Evacuated

Your assertions seem to lack logical and scriptural substance. Why would the boldness of these words have significance? And what connection does this have with nature of the one uttering such words? David, a creature, who ruled in Jehovah's name and sat on Jehovah's throne referred to that Messianic kingdom as "my kingdom". (2Sam.3:28) The Israelites put faith in Jehovah and in Moses, a creature, (Ex14:31) and this at the encouragement of Jehovah himself! (Ex.19:9) Jehosaphat, a creature, encouraged the inhabitants of Jerusalem to put faith Jehovah's prophets , other creatures. (2Chr.20:20). Peter, a creature, encouraged fellow Christians to have love for the whole association of brothers (creatures) which included himself. (1Pet.2:17) And of course, the Lord Jesus made it clear that love for fellow Christians, creatures, which he exemplified, would identify his true followers. (John 13:34-35).

Matt 28:18: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.... John 5:22: "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son,..." Hi Cos. See you are still battling on. These scriptures don't really need exposition do they? By the way, I see you are referenced as female on the forum somewhere. Is that a fact or a misunderstanding?

Definition of class: a set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality. I won't over elaborating on the historical background to this avoid repeating other posts. Jesus illustration at Matthew 24:45, “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?" speaks of a"faithful and discreet slave" taking care of the feeding of his masters household ("domestics"). For a considerable time this was felt to apply to all anointed Christians with the hope of going to heaven to rule with Christ. The Bible of course speaks of another group of Christians, coexisting, yet having a hope of living on a cleansed paradise earth, referred to as "other sheep" at John 10:16. In differentiating between these two groups of humans, united in worship but differing in destiny, the term class was attached to both designations for the purpose of clarity in discussing differing aspects. It would have been just as easy to use the word "group" or "type", both synonyms for the word "class". Perhaps "class" was felt to be a more suitable word? Just a style choice that stuck? However there was always an uncomfortable aspect to the notion of the "faithful and discreet slave" being the anointed, and the "domestics", who they feed, being the anointed as well. An odd picture with a confusion of roles always lurking in the background, people serving and eating at the same time, a "too many cooks" scenario in a way. Anyway, it was all cleared up nicely in the Watchtower 15 July 2013 p26 in the article "Who really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?" A few points that stand out: The question only has relevance to the last days as there was no doubt who the Chiristian Congregation was in the 1st Century. Not all anointed ones have a teaching assignment inside the congregation.1Cor 11:3; 12:29, 1Tim 2:12. The task of preparing and distributing spiritual food is clearly carried out under the oversight of the Governing Body. The "domestics" are all those who are fed. This includes individual members of the Governing Body, the rest of the anointed, and all others who respond to the Christian message to gain evelasting life on earth. So the illustration now makes perfect sense. The Governing Body are the faithful and discreet slave, with the responsibilty of providing spritual food for all anointed Christians, and anyone else who wishes to "take life's water free". With such a simple definition now, it seems unecessary to refer to them as a class. In fact, it might even have a negative connotation in view of other associations with the word.We know who they are as individuals and, thanks to the JW Broadcast, we know what they look and sound like. Even with modern technolgy it would be difficult to have that same personal awareness of each one of the anointed.

Was that these ones? John 11:53? This appears to be a presumption on the part of the poster.

This is actually a valid musing. I see the outrage regarding the child abuse issue as an evidence of one of the last sparks of morality in a dying and corrupt civilisation. This issue has extraodinary emotive power in many circles. Despite the prevalence of institutionalised wholesale abuse in the form of abortion; confused censorship; inadequate, inconsistent legislation; resistance to proper investigation; recruiting of child-soldiers; human trafficking; inequitable access to food, medicine, education, and whatever else one cares to list, there's nothing so attention grabbing as accusations of child abuse and/or the suggestion that such depraved and appalling behaviour should be tolerated and allowed anywhere. In the light of the Scripture's presentation of Christians as prime targets of a spiritual enemy, with toxic influence far more dangerous than Novichock, why should we think their institutions would be immune to infiltration by that most insidiously deceptive of all criminals, the child abuser? Or why would individuals within their ranks be any less susceptible to the torrent of living-room piped, immoral effluent found on the internet? Even a most conservative estimator of this content, Dr. Ogi Ogas, commented "Fourteen per cent of searches and 4% of websites devoted to sex really are very significant numbers, when you stop to ponder it." And then of course , in birth itself there is no religious discrimination in it's apportioning of genetic malfunction. But that spiritual enemy is expert at fanning sparks of humanity into flames of bigotry and intolerance as he aims his fiery missiles into the unwary and unguarded hearts of hapless men. By means of this issue, he reduces rational, decent humans into prejudiced, unreasonable witch-hunters, clawing at each others throats, trading accusation and insult, deflecting attention to any one but the real enemy, whilst his worm-like minions advance unchecked, the cries of his victims continue, as if unheard. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/cases-of-child-sexual-abuse-up-31-says-nspcc https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/statistics/ http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/media-kit/national-statistics-child-abuse https://www.statista.com/statistics/639375/number-of-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us/

For anyone stumbling across this sad little cameo, the embroidery of text, both in the youtube and forum posting creates puzzlement. The video is about the family relationship problems that some elderly folk brought on themselves by dissassociating themselves from the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their issue seems to be around their regret over the estrangement this created in their relationship with their granddaughter. It is difficult to see a relevant connection with the post title "Why does the governing body lie?" or the reference to issues involving a disfellowshipped husband and his Witness family.

Gobbledegook Excellent. About time someone in authority made a stab at earning their pay in this area. More repetitive cliches. Let's have some proven facts. Please. "There were over 58,000 children identified as needing protection from abuse in the UK in 2016" NSPCC Have MPs (and the Guardian for that matter), put 580 times as much effort into demanding government action in behalf of the 58,000 people identified as needing protection from abuse in the UK in 2016? In fact, can we have a list of names of perpertrators, victims, and measures now taken since 2016 in order to protect this 58,000? How many of these 58000 are currently still at risk? What is the religious affiliation breakdown of this 58,000? How many have been identified at risk since 2016?

For the sake of clarity: Do you mean, for example, persons (brothers or sisters) who got secularly divorced, but who were "left on the shelf" unecessarily due to incorrect views on what constituted fornication? The later correction of those views might have restored their marriage eligibility technically, but their "shelf life" may have expired. And do you include others who might have been driven to real fornication and, if unrepentant, experienced congregational discipline, all due (in part) to the holding of the same incorrect views? They may have decided to "throw in their (spiritual) towels" as a result of the rule changes. There may be other examples, but how many do you think were affected? 10s, 100s, 1000s? And how many remain affected still today?

The Peacemaker, also called the Frontier, the Model P, and the Equalizer was firstly widely used by the army. During the mid-1860Â’s the army was looking to replace their slow and fragile percussion pistols, so they tested the .44-caliber Colt revolver, which they rejected for being robust and unreliable. However, during the 1870Â’s William Mason and Charles Brinckerhoff designed and created the .45-caliber centerfire Colt Single Action Army. The army immediately recognized the gunÂ’s potential: they used it as their official service weapon until the World War II.

You are complicated aren't you? I don't actually say....anything. The little Lego brother was just objecting to being left off the "Slippery Slopes" list provided by @James Thomas Rook Jr. However, now that you mention it, there may be lessons to be learned. Locally, 4 complete sets of Watchtower Bound Volumes, 1970- 2000 were recently donated to the rather bendy-shelved KH library. That's actually 120 volumes! That's to say nothing of a number of other sets that lately graced the paper dump mountain at the local municipal recycling centre! Some others, I hear, were sent skywards in garden bonfires. And there are the many other items of WTS literature that turn up in these and other places, once their former owners overcome their guilt and release them from garage and loft repositories. " "Inventory is the anointed" ", (to borrow your phrase) seems a little off the mark, but there does seem to be room for more appropriate allegory here. Maybe there is room for another topic then? What should become of, or even, What do you do with, unwanted theocratic"Inventory"?

Clue? Too many bricks in the wall? Lego slashes inventory

You didn't use your spell-checker again!!!!!

The old "booby prize" syndrome. Garbage then, garbage now. A cold day anyway where I come from so....no T-shirts here!

Don't forget us!!! We might be able to get a few more bricks in the wall!!!!

This is excellent The only honest response is "bring it on!" Can you see how this applies?: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?" Matt.12:25-26

"Several appropriate applications"....@JWInsider I like this one: Regardless of any homespun ideas and highfalutin' aspirations held by the religious leaders of Jesus day, the basic "denarius" wage they had agreed with the master of the vineyard was that described early on in the history of the "vineyard" at Exodus 19:5-6: "Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me. You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ To realise this would involve far more than the miserable attempt they made of justifying themselves as righteous by keeping a set of self-invented legal interpretations that had the effect of obsoleting the instructions given by the master. "you make the word of God invalid by your tradition" Mk.7:13. Peter made it clear that another group would become recepients of that "denarius" at 1Pet.2:9: "But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation",. In speaking to his fellow anointed Christians (spritual Israelites), Peter showed the "denarius" to include the responsibility to: "declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light". Of course there was no way that the religious hypocrites who had engineered the death of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:36) would take any delight in this "denarius". In reality, it would include accepting the one who they had wilfully murdered to be their King & High Priest, (Acts 2:36), submitting to water baptism in his name, (Acts 2:38.) And then there was his ransom sacrifice. This served as the only genuine means of obtaining a "righteous"standing before God, invalidating their fake certifications. They would have to acknowledge that they had been duped into the engineering of the payment of this ransom, (Acts 5:30). Additionally, with submission to Christ's role as head of the Christian congregation (spiritual Israel), they would be required to testify publicly to all of this in taking the message of the "kingdom" to the entire inhabited earth. (Matt.28:18-20). To make matters worse, they would have to accept the same "denarius", all shoulder-to-shoulder, as that paid to a rag-tag group of "unlettered and ordinary", "accursed" ones, late arrivals on the scene, with no pedigree or credentials! In fact, they would have even to submit to one of these as holding the "keys to the kingdom.....!!!! On the positive side, some of these 'full-day' workers were quite happy to accept this same "denarius", along with the 11th hour workers, as recorded at Acts 6:7: "Consequently, the word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples kept multiplying very much in Jerusalem; and a large crowd of priests began to be obedient to the faith."

Great minds...................................................

35 Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's 36 spokespeople on earth? 37 A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to 38 say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. 39 The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony 40 with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the 41 congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going 42 back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last 43 days ‐ and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last 44 days ‐ there would be a slave, a group of persons who would 45 have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in 46 that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfil that 47 role.

What!!! She is still allowed to beat up JWs??? Hope they have her down as a DNC! And what is she doing in the picture? Setting fire to her summons?

I will, but on the basis of what has been provided so far, I think we are in for a long haul.................................................

Distinction of course, personality?...........afraid not.

Does not this refer to the action of Cyrus in carrying out the conquest of Babylon? Xenephon records: "Cyrus then sent the companies of cavalry around through the streets and gave them orders to cut down all whom they found out of doors, while he directed those who understood Assyrian to proclaim to those in their houses that they should stay there, for if any one should be caught outside, he would be put to death. [32]" Cyropedia. Vol 7 Chap 5 v32. In answer to your question, the clear lesson is that obedience to Jehovah's instructions is life-important. The detail of just how this will work out during the "great tribulation" remains to be seen.

He was "righteous" in that he tried to do the right thing, but seemed to be a bit legalistically oriented. He probably knew that Mary's potential capital crime depended on her being 'promised in marriage'. If the separation was to be done in secret, (presumably without broadcasting the reason), she could hightail it back to Judah where Elizabeth was and the scene of her "apparent" liason. Then she could possibly get together with her mysterious suitor and cover up the alleged misdemeanour. Or at least, the culprit, if unwilling to marry her, could pay Mary's father the appropriate compensation. Or some other hair-brained reasoning. Who knows?? He just didn't want her to die. What we DO NOT see Joseph doing is falling on his face before Jehovah, (rather like Hezekiah when receiving the Assyrian threats), and begging Jehovah to make him understand what his fiance was telling him and what he should do under the circumstances. That is more like what a "good"man would have done. All we hear is that he "thought these things over", hatched his plan, .....and went to sleep. Now, despite the circumstances being way above his pay-grade, he was a fairly decent chap. He didn't have the same level of responsibility as Zechariah the Levite, so didn't get struck dumb (no time for that and no purpose served anyway). But, with this being a pretty important event and all, he got an orientation visit in a dream, but, perhaps, he missed out on an actual angelic one-to-one briefing here. Anyway, never one to be stumped by human inadequacy, Jehovah got it all worked out His way in the end.

Thinking about this further from a legal perspective, it was a lawyer who stated (Rom.2:14-15): "For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves.  They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused." Wouldn't this seem to add a perspective to the obvious connection between various ancient legal codes?

Agreed entirely. And yet to be demonstrated in connection with the holy spirit being a person separate from it's originator, the Father, Jehovah.