Evacuated

Regardless of the exceptional nature of the communication from the spirit realm regarding the sacred secret of the Christ, it is, nevertheless, what it is. "In other generations this [secret] was not made known to the sons of men as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by spirit" (Eph.3:5). I am afraid that this attempt to define spiritism thus fails for me in it's vagueness: "The acceptance of communication with the spirit world for the purpose of gaining secret knowledge, no matter who initiated it, might be spiritism. This does not mean that all forms of communication with the spirit world is included" quote @JWInsider It fails because secret knowedge was imparted to humans from the spirit world and the process by which it has been done cannot be classed as spiritism. Interestingly, "into these very things, angels are desiring to peer." (1Pet.1:12). I will have to give some thought to rewording the definition to be more specific and clear, in a word, definite! As for Brother Albert, I do not care if he feels he gets special communication from the spirit realm any more than I would question if he claimed to be one of the anointed. (That claim in itself is in response to a communication from the spirit realm is it not?). My concern would be more focused on what those "revelations" were to comprise, whether or not they were in harmony with the Scriptures as we currently understand them, and whether or not he was seeking to promulgate any of these "revelations". He would also get my attention if he were to promote attempts to engage in communication with the spirit world outside of the acceptable channel of prayer. I go along with this. I also think that "spiritism" (druggery as it is anciently termed) is also a work of the flesh because it panders to some perverted aspect of fallen humanity in the same way that it's proponents sought after flesh for unnatural use in the days of Noah (Gen.6:2).

Akin? Except that it is unlikely there is an angel Moroni. I have my doubts about the existence of the gold plates as well. Formerly anointed ones now in heaven? No problem with that. Communications with earthly servants of Jehovah, even those with a heavenly hope? Dunno, but on balance, I think more likely than the gold plates. I'll leave someone else to determine the probability ratio.

Just watched it. I thought Rocketman had done the dirty.....Whew! Actually, I don't really like theocratic trinkets, except these ones. They save you having to find real money to get a supermarket cart! And if some one drives into you in the carpark and knocks you out...hopefully you're covered!

Maybe there is a place for a frequent passing of a rattling plate in your neck of the woods.Â

Just a thought that "tithing" today can refer to any % of income as a contribution to a religious organisation and may no longer be compulsory. Also, many countries still distribute tax revenues to religious organisations. I suppose exemption from VAT is another avenue, as is the "covenanting" of donations which exempts from income tax and enables government rebates. It all comes from the "communal pot". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe

I upvoted you for honesty. Is that what you have done? Figuratively?

This paragraph is obviously rubbish. We can do the apostates work for them and list every similar type of statement from past publications if we were of a mind. This comes under my category of "nonsensical gobbledygook" which may or may not be an accurate description, but works for me. However, I don't waste my time mulling over past error amongst Jehovah's Witnesses, IBSA members, or whatever designation applies. Whole websites and reams of literature are dedicated to that cause. My position with the definition of spritism is that Jehovah has provided an adequate definition of what is encompassed in this practice in His Word. From comparing both Deuteronomy 18:9-12, and Galatians 5:20, it is quite easy to conclude correctly that engagement in this condemned activity is on the part of the human practicer, as it is both legislated against in a law code for humans, and later described as a "work of the flesh". So it is clear spiritism is not a neutral term, and that that the practice of spiritism encompasses a definition narrower than what you seem to imply. (Forgive any misunderstanding, put it down to ambiguity in your definition). Surely it could not be argued that Jesus was engaging in spiritism by conversing with Satan and rebutting his attempts to compromise his integrity in the wilderness. (Luke 4:1-13)? Nor on the numerous occasions when both he and disciples "communicated" with the spirit realm in order to release humans tormented by wicked spirit creatures, (comp. Matt.8:28-32)? What we don't know about spiritism surely comes under the designation "the “deep things of Satan,” as they say" (Rev.2:34). Jehovah has determined that what we do need to know is discernible in his word which "completely" equips us. 2Tim.3:16; Eph.6:11. Your quotation of my words omitted that I clearly pointed out that spiritism includes : To clarify, that deception where dead people are impersonated. Communication with demons may omit that stage. This statement is misleading and wrong. Spiritism, as referred to in Scripture, is communication in the form of a human fellowship or interchange with demonic spirits, whether one is aware of their malevolent intent or otherwise. It is a particular form of sharing at "the table of demons". If we see it any other light, then we would have to include all forms of communication with the spirit world, such as those described already, and then add to that list "dreams and visions" as recorded by the prophets, the delivery of angelic messages to the likes of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Mary, even the shepherds at Jesus birth. In fact, all of the inspired writings which are sourced utimately from the spirit realm, and even prayer itself which is a form of communicating with a spirit. Now if we are going to start washing the dirty linen of past error on the part of those associated with the movement we now belong to, great care must be taken in the manner and context in which this is shared. Otherwise, there is a danger of undermining respect for the information and counsel we now get through what amounts to being the same channel. This of course will serve the same interests of the one behind spiritism and will prove the wisdom of Jesus' words "Every kingdom divided against itself comes to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." As we are aware that the kingdom of God is a kingdom that "will never be brought to ruin", (Dan.2:44 NWT1984), we do not have to use much imagination to know which kingdom, city, or house will come to desolation, not through overt spiritism, but simply through an unwise use of the tongue which could serve, ultimately, the same purpose.

I think this agrees with this part of JWI's statement quoted by Anna: "It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to: Hebrews 6:4-6 and 2 Peter 2:20-22 So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street".

Isn't what the Bible condemns as spritism the initiation of communication by humans with wicked spirits (demons) who in the main actually pretend to be the spirits of past deceased humans. And of course this includes direct communications by humans with these demons that bypasses the deception stage? Do you really think if it were possible that any resurrected members of the 144000 were to in some way communicate information to faithful Christians on earth this would properly be classed as "spiritism"? Remembering of course that these are not dead people who are still alive as spirits. They are actually live spirit creatures who at one time were humans. They were resurrected to a new form of life after they had completely died as humans. If this would be termed as "spiritism", how would you categorise the communication in earlier times between angels and humans, including those occasions when Jesus communicated with sprits? And do you think it was "spiritism" when Jesus and the disciples communicated on numerous occasions after his resurrection as a spirit creature?

Not recently? I think this was dealt with in 2007 1/1 WT was it not?

Quite right. And I suspect necessarily so. Unfortunately, human emotion is a powerful driver of action that crosses the boundaries that Jehovah sets. Jeremiah made that clear at Jer.10:23. Although it is simple to state that in a case of disfellowshipping, " blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue", to what extent should this be applied? Many left to their own devices will over-restrict, or excercise too much lattitude, despite the desire of Jehovah to dignify us with principle rather than law. As an example of the latter: "In our area some disfellowshiped ones with large families have been met, as they enter the lobby of the Kingdom Hall, with a fanfare of backslapping and handshaking (even though the disfellowshiped one was known by them to be still living immorally)." WT 1981 15 Sep. So someone has to set a bar somewhere at times. Parents have this right: Eph.6:4, and the same applies to those with shepherding responsibilty in the congregation: Heb.13:17. For example, despite the fact that at the start of the Christian congregation when about 3000 or so joined "All those who became believers were together and had everything in common, and they were selling their possessions and properties and distributing the proceeds to all, according to what each one needed." Acts 2:41-47. They didn't need detailed directions on this matter one would have thought, not with love as a fruitage of the abundantly present holy spirit surely?.  But, a little later, with numbers growing, we find "the Greek-speaking Jews began complaining against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution."  Acts 6:1. How could this possibly be? How could true, spirit anointed, spirit-gifted Christians be so self-centered and heartless?  We know that the measures taken to deal with this matter would have necessitated specific directions. (Acts 6:3-6). The apostles left the logistics of this to suitably qualified representatives. Would those directions have been put in place by Jehovah? Or was it more a case of Jehovah allowing humans to make the arrangements to deal with a specific matter at that time. I know this is different from the logistics of how we implement the scriptural requirement to "quit mixing in company" with unrepentant serious sinners to whom we are related. But the principle is that responsible shepherds in the congregation at times MUST make rules, in this case, to ensure the spritual cleanness and safety of the members of the congregation. Sometimes, the placing and implementation of a rule made by human representatives in Jehovah's organisation will elicit the following response: But hasn't Jehovah put Caeser's law in place? Rom.13:1? Isn't it so that what Jehovahs allows, He has put in place? Really, it is to Jehovah (and of course Jesus, the Head of the Christian congregation) that those charged with shepherding responsibility will answer. We surely know that, as the principle earthly shepherds today, the Governing Body are as subject to the direction of Jesus as Head of the Christian congregation as were those of the first century described in Revelation Chapters 2 and 3. And this applies to all with shepherding responsibility. And in discharging that responsibility, rules have to be made, even tightened up at times, unpopular though this might be. Otherwise, how would the words of the wise ones ever serve as oxgoads? Ecc.12:11. Extrapolating on what is not included in the video is interesting, but we can make many alternative scenarios can't we? Obviously Sonya was set in her wrong course. She did not care at all for the hurt she caused others and obviously did not care about her status after disfellowshipping because when given the choice to alter her conduct to enable her father to continue providing her with a home, she chose to leave. To liken her to Aaron's sons might be a pointer to the extent of her bad attitude. She could always have returned to the Kingdom Hall at any time, but there is no indication she ever tried to set matters straight over the many years. Surely the visit by the elders before her return was not the only attempt made to get her to return over the years. There are many possible scenarios there. What is important is the outcome, and I am certain this drama is factual having seen many similar incidents. But really, you know this and quite rightly you have stated that Of your own conduct I think you mean, but is He not also Judge of those who provide the counsel we follow today? Or do not follow for that matter? Best result always comes to those who wait on Jehovah and work with what He allows. Pro.19:21 The Living Bible Â

Great charts. Thanks a lot. Can't upvote due to COS-bashing unfortunately.Â

Probably John 14:9 has relevance to this one. Anyway, the Septuagint quotes are interesting. You have accounted for some but what of the 76 others. Is there a quick reference guide available?

There is a danger here in that one can compaign for an issue of one's own making. Basically, unrepentance for serious sin is the reason for disfellowshippnig. The scriptures are pretty clear on this. The counsel on differentiating between spiritual fellowship and family responsibility is prettty basic and can be applied simply by following what was stated in 1981 : For those sharing a dwelling, "Since his being disfellowshipped does not sever the family ties, normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue." For those not, " there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum." These seems perfectly adequate. For me, the rarity would be as compared to the contact with one sharing a dwelling, not the typical weddings and funerals only contact that many families engage in as a normal practice in today's world. So how to apply this is definitely a matter of conscience. However, as with ALL conscience matters, other people's consciences are effected too. How we apply principles in these areas are always going to bring mixed reaction from others. Excercise of freedom must always be done discreetly in my opinion, and there is no harm in "playing one's cards close to one's chest." Paul at times chose not to excercise his freedom at all in matters that might stumble others. However if one wishes to strike a defiant attitude in this matter, even to the point of maligning the Christian congregation because a paticular stance is taken on a conscience matter, one is free to do so. But there are always consequences for this kind of behaviour. One thing for sure, running ahead of Jehovah or criticising his ways because of some personal discontent at what appears to be unfair, unreasonable or just delayed, (better ask Saul), will not bring good results. We only have to look at Sarah. She impatiently arranged for Abraham to produce offspring through her maidservant Hagar. This resulted in many problems and eventual estrangement. Then, after her (denied ) laughter at the prospect of having a child naturally, Jehovah stuck to his arrangements, which brought success, meanwhile, impatient humans scuttled around failing with theirs. Gen.16:1-16, 17:18-27, 18:9-15, 21:1-21 etc.. Even still, Jehovah provided for the casualties, as he also provides for those disfellowshipped today in keeping open a way back and even using right hearted ones in his kingdom work despite their estrangement. (Incidentally, he did provide even for Adam and Eve after their expulsion didn't he?). This reminds me of the point in Ezekiel 43:8. Israel's profaning of God's name extended to those who said Jehovah's discipline of the nation ws a sign of weakness, or lack of protection, or some other negative connotation on Jehovah's name or reputation. Rather like those who criticise Jehovah's disciplining of unrepentant wrongdoers today as a violation of human rights! How true the words: "Men given to badness cannot understand judgment, but those who are seeking Jehovah can understand everything." Pro.28:5. Those "seeking" can include suitably chastened disfellowshipped ones! More to be said on this topic I am sure.

I am glad your sister-in-law has been reinstated. I see no reason why your mother-in-law should have rejected her grandchildren on the strength of your sister in-law's foolishness, regardless of any narrow-minded interpretation that some might apply to her actions. She of course would have to endure any consequences, even unjust ones, should they come as a result of her conscientous (hopefully) decision. But really it only goes to show why Jehovah has standards, and why the penalty for violation can seem severe. Look at the trouble caused for your mother-in-law. Same with Eve. Death penalty for "scrumping"? Bit Victorian isn't it? Huh, just look at the consequences for everyone else! It is difficult for us to know what the boundaries on these natural feelings are/should be. We are imperfect, and even if we were not, Jeremiah's words would still be valid: "I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Jer.10:23. Wasn't Abraham asked to go against against natural human affection and decency that we were created with? (Gen.22:2). But his faith in Jehovah moved him to obey what must have seemed more absurd than what his wife had been presented with many years earlier (Gen.18:12).Jehovah resolved the problem for him, but Abraham had no idea of the outcome until the matter was resolved. (Gen.22:8; 12). The important thing was that his faith prompted his obedience and gained him Jehovah's favour in a very special way. That opportunity is open to us all (James 3:22-23). We can all point to examples where making our own decisions when faced with an unpleasant choice leads to a seemingly successful outcome. A typical example of this is the injunction to marry "only in the lord". Any number of experiences can be cited where brothers and sisters have flouted this counsel, and lo! The "unbeliever" has started a bible study and has become one of Jehovah's Witnesses! As if this vindicates a course of disobedience to Jehovah. Does this show the "only in the lord" injunction to be faulty? As faulty as some would claim the way in which the disfellowshipping injunction is applied? I think it more indicates the mercy of our God Jehovah who "has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has he repaid us what our errors deserve" Ps.103:10. Also, his impartial and forgiving nature in that he does not withold his blessing even from those who are seemingly gained by the actions of those who have ignored his counsel. What is often overlooked in these matters is the calamity that can befall others when the results of these self-willed decisions do not turn out so well. Or what about the fact that "because sentence against a bad deed [by one person] has not been executed speedily, the heart of [other] men [or women] becomes emboldened to do bad" (Ecc.8:11)? Then Jesus words at Luke 17:1-2 become more significant do they not? But then of course we all need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Ph.2:12) do we not? And accept the consequences of our choices (Gal.6:7). Sometimes this can be a lonely place (Pro.14:17), but then a stand on principle is not always easy (Luke 9:23). One thing for sure, "it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him". Ecc.8:12.

Mr Cos. I have your view on these two passages of scripture. I don't believe I have actually stated my view. So, in view of the tone of your responses, I will leave you to surmise on what that might be. There is scriptural precedence for this. Last try on this one Mr Cos. My understanding of the WT view of Holy Spirit is summed up below: "It would not be quite accurate to say that the holy spirit is God’s power. This is because power can be latent, or inactively resident, in someone or something, such as power stored in a charged but unused battery. The Scriptures, however, present God’s spirit in the context of being in motion, somewhat like the electric current that flows from a battery in use. (Genesis 1:2) Hence, God’s holy spirit is his projected energy, his active force."

We can only speculate on scenarios here. What is clear however, is that Adam could have rejected Eve's wrong course and let the "Judge of all the earth" decide on the outcome. We just cannot imagine how Jehovah would have solved this problem, but we can be sure His solution would have been just as amazing and beyond human imagination as the real solution He has devised for the real situation. He even provided for the rebels and that included hope for their offspring which they could have imparted to their children. Even today, parents in dire straits may get some consolation in knowing their children will be OK. I have noticed today that even when people are disfellowshipped, they can still be instrumental in Jehovah's work. I personally know a few who have become witnesses with assistance from disfellowshipped ones. And that is outside the family arrangement where it is clear that disfellowshipped parents are still seen as having responsibility for their minor children's spiritual welfare. So they weren't rejected by Jehovah completely either. Disfellowshipping is a scripturally based disciplinary arrangement. Imperfect humans get it round their neck like so many other things. Some, even though not actually experiencing the situation, act like the Sadducees (comp Matt.22:23-33) and create all manner of "what if" scenarios, "testing the limits" as it were, trying to break the fence. But breaking a fence doesn't change a boundary does it? It might show up a weakness of course, requiring repair, so adjustments in the process of disfellowshippng can and have be made, but the bottom line of the matter is that unrepentant, serious sinners are disfellowshipped. And rightly so. As for those who decide "I don't want to serve Jehovah on His terms. I renounce my dedication and I don't want anyone to try and get me back". They in effect place themselves in the same yard as those disfellowshipped for unrepentance as their heart attitude is basically the same. Some may even arrogantly delude themselves into thinking they have disfellowshipped the congregation or have some how out-manoeuvred the judicial arrangements, but at the end of the day, they are all just taking the devil's carrot, "you will be like God, knowing good and bad." All manner of tear-jerking scenarios both real and imagined are brought to the table in these kind of discussions. Unfortunately, the reality is that Jehovah's will is not always what Jehovah's people do, so as Jesus said “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come" Luke 17:1. We have to deal with them, and wait on Jehovah to correct matters, be it an actual practice, or our thinking. Abraham said it is is "unthinkable" that Jehovah would ever act unjustly, so we just have to stick to that awareness, even as far as Job did. It is best practice to stay middle of the road even if it is narrow. Certainly "kicking against the goads" will result in damage, even if we stay on the right path.

The big if.......again.

It is easily obtainable for those wishing to look beneath the surface of things. Anyway, the range of quotations relating to the rendering of the text in John 1:1 demonstrates that what is seemingly cast in stone actually is not. It reminds me of the teaching of evolution as a fact because it's what the experts believe. Actually, many experts believe otherwise, so one should make up one's own mind. As with evolution, so with John 1:1. One does not need to be an "expert". There are enough of the "expert" opinions around for one to make a judgement based on scripture. Personal prejudice or preference will always factor in choice.....for everyone. Jehovah allows us to make decisions based on a relationship with Him.

Misjudgement again. Greber's rendering is quite acceptable. Greber and his demonic associates are not.

Hi Cos Only 2 things in response this time. 1. I still do not understand what this means. so do not know how I could contradict it. What I said on 10th September is that "I wanted to know what .........the analysis technique which you applied to the passage in John would reveal" if utilised with regard to the inspired passage in Proverbs. This is very specific, and refers to the method you demonstrated in highlighting certain verbs and pronouns.. I certainly did not express a desire to know your analysis technique, whatever that means. And the application of this feature of your technique I thought is what I demonstrated, by highlighting various verbs and personal pronouns in the passage of Proverbs 8 in the same manner in which you had done so in the passage of John. You responded by stating your opinion (in essence) that the inspired description of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is poetic and allegorical, whereas the words of John 14-16 regarding holy spirit are biographical, regardless of what the application of your analysis technique might reveal. You have also stated your opinion that the passage in Proverbs 8 has no relevance to the discussion on the nature of the Holy Spirit. That conclusion in itself demonstrates your analysis technique to encompass far more than the highlighting of certain words in a passage of scripture does it not? Correct me if I am wrong. Regarding the brouhaha on my imagined"contradiction", this is where I have to throw up my hands and say "I really do not see what relevance this has to the subject under discussion." 2. 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 of that potential. They are different, hence, only your selective phrasing above is a contradiction.

Perhaps London, Mill Hill would have been more specific. (That's if my calculator is working of course) 2019: Temple Farm, Chelmsford, Essex - 1959: The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London = 60yrs (I think) Oops!...I've got to go......some gnats to strain........

Good to keep in mind that WT was using Greber's rendering as a support, not "Greber and his demons".

Good question! Even better answer: 2 Thess.2:9-11 "But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved.  That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,"

Good to clarify this regarding the editions. In fairness, the title page of the 1809 edition makes it clear that that the edition is BASED on Newcome's new translation. Also the Introduction, whilst acknowledging value of Newcome's work, lays out the principle that "no alteration should be made in the Primate'sTranslation, but where it appeared to be necessary to the correction of error or inaccuracy in the text, the language, the construction, or the sense,". And that, where an alteration was made to the text, "where it was thought necessary" , along with Newcome's rendering, "a short note has been subjoined, assigning the reasons for the alteration, which, to the candid and discerning', they flatter themselves will generally appear satisfactory." Also in connection with additional items of explanantion included, "that where it was thought necessary, a short note has been subjoined, assigning the reasons for the alteration, which, to the candid and discerning', they flatter themselves will generally appear satisfactory." So, the revision is more honestly handled by this commitee than perhaps those who were responsible for introducing the Comma Johanneum earlier. (which Archbishop Newcome, admirably, omitted from his translation, albeit without a footnote comment.) Certainly he did not, and the cross references provided in the footnote presumably are there to reinforce his view: Was God.] Isai. vii. 14. ix.6. Matth. i. 23. John x. 33— 36. Rom. ix. 5. Phil. ii.6. Hebr. 1.3, 8. But not without a clear and explanatory foot note: "and the Word was a god.] "was God," Newcome. Jesus received a commission as a prophet of the Most High, and was invested with extraordinary miraculous powers. But in the Jewish phraseology they were called gods to whom the word of God came. John x. 35. So Moses is declared to be a god to Pharaoh. Exod. vii. 1. Some translate the passage, God was the Word. q. d. it was not so properly he that spake to men as God that spake to them by him. Cappe, ibid. See John x. 30, compared with xvii. 8, II, 16; iii. 34; v. 23; xii. 44. Crellius conjectured that the true reading was ***, the Word was God's, q. d. the first teacher of the gospel derived his commission from God. But this conjecture, however plausible, rests upon no authority." The readers must decide for themselves. Quite true and good to point that out. It's being discarded, however, has not made one iota of difference.