the word "Gay" means something COMPLETELY different than when you and I were growing up ... perhaps the word back then meant something like urinating in public, or dressing in such a way that was immodest if one was incontinent.
With our track record of being right about such things, it may have originally meant anything at all EXCEPT what the Society officially tells us is the case.

We seem to have world class problems understanding the simplest common sense things .... like what a "Generation" is. Everyone else on the planet uses ONE definition, and always has ... except us.
I cannot even imagine the Apostles understanding what Jesus said the way we are told to.
That's why I want the GB "OFFICIAL" explanation, which may or may not have anything at all with standard definitions, common sense, or reality. 
They really ought to tell us what definitions we are actually using to make determinations of what is, and what is not "brazen conduct", so that the excesses that all humans are subject to do not cause irreparable harm when being applied ... because we are being governed BY AND WITH those definitions.
This is NOT a new issue ... and REMAINS unresolved, since 2010, almost a decade ago.
Historically, the record of "straight shooting", and accountability has been terrible.

The way things are progressing, I wonder when they select a new member of the Governing Body, the "Helpers" will have white smoke come out of that Watchtower at the main entrance of Warwick Bethel ?.....

And I always thought that the JW org / Watchtower didn't have a clergy class and a hierarchy. 
But it has both. The GB are the hierarchy and the Elders are the clergy class. 

Yes. Of course. Moses had a hierarchy. The Watchtower has admitted that the organization can be thought of in this way.