Evacuated

Your explanation. Well done! There's your answer.

"Why are Jehovah Witnesses so hated by mainstream Christianity?" By @Jay Witness John 7:7 is a reason. Many religious leaders today behave like the Pharisees, scribes and other prominent 1st Century religionists. Jesus' Matthew 23 lashing is just as applicable to them now as it was in the 1st Century, and is brought up to date and directed at similar behaviour today in religion by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is definitely NOT music to the ears of these "dignitaries". Compare the 1st Century reaction to Stephen at Acts 7:57. And the attitude displayed at John 7:49-50 and John 11:9-11. These men, in turn influence others less questioning in their minds and stir prejudice in seeking their own agendas as we have seen in many modern instances. The exposure of the tactics of Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev and Alexander Leonidovich Dvorkin in the media and elsewhere in the forum are relevant to this question. Simpe answer? It comes with the territory!

Strange stance in the light of James 4:1. The answer is in James' letter actually.

Which of course is true of every human that has ever lived. However, this doesn't exclude mistaken notions of which you appear to have provided an example: "the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" makes the idea that the Holy Spirit is a mere "force" or "attribute" as redundant, "anointing with power and power"(?)" Did you speak this of your own originality? Or were you taught? Anyway, the best description of Holy Spirit as I have been taught is provided by Jesus who said: (John 14:16, 17) And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever,  the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you. (John 14:26) But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you. (John 15:26) When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me; (John 16:13, 14) However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come.  That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you. What about you? Please describe your idea of the Holy Spirit.

No. Not that proverb. Actually the one stating that "faithful in what is least is faithful also in much". If we forget trying to judge the steward as there isn't enough information, "unrighteous" can just mean a person without faith. There is no evidence in the illustration that the steward was anything other than shrewd. That's enough to buy slanderous innuendo from those who are not. The sneering Pharisees in Jesus audience at the time thought they were far more righteous than that common steward, but their conduct regarding material assets proved them to be money-lovers, slaves to Riches, and actually disgusting in God's sight. (Luke 16:14-15). There was no way they could be entrusted with spiritual treasures, such as the preaching and disciple making work. (2Cor.4:7). I always thought of that proverb like a reference for a job. If you could be trusted with little things, you could be trusted with greater things. This may well be true, but because Jesus contrasts the lesser value of material assets regardless of their quantity or amount, ("least"), with the excelling value of spritual treasures, ("much"), there is an much better lesson here. The more useful lesson here is the idea that  practical wisdom in the use of what is "least", (material assets), to maximise their effect in enabling spiritual activity, is counted as "faithful". It is then counted simultaneously as being "faithful in much" because those assets are being used in harmony with ones dedication to God rather than Riches. The use of the experiences in the WT article bears this out. I can add one in that I know a young brother who has built a very successful international business that employs 50 people. It is so well managed that he only needs to work 1 day per week, yet still is able support a comfortable life style that many work all the hours of the day to achieve. However, he uses the opportunity to finance himself and his family in the pioneer ministry, serving where there is greater need, and assists in circuit work and assembly organisation, all at his own expense.  Paul deals with this attitude further at 1 Cor 7:31. So we can "get out of Babylon" (false religion), we can be "no part of the world", (the political system), but as for that sticky old honeytrap, commerce? Just "make use" of it, to further spiritual interests, and simultaneously prove yourself "faithful in much". As for the notion of drug money being included in the "unrighteous riches", it's interesting that the (British) Daily Mail noted regarding the UK, that "a senior analyst at the FSS, the largest provider of forensic services in the UK on behalf of police forces, says traces of the drug [cocaine] can be found on any bank note, regardless of its geographical location".  Wikipedia notes this to be a worldwide phenomenon.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency

Well this just shows that people may not always understand the language they speak. The basic dictionary definitions of power as a noun are: "the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way" or "the ability or capacity to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events" This seems to concur reasonably with some of the thought behind related Bible words. e.g. the Hebrew word koʹach is translated “power”; gevu·rahʹ, “mightiness”; and ʽoz, “strength.” The Greek dyʹna·mis is translated both “power” and “powerful works,” as the context makes appropriate. Patently then, as an attribute of the true God, who alone is Almighty in power, this cannot be synonymous with the Holy Spirit for which different expressions are used both in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. Therefore your suggestion that "the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" makes the idea that the Holy Spirit is a mere "force" or "attribute" as redundant, "anointing with power and power"(?)" is actually incorrect. These words cannot be construed as meaning an "anointing with power and power". Your attribution of such a concept to the current teaching or beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses is also false.

My thought also. Can't see the master commending a thief no matter how clever. Unrighteous just means without faith. Anyway, the point of the illustration gives a better understanding of what faithful in least or much means. That slant I hadn't actually considered before as the saying has a proverbial status in English.

Maybe he had overcharged them in the first place.

Interesting logic, especially as some argue that violence in the media does not breed violence in life. ( I agree with tobacco controls by the way).

Do we know when she was baptised?

Despite the acerbic nature of your comment (hardly "seasoned with salt") I'm giving you a upvote because you are absolutely right! (Even though you couldn't care less what I think).

I don't see Jehovah's Witnesses or the Bible teaching that "Holy Spirit" and "power" are literally synonymous. Do you?

You mean...you don't?

One of those "cat among the pigeons" questions as the responses indicate. Genesis chapters 2 and 3 provide a basic lesson here. Whilst it is true to say that humans have been gifted with the ability to choose when it comes to moral obligations, they have not been given a right to excercise their choice wrongly by chosing to rebel against Jehovah. That fact is illustrated in the restriction on eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad and the sanction for disobeying that command. At that time, Eve became disenamoured with her religion, and, fully believing that her former religion was wrong, made a choice that that impacted on her family relationships. Adam was later faced with the dilemna you have described above. In his case, it was not a matter of conscience in that he believed his religion to be wrong. (He was not deceived, 1Tim.2:14). Regardless of the technical detail, he was free to choose and that choice was excercised wrongly on that occasion, with the dire consequences we have all personally experienced. So is anyone "forced" to choose between religion and family in the matter of fulfilling one's dedication to Jehovah? Indeed is anyone forced to choose to accept Jehovah's direction? I suppose one could argue for this in the light of 2Cor.5:14, but really, is it not the case that the evidence and encouragement Jehovah provides to enable us to make the right decision in excercising our freedom to choose His direction is just so overwhelming that we are "compelled"? That's why the statement at Rom1:20 is indisputable. So despite the fact that one "chooses" to make such a dedication, and may feel one should be able to abrogate later, in actual fact no one has the right to reject Jehovah's Sovereignty regardless of having the right to choose it. Satan is expert at creating moral dilemna to put pressure on those who stray from the safety of the secret place. Ps.91:1. He tried desperatly with Jesus who hadn't strayed at all (Luke 4:9-12). Falling prey, the state of moral dilemna, tension, and conflict experienced by those who find themselves in this sad position becomes a state of partly their own creation in that, for whatever reason, they no longer wish to serve the true God on the terms they originally accepted. And yet, there is no need for this. All is not lost because, whatever their problem, they can still still make it a matter of prayer. For those who truly love Jehovah there is "no stumbling block" Ps.119:165, and, with His help, they can walk in a "roomy place" Ps.118:5.

"These words that I am commanding you today must be on your heart, and you must inculcate them in your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road and when you lie down and when you get up." De. 6:6-7. "For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die." Rom.5:7. The rules have been neatly clarified above, but meditating yourself on the principles in scripture should help you to avoid being flummoxed by these kind of issues. The two above help in this case.

I would modify this to read: Jesus didn't say what he meant in the way some seem to think he should have said it. Certainly, if our understanding included that supposition. Which list? Some of the records I am aware of include Gen.6:18; Gen.7:7; Gen 7:13; Gen 8:15-16,18 followed up by Gen.10:1 and much later, 2Pet.2:5. The lack of a specific mention of additional detail on Noah's family is irrelevant. Their contrast with the ungodly who were subject to destruction in the last reference suffices to me to accept that they were viewed by God as righteous, especially in view of the paralleling of ungodliness and unrighteousness at Rom 1:18. Noah is singled out as an example in the same way that Abraham received a paticularly favourable focus later. He served as a superlative example and role model for others. His singular mention does not rule out others (including family members) who followed his direction and example. (Compare Heb 11:32.) Can't agree. As discussed, his reference to weighed-down hearts is not a "just says" as you suggest. It is highly significant in view of Paul's word to the Ephesians earlier referenced. The teaching recorded at Luke 17 is considerably prior to the Olivet discourse recorded in Matt.24 and Luke 21and is not a parallel account. Additionaly, your comments related to your personal view expressed in detail elsewhere regarding the nature of Jesus "parousia" belong exactly there..."elsewhere".

I find this a bit difficult to swallow. Fritz Rienecker's comment on these ones was that they exhibited "a mode of life without concern and without any foreboding of an impending catastrophe." (Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament ). The conditions they were experiencing should alone have awoken something of what was described here as missing. Combined with whatever insight Noah's words and actions provided, this not knowing was inexcusable. "Took no note" is translated more frequently as "knew not" you have explained. However, when this expression is used elsewhere, such as in John 12:16, it does not imply a lack of knowledge, but a lack of understanding, which to me is what is also described here at Matt. 24:39. And that due to the "insensibility of their hearts". Mk 3:4

I can see how you might extrapolate this from my statement, but clearly: 1. We are not in a position to determine the fullness of extent of the advance warning of the end of this system of things before the end takes place. And this warning will be given to the satisfaction of Jehovah, not that of men. 2. The actual warning, which is contained both in scripture and in an untold volume of statements and publications in all types of media, and a multitude of methods of human transmission drawn from those same scriptures, is distributed by far more than Jehovah's witnesses on earth. Therefore I see little of a challenge to Jehovah and His Son, along with other heavenly forces, to discern those whose hearts respond to the warnings in scripture, no matter how indistinct their sound, and then to make an adequate opportunity for those ones to "take note" appropriately. Nothing new about Jehovah's servants needing reassurance on this count!

Quite correct. I would compare the attitude described by John in the Revelation here. Of Babylon the Great, it is said that one of the reasons for her sudden destruction is that at the time of this event "she keeps saying in her heart: ‘I sit as queen, and I am not a widow, and I will never see mourning.'' " Rev.18:7. Being also at this time "drunk....with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus" shows that she has had contact with these ones in order to persecute them. We know that false religion has been served with a comprehensive exposure, and notification of God's judgement, even at this stage of the "last days". On the whole, this message has been ignored and suppressed and it 's bearers hounded. And yet, you will find even in the pages of religious publications, quite accurate descriptions of who Jehovah's Witnesses are and what they believe. Copies of their publications on this subject are even distributed by their opposers and are also available on ebay! So Babylon the Great takes no note of the substance of the judgement message it has received. Hearing the message is one thing which cannot be denied as the vehement reaction to it's bearers (the witnesses of Jesus) bears out. But believing it, taking it to heart, and acting appropriately on it is something else. Failure to do so pecipitates the "swift pitch" of Babylon's destruction (Rev 18:21). The reaction of all her consorts and exploiters from the sidelines as described in Rev 18:9-19 bear out the surprise and unexpected nature of this destruction when it occurs, despite the publicity campaign preceding it. So, as a major component of the events of the last days, the eviction notice served to Babylon the Great, the vicious reaction to it's bearers, along with the "I will never see mourning" attitude are significant. It seems highly unlikely that the "took no note" attitude of the people described by Jesus at the the time of Noah as having a similarity to those held in the "last days" (Jewish system or current global), would be due to a lack of notification on the part of Noah, who was indeed described as a "preacher of righteousness". Luke's description of heart attitudes as a component of this taking no note has a similarity to the description of Babylon the Great's heart attitude as a component of her adverse judgement. Paul speaks of "the eyes of your heart" when discussing with the Ephesians (Eph. 1:18) understanding God's purposes. I submit that it is the heart reaction of the hearer that determines whether one "takes note" or not. The suddeness and unexpected nature of destruction at the flood of Noah's day, at the end of the Jewish system, when Babylon the Great is destroyed, and when Armageddon strikes, for those who are adversely effected will not be due to any lack of notification and warning on the part of Jehovah or His witnesses, both heavenly and on earth. They (unbelievers) heard the warning but "took no note", in their hearts.

Might need a bit more detail in view of the scriptural specifics don't you think? My comment on wierdness was more general than related just to disfellowshipping. Mind you, on reflection, having had similar experience to yourself both in years and exposure (albeit much of it inner-city), I've seen my fair share. I would add that the level of competency and experience required to judge matters that have such a potentially serious outcome needs careful attention and is something that I was totally unprepared for. This is a particular challenge in areas of rapid growth in numbers where skills and experience gets spread pretty thin.

The program featuring this report is a sort of British version of those shows in the States that lean to emotion rather than factual and balanced reporting. Maury Povich, Geraldo Rivera, even Jerry Springer come to mind, although there is more "theatre" . You probably have worse shows. I can imagine that the reporter involved in this news item had their own agenda regarding the Witnesses. Reporting on the BBC is usually of a much higher standard. The incidents of disfellowshipping you sketch, whilst historic and different, illustrate how much more goes on behind the scenes in these matters and why this particular BBC report is really of no value other than a sterling example of media prejudice. I must say that, once again, I am amazed at the level of "weirdness" you appear to have personally encountered over the years. Particularly this incident regarding the disfellowshipping of your sister over what appears to be entirely legitimate grounds for separation is disturbing. The best part of the disfellowshipping process for me has always been about repentance and reinstatement and I am glad to have been involved in this side of the matter over the years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40704990 Even the highly regarded BBC cannot resist the temptation to indulge in gutter-press standard reporting when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses. This report on the Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipping process is rather misleading. It associates the disfellowshipping action with totally unrelated experiences and leaves the impression that this action is taken: 1. when a person leaves an abusive relationship 2: when a person does not attend the annual memorial celebration of Christ's death. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most inexperienced researcher could easily find out the circumstances leading to this serious and scriptural measure by looking at https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/. It is unlikely that the interviewees would reveal the real reason for their disfellowshipping which would probably cause personal embarrassment, and there is no way that the official organisation would comment or reveal the details of an individual case.

Why not bring the prophet Enoch into this discussion?

Are you sure about this? Maybe I should not have abbreviated. LXX is the standard abbreviation for the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was produced by Alexandrian Jews, (72 originally, hence the name), evidently beginning during the reign of Ptolemy (II) Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.E.). It was completed around 150BCE, so would appear to predate Christendom. Perhaps you meant 2nd Century copyists? Regardless of this, I deduce from your reply that you are saying it is not possible to know with any certainty what word in Greek was used by the inspired Bible writers to correspond to the Hebrew word Sheol. This is because there is no actual evidence of Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts other than those already corrupted with the insertion of Hades as a spurious alteration to the correct Greek translation of the Hebrew word Sheol (If indeed it was even translated). Additionally, fabricators have also inserted the Greek word Hades into the Christian Greek Scriptures, obscuring whatever word was used originally by inspired writers quoting the Septuagint or when translating the words of Jesus Christ . And for all of this, no original, untampered with documents remain of either source, all having been hidden, lost, or destroyed, along with any ancient reference to this scheme. Have I understood you correctly?

I'm aware and fully in agreement with all the arguments on why the concept of Hades or Hell as place where "dead" people actually live and are punished is a total fabrication. What I am trying to understand is your point on the replacement of the original language word in both LXX and Christian Greek scriptures Your response is that: But you do not specifically say what that word actually was. Are you suggesting that the original LXX translators and the Christian Greek Scripture writers originally used the Greek word for grave (taphos) wherever appropriate and that, subsequently, this was spuriously replaced with the Greek word Hades?