Evacuated

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Without a considered and careful analysis of things like THAT ... the empirical anecdotes of Bankers and Financial consultants, etc.,  committing suicide are interesting, and entertaining ... but MEANINGLESS

Only if you miss the point. The point here has no connection whatsoever with relative suicide rates.

On 9/25/2017 at 2:26 AM, Gone Fishing said:

Atlantean

Postscript:

There is a bettr copy of this video on JW Broadcasting now (Sep 2017), and here on the forum:

4 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

Ahhh - he would be happier and have some security and satisfaction in his life!

Surely you know Pro. 18:11 "The valuable things of the rich are his strong town, and they are like a protective wall in his imagination" ?

I mean, I'm sure these guys had pursued higher education and obtained a well-paying job: 

1. – On January 26, 2014, former Deutsche Bank executive, William Broeksmit, was found dead at his South Kensington home after police responded to reports of a man found hanging at a house. According to reports, Broeksmit had “close ties to co-chief executive Anshu Jain.”
2. – Gabriel Magee, a 39-year-old senior manager at JP Morgan’s European headquarters, jumped 500ft from the top of the bank’s headquarters in central London on January 27, 2014, landing on an adjacent 9 story roof.
3. – Mike Dueker, the chief economist at Russell Investments, fell down a 50 foot embankment in what police are describing as a suicide. He was reported missing on January 29, 2014 by friends, who said he had been “having problems at work.”
4. – Richard Talley, 57, founder of American Title Services in Centennial, Colorado, was also found dead on 4 Feb 2014 after apparently shooting himself with a nail gun.
5. – 37-year-old JP Morgan executive director Ryan Henry Crane died last week, 3 Feb, 2014.
6. – Tim Dickenson, a U.K.-based communications director at Swiss Re AG, also died last month (Jan 2014), although the circumstances surrounding his death are still unknown.

Maybe it was just a bad month for bankers, but to be perfectly blunt, you need to sharpen up on your game in this particular area!!   

11 hours ago, Cos said:

I’m a little bewildered here,

11 hours ago, Cos said:

you must have had some prior Arian ideas (leanings) long before your 20’s?

Maybe I'm not giving you enough detail for whatever you are trying to ascertain. Here's some context to hopefully clarify things.

As I said, in school I had questions to ask my religious teacher and was fobbed off with those "chatechismal" answers due, as you suggest, to him likely being "unsuitable" to handle such questions. My questions were prompted by a desire to seek information and understanding, not doctrinal controversy. Arian/Athanasian disputes were unknown to me at that time. I never heard anything about such matters until many years later.  I drew no solid conclusions from these encounters, but they had the effect of rather dampening my interest in religion for some years. These matters, particularly RC church related, became very low on my list of priorities. 

When my interest in religious matters rekindled in my 20s, it encompassed more than Christianity. It prompted the attention of active RC relatives who wished to return me to their fold. The topic of the Bible became current in my mind, as they stated it as an authority for their religious persuasions (despite not having a copy of it). Around the same time, a magazine article on Tyndale stimulated my interest and I saw the Bible as a historical enemy of established religion, particularly the RC church. This was due to the vehemence with which they suppressed it. This made it appealling to me. This led to me obtaining a copy of the 1611 King James Version (KJV) which I started to read.

My earlier questions on the relationship between Christ and God resurfaced, not in an anti-trinitarian context, but along with questions about evolution and mankind's origin, is there only one way to God, and anything else of controversy, like the possibility of extra-terrestial life etc. 

In the course of this, one friend provided the Challoner NT (which I still have). He drew attention to the 1Jo.5:7 text as a way of providing scriptural authority for the Catholic church as the original historical champion of the (seemingly) scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, the central tenet of Christianity. The argument was something like 'the Bible says God is triune, the RC church first defined, then defended, and promotes this, therefore the RC church is the true Christian religion.' This challenged me, until I found a marginal note in my KJV saying this text had "been inserted".

After,  I went and checked the rendering of this verse in other versions, I found that it was inconsistently present, which seemed to confirm it's spurious nature. This delighted me at first because it undermined the authority of the RC church and it's dogma. But then I became outraged, because I saw the attack on Tyndale to be from the same source as what I perceived as  interference with Bible text to support something that I now found questionable as a result. I had absolutely no knowledge of Arian controversies at the time, although I had some awareness of the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition and other atrocities.

So, the "non-Trinitarian matters" I was interested by, and that prompted the concern of relatives and some friends, were religious ideas from Hinduism, Buddhism, or anything else that was current at that time. The Trinity for me at that time was a facet of Christianity as I knew it then. I had no idea it was a historically disputed doctorine, or that there could be established, non-trinitarian Christian groups. Actually, perhaps that is what prompted the paranoid response of my religious teacher back in my early teens. That's something I have never considered until now. Anyway, with my acceptance of the RC Church as having any religious authority now defunct, my interest in the Bible as God's Word alive, my questions on Jesus' relationship to his Father remained.

So are you saying it is possible to have Arian ideas(leanings) without having heard of Arius or his ideas? 

Many interesting comments!

I'll do a bit of analysis later. But.....first impressions, it seems like we are all a bit in the dark!

Like Jesus said: "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father" Mk 13:32.

Huh! Don't you hate it when someone's always right???

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If you don't believe it, you don't believe it. But don't carry on as though it were never offered.

OK. Need to clarify. Obviously there is a camp that is quite satisfied with the current understanding the Governing Body have of the generation.

There is another camp that patently is not, and is quite zealous in criticising and denouncing Bro Splane, the GB, and anyone else adhering to the explanation offered in the recent Broadcast. 

My question was addressed to the latter group and I was interested not in their criticisms, but in their alternative suggestions.

2 hours ago, Cos said:

you didn’t like what I said.

"Like" does not come into it.

2 hours ago, Cos said:

there must be some who do grasp their system, after all, there is a lot of practicing Roman Catholics.

Many "practicing "Roman Catholics (and other religious adherents for that matter) do not grasp their systems.

2 hours ago, Cos said:

What part of the Bible made you change your understanding which you say you did not?

I think you refer to this statement I made on 26/09.  "Although I shared your view at one time, (not expressed in such detail), I now differ as to my understanding of Jesus' teaching on this matter".

Actually it was not a part of the Bible, hence my confusion in how to answer your question. This verse was quoted to me early on in an attempt to dissuade me in my interest in non-Trinitarian matters. I still have the highlighted NT that was given to me at the time. No need to rehash the history on this, but finding out it was a spurious insertion led me to reject previously held Trinitatarian concepts, (school-sourced), and to accept Jesus teachings on the matter of his relationship with his Father and what the role of the holy spirit is. So it was a bit of a negative effect really in the sense that what did not belong in God's word prompted, at the time, my interest in what did.

 

 

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

" A generation is the time between ONE statistically average persons'  birth, and his death. ".

This is a suggestion, but is a bit variable in that it relates to time and place. Can we be more specific on how Jesus words can be applied?

There are a lot of postings here saying what the Matthew 24:34 generation is not. (Specifically, it is not what David Splane says it is)

Are there any suggestions as to what it actually is?

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Also, since you brought it up, what does the word tithe mean?

Seems to be the Saddleback Church that brought it up in this instance.

There might be  a feedback form on their website: 

http://saddleback.com/

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

So where do you see that this is any different that what the wt asks fo

I haven't seen any Sunday morning stick-ups down our way. Maybe you have them in your manor?

On 9/25/2017 at 7:03 PM, Shiwiii said:

exposing the great Oz

Is this getting a bit disrespectful?

Habbakuk 3:4: His brightness was like the light. Two rays flashed from his hand, Where his strength was hidden.

Strong's Concordance
oz: strength, might
Original Word: עֹז
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: oz
Phonetic Spelling: (oze)
Short Definition: strength

On 9/25/2017 at 7:03 PM, Shiwiii said:

more to do with pulling the curtain back and exposing the great Oz

53 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

the book was supposed to be revised "according to the facts we now know about spiritism."

Interesting and fascinating detail in this posting, apart from this particular highlight.

Can't say much about the content except I think we will look back on many current ideas (not least those expressed in this forum) as "cringeworthy" in the future, should we be able. So it's little wonder that we can currently do the same with what has been expressed in the past.

Meanwhile, thanks for the time and trouble spent in dredging up and commenting on this interesting and fascinating detail, despite it's  trivial nature..

20 hours ago, Cos said:

Mr. Cos” (you included). But, even thought Cos is not my surname, I have said nothing in response to this very demeaning and insulting way that this is done.

It is done because you often do it. Nobody really knows what names are genuine here. I find it unnatural (Mr),  so use it inconsistently, when I remember. No insult intended, although you seem to assume so. You are very sensitive to your own pain but seem to lack empathy.  Just the inadequacies of electronic communication really. Anyway, it is fairly inconsequential as the subject matter is of more weight than this rather petite etiquette.

20 hours ago, Cos said:

But as I was not present can you tell me how he/she used the expression to answer you?

This particullar male religious teacher was an RC priest. This term was used in answer to any question connected with probing the relationship between God and Christ which, on my part incidentally, had no connection with any other religious persuasion, but was merely a natural product of the learning process, albeit in a Catholic scholastic environment.

Questions such as, Who did Jesus pray to?, Who sent Jesus if he is God?, How could God die? were always met with the response: "it is a mystery. We do not understand this in human terms,  but we accept it because it is God's truth".

You will have to take my word for this, I know, but I have met many over the years who have had a similar experience, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that you have too. This seems be in harmony with the Catechismal approach which we were all subject to (by rote) at that time: 

28. What do you mean by a mystery? By a mystery I mean a truth which is above reason, but revealed by God.

20 hours ago, Cos said:

what factor made you change your “understanding of Jesus’ teaching on this matter”?

The change was really from ignorance as I don't think I had any understanding of Jesus teaching on the "helper" prior to reading the passages. So there wasn't a change that took place in respect of his teaching.

The RC school teachings generally refered to the "Holy Ghost",  but apart from obvious spectre-like associations, any understanding gleaned from the years of Catholic education bore no resemblance to Bible teaching on the matter. In fact, I never possessed or even saw a complete Bible until my 20s, long after leaving school and any religious affiliations behind. I thought a church "Missal" was the Bible, and apart from a book called The Catholic School Bible by J.Ecker, had little concept of anything else. The staunch Catholic household I grew up in ascribed to the idea that "Sola Scriptura" (the Bible alone) is a false doctrine.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole authority on religious matters. The church was seen as the interpreter of matters pertaining to God, and it's clergy far better qualified to do so than any lay man, let alone a questioning youth.

So, when I read Genesis 1:2, I wanted to know more about "the Spirit of God" and it's operation so Jesus's words recorded by John were helpful in that regard.

20 hours ago, Cos said:

take for example the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" 

I don't fully understand what you are driving at here, but I can see that the text indicates that at his baptism,  Jesus was designated by God as His Messiah (anointed), (Luke 3:21-22). He was empowered at the same time because, subsequent to his baptism, he  "proved to be a prophet powerful in deed and word before God and all the people" (Luke 24:19) by miraculous works,  incomparable teaching and prophesy, all testifying that he had indeed been empowered by His Father. (Compare Luke 8:46; Luke 22:43).

Although I am not sure I understand your little word riddle, I do see that "Holy Spirit" is clearly differentiated from "power" in that passage of Scripture, (Acts 10:38). Is that what you are emphasising? How do you understand it?

On 9/3/2017 at 5:01 PM, The Librarian said:

The cutoff date for this generation has now moved to 1992

Isn't this just an example for the sake of the argument? Most Jehovah's Witnesses should have heard of Freddie Franz. (Those with sufficient interest in what the generation could be referring to anyway).

7 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

then why is that a talking point with the wt to try and set themselves apart from the rest? Asking is all the rest does, so now it comes down to ...........they're all the same, so there is no grounds to boast upon.

You don't seem to be talking from experience, or very limited experience. Maybe it's a bit of a geographical thing

"Asking is all the rest does". Your "all the rest" may not be mine. Maybe you've never been to a Sunday morning stick-up.

 

1 hour ago, Cos said:

just another "knee jerk" reaction (for lack of a better term)

Dear dear Cos. you are fond of these rather demeaning responses aren't you? Is this how you were taught?

1 hour ago, Cos said:

can you show me where in John Gospel when Jesus explains about the coming of the Holy Spirit that makes you now “understand” that Jesus was not referring to a person but instead to a mystical “force” of some kind?

"mystical" eh? Now that's a word my Trinitarian religious teacher used in answer to questions I had on the Trinity doctorine at school!

With regard to your request, it is the entire discussion provided by Jesus on the subject. His words for me stand alone without any need for me to amplify or explain.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

Either the “power of the Most High” is in action, or it’s not

I'm quite happy with your definition. Although I would add that Jehovah's power does not cease to exist when it is not in action.

21 hours ago, Cos said:

Maybe you would like to study Rev. 13:6? I’d be willing to go through this with you in more detail if you like?

 

Thanks for the offer but, as even those professing an understanding of the Greek cannot agree on this text, my schedule won't run to revisiting all the arguments. As I said, one's understanding of Scriptural context will dictate the conclusion on matters like this anyway.

21 hours ago, Cos said:

Yet it is quite definite from those passages that Jesus does not explain the Holy Spirit as some kind of power!

You see, this is YOUR opinion, to which you are entitled. Although I shared your view at one time, (not expressed in such detail), I now differ as to my understanding of Jesus' teaching on this matter and, (ironically), consider Holy Spirit to have been an enlightening factor in this, as it was certainly not involved in the imparting of my previously held concepts on the subject.

21 hours ago, Cos said:

my “selective phrasing” that somehow makes the contradiction

Your selective phrasing is to assume "power" as a synonym for the phrase "power in action", and to quote other phrases using either term as synonomous. By omitting the qualifying phrase "in action",  you create a contradiction by comparing in parallel phrases that are actually describing different elements. To place "power" against "power(in action)" is actually an "apples and oranges" comparison. The terms although related, are different. Now, "power in action"  is synonomous with the word "force" however, and these can be substituted for each other.

The concept of "force" has been defined as something that "only exists as a result of an interaction'", and thus for me adequately describes the relationship between God's Almighty power (His potential) and His Holy Spirit, the force, which is His power applied (or, "in action"), to accomplish His will. His Power is Almighty, without limitation. His spirit acomplishes a variety of operations, and is His power applied to the extent required at any particular moment. Thus Holy Spirit is limited to the demands of the moment and task at hand, otherwise it would be destructive. (Also, Scripture identifies  the need for those who have it already to pray for more).

So that explains my understanding which for me harmonises wth all the scriptural references I have seen both literal and figurative, be they descriptive or allegorical. Other explanations I find inadequate, or contradictory, or both.

21 hours ago, Cos said:

Power is power whether it is in use or not. For example the power stored in a battery (potential) is the same power when the battery is in use. Yes or no?

No

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

WT say they do not ask for money

beg or petition. asking no problem

18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I can't tell what this is about. Can you explain?

TTH bashing???

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

pulling the curtain back

Yesterday's papers I'm afraid.

Looks windy

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Why does that even matter?

Well why indeed? Unless other people's mail is your turn on of course.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I think you made this idea up to help your cause. 

Don't they?

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

you are truly grasping here

Oh! Clever pun!

Correct! I meant Rev 13:6. Thanks for that.

Interesting, the jury seems out on the rendering of that verse, with a number of translations presenting it as a list of Gods name and dwelling and those who dwell there, with commentators noting difficulty also. It seems that theology will govern one's understanding here which is apparent in your explanation as:

2 hours ago, Cos said:

...the verse does not mean blaspheme of the “residence” but to those persons that reside there

where you are stating your opinion as fact.  Your opinion is interesting, but not one I share.

2 hours ago, Cos said:

is there a contradiction when in one place the Watchtower say that the Holy Spirit “is not Jehovah’s ‘power’”, yet elsewhere the Watchtower say that the Holy Spirit “is identified as God’s power”?

This was already discussed? Just repeating more or less what was said earlier here:

Power = Power in action? Maybe to you, but not the same thing in my understanding. "Power" is potential. " Power in action" is something else, the demonstration or application of that potential. They are different, hence, only your selective phrasing creates a contradiction.

Basically, we disagree on the definition of Holy Spirit and I remain as unconvinced of your view as you do of mine.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

please tell whatever you think is relevant about this Atlantean Society. 

I'll think about your post later. but will just provide some detail to keep inclusion of this detail on topic.

I came across the Atlantean Society many years ago when I was searching for answers, prior to studying the Bible. It was in an article in a volume of Pears Cyclopedia in a section on beliefs which I no longer possess. What I found curious was that they claimed (maybe still do?) spirit contact with some(one?) who had lived in Atlantis which was, they held, the antideluvian world which had been catastrophically ended.

Although interest in Atlantis persists, I haven't been able to to find much information on this paticular group now (the information wasn't on gold plates I promise), but I was curious as it seemed connected in view of this thread's subject matter and the era. In fact, along with the Theosophical movement, it might well deserve a place on Anna's list.  I was hoping someone else might have some knowledge.