Shiwiii

I'm still waiting for a response as to how you have proven my hypocrisy. Â

I'm not the one crying about the unfairness that people are exposing the faults within the wt. Please elaborate on my hypocrisy, how exactly have to proven me to be a Pharisee? oh that's right.....you haven't. You're just trying to throw mud and hoping something will stick. It is a common tactic when someone has nothing to base their dislike of another.Â

I am in opposition to the wt. Why aren't I what? pointing the spotlight on the other religions who conduct themselves the same as the wt? How do you know I'm not?

Why can't Mr. Jackson make the changes within the org himself instead of waiting on secular gov't make him do it? Why wouldn't he/they do this for the protection of the children?

cry me a river............ if you do not like it here, then stop posting here and take your ball and go home.Â

Are you saying that this forum, which is about jw's and the wt, is not the place to bring up topics such as these when they pertain to the wt specifically? Get real J.R., this is exactly the place to bring this up. Also, just because there are other religions with the same problem doesn't mean we cannot point out the FACTS on this particular religion. Since I have never been a jw, I cannot be called an apostate. What I will accept is the title opposer, because I am opposed to ANY organization who hides people who prey on children and then covers it up to protect the perpetrator.

Lets keep it real then. Why do you feel the need to distract from the facts? Why defend the actions of the Wt when you know in your heart that the policy is shameful? NO ONE is saying that there is any group without sin, but it IS our duty to expose the sin within and clean it up. When people turn a blind eye towards sin and injustice it does not make it any better, it only fosters it. It is only when we decide that we as a people cannot accept these practices do things change and get better. We have a moral obligation to expose wrong doing for the protection of others and it doesn't matter who is the one committing that sin, its still wrong.  Â

you're asking something too rational my friend, that was taken away by the gb long ago.....remember? "At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not."--- November, 2013 Watchtower

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OSBALDO PADRON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendant and Appellant. D070723 (Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00067529- CU-PO-CTL) Nonetheless, Watchtower refuses to comply with the court order and maintains the court was just wrong. In this sense, it refuses to acknowledge the authority of the court and repudiates the procedures and rules all litigants are supposed to follow in superior court. In these extreme circumstances, we conclude the superior court was authorized to issue the monetary sanctions below. Also, we see nothing in the Civil Discovery Act that expressly prohibits the superior court from imposing monetary sanctions like the ones issued here. Indeed, we find Watchtower's conduct so egregious that if it continues to defy the March 25, 2016 order, terminating sanctions appear to be warranted and necessary. It is clear that those responses, at least in part, were in consideration of future litigation and liability that could arise from the placement of known child molesters in positions of leadership and authority within the Jehovah's Witnesses organization. Here, Watchtower has abused the discovery process. It has zealously advocated its position and lost multiple times. Yet, it cavalierly refuses to acknowledge the consequences of these losses and the validity of the court's orders requiring it to produce documents in response to request number 12. And, in a further act of defiance, Watchtower informed the court that it would not comply with the March 25, 2016 order requiring it to produce documents responsive to request number 12. The court, following Lopez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th 566, as an incremental step toward terminating sanctions if Watchtower persists in its unjustified conduct, imposed monetary sanctions. On the record before us, we are satisfied that the superior court's order was not arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. To the contrary, the superior court has shown great patience and flexibility in dealing with a recalcitrant litigant who refuses to follow valid orders and merely reiterates losing arguments. We therefore affirm. DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. Padron is awarded his costs of appeal.

 Beth Sarim? That's why.  Hey it worked once, lets try that again but this time make it big enough for all of us. Â

Why oh why do jws allow these men to dictate their lives like this? Can't they make up their own minds on things? Or would that allow too much freedom?

I have a hard time with most of this because it assumes things about the 144k that just isn't in the Bible.

S-331-E Us 4/17 INSTRUCTIONS FOR CIRCUIT ACCOUNTING 19.Assembly Surplus/(Deficit):..."However, if there are insufficient funds in the account to pay expenses for the last assembly or to meet the circuit account’s target balance, the circuit overseer may direct that congregations be advised of the privilege to contribute" Did any of you forget your privilege?

No, that was the question I posed to you. Based on your writing here, we are in agreement. The Spirit of God IS the Spirit of Jesus and any mention of a person having the Spirit within themselves, have the Spirit of God in them. Expanding on this a little, it is the belief of the wt that only those who are anointed have this Spirit, then the wt has declared that the rest (earthly hope in their view) DO NOT BELONG TO JESUS as they do not have the Spirit of Jesus within them. If read within context and of what we are talking about in Romans 8, Jesus DID NOT come to save them (Matt 1:21 on context with Romans 8:9) according to wt. This is a leap and assumption not found in scripture. NO WHERE is there a limitation on who belongs to the New Jerusalem. There is no reference to 144k outside of Revelation, and certainly no reference to a spiritual Israel. This was all invented by the wt/gb about 144k. If one is to take this number literally, then why is it not taken literally where they come from? Or who makes up this group? Male Jewish virgins would be the answer. To take only part of the scripture and apply it and not the rest is man creating what man wants to see, not what God has declared. agreed I disagree, there is no replacement of Israel or else there would not be anymore mention of Jews and their place in God's plan (Revelation 2:9, 3:9, 7:4-8). In fact your use of Romans 11:25 says there was a temporary hardening of the hearts of Israel, so that the gentiles could come in. Into what? Israel. Then all of Israel will be saved. The Gentiles are Jews by means of the Spirit as you rightly pointed out in Romans 2:28&29. Israel is not going away or being replaced, but rather being added to. yes, I agree. I feel that the "marriage" is not Christ's appearing, but our acceptance of Jesus as our Lord and Savior. you are going to have to demonstrate with scripture how you tie 144k and the "Bride". Its just not there, and what I see the "Bride" is amounts to much more than a limited number (Galatians 4). agreed again, please connect 144k. All of your explanation falls apart for me without direct correlation of 144k and the "Bride". yes, I do. However, no limitations can be set upon God's temple, and those who make up that temple, that God Himself does not limit and scripture does not tell us the number of those who make up the temple of God. Thus God has not told us the limits, it is only by man that those limitations exist. great discussion, Thank you and I look forward to the next part.

who is this "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket or are you and Gnosis one and the same person? If any sane person were to read this thread they would see clearly that I have admitted that there may have been one or two persons who announced themselves, however the evidence shows that it is not customary for a king to do so. You are desperately grasping at straws. I can see you need some clarification on what you seem to think is your ace in the hole. Who was Jesus speaking to here in this scripture? oh yeah, one single person, a Samaritan woman. When was the last time you heard someone announce themselves with a freaking trumpet to your face when it was just you two? oh yeah, never! now is when I call into question your reading comprehension. Lets break this down a little and maybe you will see the error: "And this is the message we have heard from Him" ok, so the apostles heard something. "and announce to you:" Take that "we in the first part and you get who announced the message.....the apostles announced. Last I checked the apostles were NOT the king. You have, right here, answered and confirmed my position. It is NOT THE KING who announced anything, but rather the ambassadors/servants/subjects/slaves etc. THE KING DID NOT. Why should anyone "believe" a person who does not have reading comprehension skills necessary to discuss common sense topics? I'm finished discussing this with you, unless you come back with something coherent to this discussion.

I agree with all you said here, with one small exception. You mentioned "only one spirit", while I agree, I wonder what you believe about the Spirit of Jesus found in Romans 8:9&10, as I do not think we are on the same page about this. Is this Spirit of Jesus the same spirit you believe is in the other scriptures you quoted? Here in Romans 8, scripture clearly states that if you do not have the Spirit of Jesus within you, you do not belong to Him (Jesus). Where in scripture do we see any limitation? please provide scriptural support. Where is there a mention of a Spiritual Israel in the Bible? A replacement if you will. I see no spiritual Jerusalem, only earthly and heavenly. I agree that the new covenant is under the free woman and that it IS separate from the first covenant, but I see nothing that excludes those of the first covenant from salvation. Temple/New Jerusalem/ Bride, yes I agree they are all the same and Galatians tell us that those in this group will outnumber those of the first group. Galatians 4:27 which is a quote from Isaiah 54 says they will outnumber, so there cannot be a limitation to only 144,000 because there are far more than that in the first group. You see, this is where we must understand each other and support our belief with scripture before we can dig deeper. There is a bias within some interpretations that some have just accepted without question, and if we do not use scripture to straighten these things out, we will never get past what we have been told. Like the Bereans, we must examine what we are told against scripture to see if what we are being told is true.

So you reject the Biblical support I have given you so that you can continue to argue that a king announces himself. Like I said, sure there may have been one or two who have announced themselves, but like anything else there are exceptions to the standard. But you hold fast to the notion just because I do not agree with you. ok, you're right....sheesh. Shall I post this three times so that I one up your double posts for emphasis? lol

You just said it again, "after a conquest". I think you are confusing the point about where a King announces his victory and a king that announces his entrance. I'm not sure about your angle, maybe you want to find some obscure person in history who was a king and announced himself. So be it, there may be one, but the overall consensus is that a king, a true king, does not announce his entrance. That is why he has subjects running ahead of him preparing the way. Now lets get back to the topic, like you said. Who was the forerunner to Jesus the first time? Wasn't it John the baptist? Wasn't he the one to make the path straight? Was Jesus the King then? I would say yes He was, but there were somethings that needed to be put into place (fulfilled) prior to letting the world know He was the King. Think about this also, did Jesus announce to the world at or before His crucifixion that He was in fact the King of the Jews? Nope, He told Pilate and Pilate made that declaration to the people. So I say again, a King does not announce himself and as the historical accounts in the Bible reveal, Jesus did not announce Himself in a fashion of glorious entrance as king, he left that up to others. So the claim that Jesus is Michael is looking more and more unlikely by means of Biblical reference.  Â

You just wrote "after a conquest" that, to me, does not indicate an arrival but rather a war cry after the victory. from your own source: Darius the King says: This which has been done, all that by the will of Ahuramazda I did. Ahuramazda bore me aid, until I did the work. May Ahuramazda protect me from harm, and my royal house, and this land: this I pray of Ahuramazda, this may Ahuramazda give to me! Notice here all of the past tense used in his boasting. Nothing indicates he proclaimed himself upon arrival of anything. context, context, context my friend.

yes it has. I cannot be angry at other's opinions, everyone is different. The part where I get what you call "angry" is when the conversations turn into personal attacks with no basis other than a difference of view. I will read this, but I cannot accept that it is YOUR opinion. It is the opinion of the wt, while you may agree it still is not put forth in your words and vision. I omitted the actual parts of scripture to keep the thread from becoming too long. We can read the fullness above in previous posts. I'm not quite sure were it is derived that Sarah is God's wife. I'd like if you could expand on that if you can. If we take the scripture you gave (and I did too) Galatians 4:26, it says that she represents "Jerusalem from above" and compare that with Revelation 21. We see that Sarah/Jerusalem from above is the Bride of Christ/wife of the Lamb. Revelation 21: 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, I feel this clearly tells us that Sarah represents those who make up the Bride of Christ. These that are of Sarah/Jerusalem from above will outnumber those of the first covenant (Israel). I agree to a point. We can go deeper later. The reason why I say this is because the way I read this and the way you read this is totally different even though the words are the same. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I think you see this statement as having a limitation to who are joint heirs. I just don't see it that way, but we can discuss that later once we wrap our minds around "Jerusalem from above". I agree on the first century Jews being represented by Ishmael and the covenant. I do not agree that God has cast Israel aside and replaced the Jews. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 speak of those who slander the Jews or claim to be Jews and are not. This contrast alone should prove that God still has a plan for the Jews. If God condemns those who claim to be Jews but are not, then there has to be some value to being a Jew at that point in time (future as revelation is future). Angels do not reproduce and thus the term "barren" wouldn't really apply. Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. we see here that angels are not given in marriage, and marriage is for the populating of the Earth as God said in Genesis. This continues to explain why the rest of your statement needs more clarification, but we will get to that later. I don't think we are at this point yet, but I am looking forward to this when we get there. Again, we must first understand each others opinion on "Jerusalem from above" before we can dive in to the other parts. That doesn't mean we have to agree, but understand; supported by scripture. Otherwise we are playing a game of ping pong, bouncing from this topic to that topic.

I believe that his name means "God his help" or "his help is God" yes, I agree. It is a reference to Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and the covenant established So with that being said, we are left with the other covenant mentioned in Galatians 4. Of that group : 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.” This 2nd covenant group will outnumber those of the 1st covenant and will be of the Jerusalem above, which comes down from Heaven and resides upon the Earth (Revelation 21:10) Do you agree with this?

you are right, Abraham was referring to the only one born in his household. That was Eliezar, but God told Abraham that his heir would be from his own body (verse 4). So it was Sarah who plotted to have offspring through Hagar to help fulfill what God had promised. This child would be from Abraham's own body, but God had a different plan. It was to be through Sarah (the barren woman) and not through Hagar (the bondwoman), as Galatians 4 ties directly with the Genesis account.

It is truly sad when one cannot express their belief, but rather can only try and attach negativity to anyone who opposes a view that has been given to them. You seem to disagree, but can't quite get the thought out as to why. My only conclusion, since you cannot elaborate, is that you don't know why other than "because we (the gb) said so"

I understand Gnosis Pithos, that you disagree with what I wrote by your downvote, it doesn't matter about votes to me. What I would like from you though, is a discussion as to why you disagree. Please include scripture for support of your position.