1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

You just answered your own criteria, and what the agenda is, by opposers and apostates, of ONLY wanting to single out a certain religion, vigorously!!!!

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. 

15 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

So, that rhetoric of priest and elders, falls short, under your own criteria, and ideology!!!!!!!

The Watchtower has NEVER stated, once you become a Witness, your life would revert to a sinless state.

Let's keep it” real!!!!! 

 

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.   

36 minutes ago, Witness said:

@Gnosis Pithos, 

I must ask you, if I posted just one scripture, or one quote from the Watchtower and nothing else, would you give it a down vote, simply because I posted it?  

You are basically down voting words of your own organization.  Is that your intention?

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.

On 11/2/2017 at 6:01 AM, Matthew9969 said:

Why does Jehovah require the faithful and discreet slave to build a very expensive and grandiose luxury compound when the end of the world is imminent and how can the faithful and discreet slave justify the cost when they are not receiving as much money as they are spending?

 

Beth Sarim? That's why.

 

Hey it worked once, lets try that again but this time make it big enough for all of us. 

 

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So it is really difficult for GB to make up their mind and chose what is the best solution for male JW members

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? 

2 hours ago, Witness said:

From Rom 8:9 you feel that because the “Spirit of God” and the “Spirit of Christ” are both mentioned, that this indicates two different spirits, am I right?

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.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

These are prophetic words referring to the God’s Temple built on the Body of Christ.  The “capstone” is the last remnant of the 144,000 anointed priesthood to complete Mt. Zion, and who make it through the Great Tribulation.

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. 

2 hours ago, Witness said:

God’s city was the literal Jerusualem, the Temple was the dwelling of God’s spirit. While the anointed are on earth, their “mother” or promise from God is “Jerusalem above”. Gal 4:26 When the faithful ones are sealed into the “heavens”, they become part of the Holy City, because they are symbolically, spiritually, “living stones” of the Temple of God.  1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:20-22; Rev 3:12

agreed

2 hours ago, Witness said:

And they are spiritual “Israel”.  The early temple arrangement was a “copy and shadow of the heavenly one”. Only the priesthood among the Israelite nations were chosen to serve in the Temple.  No longer does one’s fleshy nationality matter.  Israel becomes a spiritual nationality under a “promise”.  Heb 8:5; Rom 9:6-9; 11:25,26; 2:28,29; 1 Pet 2:9,10; Jer 31:33; Rev 7:4

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. 

2 hours ago, Witness said:

We’ve talked about this, but again, this living Temple, which is the Bride of Christ, will have its presence on earth and in heaven.  Rev 5:9,10; 21:2 Through the Holy Priesthood and Christ, God’s spirit will dwell with mankind.  Rev 21:3,4

yes, I agree.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

God had a covenant with the earthly nation of Israel, comparing it to “marriage”, which was fulfilled by Christ’s appearance on earth.  Under that marriage “contract” life was restored to earthly creation – Christ was the “second Adam”.  Isa 62:4

I feel that the "marriage" is not Christ's appearing, but our acceptance of Jesus as our Lord and Savior. 

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Under the fulfilled promised New Covenant, further life will come through Christ in his role as “father” and the 144,000 Bride. Isa 9:6 The “woman” in Revelation gives “birth” to this promise of further life by those anointed ones “laboring” individually to fulfill the promise.  But once fulfilled, no labor is experienced when the rest of God’s children are brought into the Kingdom. 

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). 

2 hours ago, Witness said:

She can be considered a “desolate” woman/promise in the time of the end because of Satan’s intent on devouring her, captivating the anointed ones with the delusion of 2 Thess 2:9-12  She is consumed by lies, affliction and oppression; thus, only a remnant returns to God and is saved.

agreed

2 hours ago, Witness said:

But even through the lifetime of each anointed one, they “labor” to resist Satan’s afflictions that come upon them.1 Pet 5:8,9  When the “capstone” is in place and Satan is destroyed, the fulfilled “woman”/promise is a reality, bringing forth children without labor. The 144,000/Bride are the materialization, the evidence of that promise.

again, please connect 144k. All of your explanation falls apart for me without direct correlation of 144k and the "Bride". 

2 hours ago, Witness said:

In Isa 54:11-13 you can see the reference to God’s Temple of “living stones”, with the foundation built on the apostles and prophets within the Body of Christ.  Rev 21:10-14; Eph 2:20

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. 

17 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Gee Whiz! Good sir, are we referring to your denial on the mistake you initially made and refused to acknowledge it, the first time? In ancient time, anyone with “authority” would announce themselves to signal their superiority?

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. 

17 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Or is it, the “fact” that even Jesus “announced” himself to a Samaritan woman, on who he really was in John 4:26.

26Jesus answered, “I who speak to you am He.”

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! 

17 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

That was also the message from the apostles.

1 John 1:5

5And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you: God is light, and in Him, there is no darkness at all.

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.

17 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Were the apostles, not ambassadors of Christ? by Jesus commission and God anointing them with the holy spirit?

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. 

17 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Now ask yourself? Why should anyone “believe” a person that can’t even accept the error of the Pharisees? As for your “LOL”, I think you just proved the point for me.

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. 

12 hours ago, Witness said:

Here is what I wrote in my first response:

There is only one spirit that gives life from God and Christ (John 6:63); only one spirit that brings us to truth, (1 Cor 2:12) but the way we receive Holy spirit can differ, but it always reaches the heart.   In the anointed ones, the Holy Spirit from God dwells within them.  1 Cor 6:19; John 14:17; Matt 10:20; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 3:16

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). 

12 hours ago, Witness said:

The priesthood has limited number that God will determine, yet, why would he limit those children that are “born” when the New Covenant is fulfilled?

Where in scripture do we see any limitation? please provide scriptural support.

12 hours ago, Witness said:

When Jesus died, the New Covenant was established.  It became a symbolic promise of life with Jesus being the first recipient. 1 Cor 15:20,23  Spiritual “Israel” (“Sarah of God”), spiritual “Jerusalem”  - the anointed ones, are now under a covenant/promise with God , the New Covenant. Rom 2:29; 1Pet 3:6; Gal 3:29; 6:15,16; Heb 11:10,13,16; Rev 21:2 This covenant is under the “free woman”, (free from the written law), and through the symbolic “Isaac” – Christ.  Rom 1:6; 8:2; 8:17; 11:18; 12:23;  1 Cor 15:45; Gal 3:14

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. 

12 hours ago, Witness said:

This occurs when the “woman”/ “New Covenant” is fulfilled by the full number of faithful priests/Temple/”New Jerusalem”/Bride (they are all the same), when they are sealed. We know the purpose of this promise is to bring forth seed, which is the “144,000”/Bride, completing the heavenly Temple. Zech 4:7 Christ began the Temple as the cornerstone, with the apostles and prophets comprising the foundation.  Each anointed one is a “living stone”; if faithful and obedient, they are added/sealed into the Temple forever.   That is the first step toward the fulfillment of the next “promise”, God’s Kingdom and the rest of Abraham’s offspring.  Can you see how the union of the Bride (Sarah) with Christ brings forth more children – without the pain and suffering that the 144,000 had to endure in order to be sanctified?  Rev 12:2

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.

16 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Conquest, or on the thrown, like any Roman Emperor can announce, indoors or outdoors, I am the mighty, Caesar!!!

No, angle, just proving how wrong your point was!

 

 

But, since you can't accept when you're wrong? no further discussion needed.

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

19 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Now! Now let’s not try to justify an “error” that was made. Conquest, or on the thrown, like any Roman Emperor, can announce themselves, indoors or outdoors, I am the mighty, Caesar!!! to the people, or to the Senate.

The context is there, and so, is your refusal to acknowledge it. So, your “presumption” of “What King announces himself” can simply be stipulated on the battlefield, after a conquest (Battlefield), or to an audience, Sorry! Better luck next time.

So, context! Context! In the correct frame of mind, next time. History speaks for itself!

 

Now, let's get this bird, back on track, without diversions, the question is 

 

Jesus and Michael

without deviations!!!!

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. 

 

 

1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

How, does your "lack" of history answer the question raised?

I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.

 

 

Many ancient Kings announced, boasted, and exalted themselves, even to be glorified as Gods, after a conquest. I am Darius!!!!!

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/dna/?

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. 

12 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

It's been nice getting along like this.

But now I hope you will not be too angry at a few differences.

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. 

13 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

And another thing is that I have to leave pretty soon so am just pretty much pasting my answer from you -know-where. 

But I do think ithis makes sense.

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. 

13 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

- Sarah pictures God’s heavenly “wife,” his organization of spirit beings. That heavenly organization is aptly described as Jehovah’s wife, for she is intimately associated with Jehovah, is subservient to his headship, and is fully cooperative in fulfilling his purposes. She is also called “Jerusalem above.”

(Galatians 4:26) But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 

 

-The same “woman” is mentioned at Genesis 3:15, And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.”and she is depicted in vision at-

(Revelation 12:1-6)...

(Revelation 12:13-17) ...

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). 

13 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

- Isaac typifies the spiritual Seed of God’s woman. Primarily, this is Jesus Christ. However, the seed also came to include Christ’s anointed brothers, who are adopted as spiritual sons and become joint heirs with Christ.

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".

13 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

- Ishmael, Hagar’s son, pictures the first-century Jews, the sons of Jerusalem still enslaved to the Mosaic Law. As Ishmael persecuted Isaac, so those Jews persecuted the Christians, who were anointed sons of the figurative Sarah, the “Jerusalem above.” And just as Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away, Jehovah ultimately cast off Jerusalem and her rebellious sons.

 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). 

13 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

So probably the main differences, "Sarah/Jerusalem above is our mother"  .God's loyal angels were 'barren' for a long time, [just like Sarah] until Jesus was baptized in 29 CE and anointed by spirit as the son of God, but since then have  become mother to  nearly 144,000, adopted as God's sons, [and daughters]  and "bought from the earth" as the bride of Christ.   Then they , presumably, and Jesus will "see" offspring as outlined in Isa 53.

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. 

13 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

 

And forJws, the heavenly Jerusalem coming down in Rev 21 is after a thousand years of Kingdom rule over the earth ,with Satan abyssed and unable to mislead, and  people resurrected,  able to learn the truth in peace ,returning to perfection during the same thousand or so years it took Adam and Eve to accumulate enough 'sin'/imperfection so that they died.  The "great crowd" in Rev 7, that have come out of the great tribulation and are" before God's throne' are actually on earth , which is "God's footstool", after all.  Compare Rev 1:4 and Rev 5:6 -and every other mention of "before the throne" in Revelation and I think you will see that it means "on earth", but a joyous earth that they will help to make into a paradise, which was God's original purpose for the earth.

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. 

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

Eliezar- his name for instance- might have some significance that I'd love to know.

I believe that his name means "God his help" or "his help is God"

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

And we probably agree that the bond, as in "bondwoman", was the Law Covenant they agreed to keep, "We and our children", and if obedient were promised to be made into "a Kingdom of priests and a holy nation".

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? 

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

THE GENESIS 15  YOU CITED,  ABRAHAM  WAS  NOT  REFERRING  TO HAGAR'S  SON,   WHO HADN'T BEEN BORN,   BUT  SERVANT  ELIEZAR,  AS THE  ONE  WHO  WOULD  BE  HIS  HEIR,  HE THOUGHT.

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. 

49 minutes ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

There's no further need to discuss what you and "witness" stand for. Scripture is quite clear and sufficient for the brethren to understand. But, thanks for the invitation!

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. 

18 hours ago, Witness said:

 Shiwiii, I am sorry for the confusion; I thought I covered it.  Can you restate the primary question?  

Its ok, Everything I proposed is in my first post in this thread. 

Did anyone get these a while back? 

 

 

I'm not sure how any of what you wrote fits with what I proposed for discussion. Its like we're both talking science, I chemical bonds and you  biology. 

48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Shiwiii delivers his coup de grace (this time for sure!) and Witness immediately high-fives him! They are both so excited!

Both are either too stupid, too deceitful, or too blinded by hate to notice

Why are you sooo bitter? You resort to personal attacks because you cannot refute the facts? The fact is, that the wt and the gb are "passing the plate", but you close your eyes and say"lalalalallalalal I can't hear you" They are modeling after those in which they denounce, but you can't accept that. 

48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Is it too harsh to say we are dealing with a couple of losers?

again, really? 

49 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

n fact, the Watchtower shows more consideration than Paul. Paul simply says 'I'm coming for it - have it ready!' without any detail as to what he will use it for. Why isn't there an account to keep him honest - as has been demanded repeatedly elsewhere?! The Watchtower simply says we can be instructed by Paul's letter - it doesn't twist the arm as he does - and, unlike Paul,  it gives the reason for monies needed: for rent and maintenance. 

The difference you fail to see here is Paul was inspired, the wt and gb are not................

49 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Even @Witness, who knows the Bible better than anyone in the whole wide world, especially the Governing Body, and who cannot pour herself a bowl of Cheerios without citing five scriptures to justify it,

again with the personal attacks

50 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Once again,we go back to the point already stated:  nobody is less intrusive about money matters than are Jehovah's Witnesses.

you've been proven wrong on this but refuse to accept it. 

You know if you take a step back and look, you'll see that your personal attacks only expose your inability to refute the facts presented to you. 

October 1, 2017
TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS IN NIGERIA
Re: Local Needs For the Week of October 16-22
Dear Brothers:
The mid-week meeting for the week of October 16-22 has a 15 minute local needs
part regarding donations that includes a video on ways to contribute electronically. During
that part, the following information should be conveyed to the congregation.
Please stress that regularity is very important when contributing. Some 20 years after
Pentecost of 33 C.E., the apostle Paul reminds the Corinth congregation about the need for a
certain contribution. “Now concerning the collection that is for the holy ones, just as I gave
orders to the congregations of Galatia, do that way also yourselves,” he writes. Then he adds
a piece of advice: “Every first day of the week let each of you at his own house set something
aside in store as he may be prospering, so that when I arrive collections will not take place
then. But when I get there, whatever men you approve of by letters, these I shall send to
carry your kind gift to Jerusalem.” The resolving of how much to give appears to have
included the whole family, whether rich or poor, because it was to take place at their “own
house.”—1 Corinthians 16:1-3.
Paul’s suggestion on the manner of contributing can be applied by congregation
members today. How? Regularity is the key. If your congregation is to pay the monthly rent
and maintenance expenses of your meeting place or Kingdom Hall, it will take “contributing,
not so much the amount, but the regularity of setting something aside each week or month for
Kingdom interests,” writes the branch office in Peru. Does this idea appeal to you? Even
children can be taught to appreciate how regularity in contributing is part of their worship.
We all regularly set aside money for school fees, food, rent and other necessities.
How much more important it is to do so for kingdom interests. Taking advantage of
whichever way is most convenient for us personally, whether electronically or by using the
contribution box in our local Kingdom Hall, regularity in contribution will help us to put true
worship first in our lives.
As we wish you Jehovah’s rich blessing on your efforts, please

Is this the head start to tithing? Seems so. More and more the wt and gb are assimilating themselves after that in which they denounce.