Shiwiii

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I agree that even if the 1914 doctrine, is wrong, or unnecessary, it need not cause "much harm," assuming that we continue to highlight several of the counterbalancing ideas.

I'm sure that we've dealt with this before recently, but I just don't understand how a central doctrine of the jw faith cannot cause serious concern when it is inconsistent with the Bible. I see people within the org notice it and brush it aside as something minor. How this is acceptable is mind boggling when it is one of the doctrines that establishes the foundation of the belief. 

Excellent point and great scriptures to support! 

I think it is unnatural for a parent or child or sibling to ignore their family member. Who is the closest to us? Who has know our tendencies from birth/childhood? When the family moved across country, who was there? Family. Family is part of what makes a community, but a community starts with a family. To treat family members lower than strangers is wrong, it is not loving, it is not encouraging nor is it up building. This practice is only meant to control

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I was not referring to Micaiah, I was referring to 400 other prophets.

Those were not prophets of God. They were probably a replacement group of priests when the tribes split, AND Jehoshaphat did not trust them or he would not have summoned Micaiah. If he did not trust them, there was a reason and most likely it was because they only gave lip service and nothing of substance. 

45 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

And also Nathan the profet.

(2 Samuel 7:1-3) "When the king was settled in his own house and Jehovah had given him rest from all his surrounding enemies, the king said to Nathan the prophet: “Here I am living in a house of cedars while the Ark of the true God sits in the midst of tent cloths.” Nathan replied to the king: “Go and do whatever is in your heart, for Jehovah is with you"

Nathan the prophet made an error. He spoke without direct instructions from God! His counsel was unauthorized. 

Did David stop trusting him? 

So you agree then that Nathan was not speaking for God, then he could not be considered speaking false prophesy. Nathan was also a adviser to King David in addition to being a prophet of God. When Nathan spoke, he did not claim it was from God. Nathan was right when he said that God was with David, but he did not say that it was God who spoke to him to tell David to build. 

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

We have several examples where prophets of God prophesied something that did not come true:

(1 Kings 22:5-8) 5 But Je·hoshʹa·phat said to the king of Israel: “First inquire, please, for the word of Jehovah.” 6 So the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about 400 men, and said to them: “Should I go to war against Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad, or should I refrain?” They said: “Go up, and Jehovah will give it into the king’s hand.” 7 Je·hoshʹa·phat then said: “Is there not here a prophet of Jehovah? Let us also inquire through him.” 8 At that the king of Israel said to Je·hoshʹa·phat: “There is still one more man through whom we can inquire of Jehovah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good things concerning me, only bad. He is Mi·caiʹah the son of Imʹlah.” However, Je·hoshʹa·phat said: “The king should not say such a thing.”

We also have Jonah, for example. But I was referring especially to prophets who spoke in the name of Jehovah but may not have been true prophets. Perhaps they thought they were, and they were disappointing to themselves, too.

 

13 And the messenger who went to summon Micaiah said to him, “Behold, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king. Let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably.” 14 But Micaiah said, “As the Lord lives, what the Lord says to me, that I will speak.” 15 And when he had come to the king, the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?” And he answered him, “Go up and triumph; the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.” 16 But the king said to him, “How many times shall I make you swear that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?”

17 And he said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the Lord said, ‘These have no master; let each return to his home in peace.’” 18 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?” 19 And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; 20 and the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you.”

24 Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, “How did the Spirit of the Lord go from me to speak to you?” 25 And Micaiah said, “Behold, you shall see on that day when you go into an inner chamber to hide yourself.” 26 And the king of Israel said, “Seize Micaiah, and take him back to Amon the governor of the city and to Joash the king's son, 27 and say, ‘Thus says the king, “Put this fellow in prison and feed him meager rations of bread and water, until I come in peace.”’” 28 And Micaiah said, “If you return in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me.” And he said, “Hear, all you peoples!”

37 So the king died, and was brought to Samaria. And they buried the king in Samaria. 

Did not Micaiah predict defeat? Did this not happen once the King fell? I think you are focusing on the beginning of the prophesy and not the full prophesy, check verse 17. 

I agree that there were some who thought they were of God but were not, as seen by their fruits or lack thereof. Scripture tells us directly what is to become of false prophets. Deut 18:20-22.

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, the verse in 2 Peter (and also the verse in Ezekiel 12) is not about fact that something might be fulfilled in a far off time, but about the ridicule.

yes, about the ridicule. 

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Now it makes sense, that Israel had seen so many prophets and visionaries declare things that didn't come true so often that it had become like the fable of "the boy who cried wolf." (Also, btw, I found this verse to be much more readily understandable in the new rNWT.) @ComfortMyPeople reminded me of this verse when he spoke about how we have plenty of precedent for handling error. We need not be discouraged overmuch, as if this is something that should never be expected to happen.

Which prophets of God prophesied something that did not come true? 

I need more clarification as to how you tie this to false teachings and false doctrine. Are you saying that false teachings were accepted because there are those written about in the Bible who ridiculed prophesies and then they did come true? If this is the case, please provide examples where the false teachings because true at some point (which wouldn't make them false teachings).  

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I added the next verse because it provides another interesting point that the person is not going to leave Jehovah just because of a perceived delay, but also he is not longing for the day of disaster. Perhaps it refers to the right attitude toward God's judgments.

I agree, they did not stray from God because of a delay, they did so because the delay got them restless and thus created their own false teachings to appease the people. Golden calf?

Just now, ComfortMyPeople said:

I don't consider the "damage" for the 1914 teaching at the same level that the hell of fire teaching. Do you believe God torture bad persons in the hell? One of the outcomes from the 1914 teaching is "the sense of urgency". Not bad after all.

And what do you think about this "false teaching"?

• (James 5:8) "You too exercise patience; make your hearts firm, because the presence of the Lord has drawn close."

Obviously, it isn't a "false prophecy". But in no way the brothers find reliefe from their pains. All died. Do you argue against James?

 

What is false is false. The degree in which we place a value of one false teaching over another is from man, and when the value outweighs the need to discard, then it ventures into hypocrisy. 

I'm not following your path on James. Here in James, the Bible is telling us to be patient about the coming of the Lord Jesus. Like the farmer who waits for his crops. Further in verse 12, we are told to be clear and make our "yes" mean yes and our "no" mean no, so that we may not fall under judgement. So a confusing or false doctrine/teaching is not making our "yes" be yes or our "no" be no. 

41 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Yes, Shiwiii, perhaps is as false as this false teaching:

• (Galatians 2:11-13) “However, when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense”

How is this false teaching instead of false action? I see no reference to an actual teaching, but rather a reference to hypocrisy. 

42 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Now, what if I openly declare the 1914 is a false teaching! I believe there is in the God’s word principles to guide my behavior:

• (1 Corinthians 15:12) “Now if it is being preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how is it that some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” In this way, the Bible discourages spread different teachings between brothers.

Could this not be used for the teachings you referred to as being false? I mean using this as your reason, then you would have to refrain from spreading what you admittedly say is a false teaching.

46 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Of course, you’re saying: “it isn’t the same 1914 that the resurrection” … and you’re right.

But the Bible obliges me to refrain, to abstain to exercise some rights to benefit others: not eat meat or not make secular work on sabbath to protect the conscience of others.

• (Romans 14:5-12) "One man judges one day as above another; …The one who observes the day observes it to Jehovah… the one who does not eat does not eat to Jehovah, … Not one of us, in fact, lives with regard to himself only… But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you also look down on your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. … So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God."

 Yes, the Bible does, but that doesn't excuse you from the claim of what you think is false by others. You're pointing out what you believe is false in another group, while conjuring up an excuse for your own groups false teachings. That is the definition of hypocrisy and is demonstrated exactly by your quote from Gal 2:11-14.

50 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Even Jesus Crist follow a “false teaching” to avoid stumble others:

• (Matthew 17:27) “But that we do not cause them to stumble, go to the sea, cast a fishhook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth, you will find a silver coin. Take that and give it to them for me and you.”

I disagree completely!!!! Jesus did not follow false teaching. A good reference for this is the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). Jesus wasn't following false teaching, but rather forcing those who teach it to put up or shut up, and it wasn't about the teaching being false but the hypocrisy involved. 

55 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

So, my attitude is not stumble others. And regarding the person on charge of teaching to the worldwide brotherhood, well, I’ve quoted before:

• “each of us will render an account for himself to God”

I agree we each will be accountable to God, but it is also ours to help others. 

9 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

To meditate in this example has helped to me to wait and fight. TO FIGHT against the outer enemy: the false religions and their false teachings: hell fire, trinity and so. I don’t meant fighting holding a banner in our conventions and shouting “the 1914 teaching is untruth”.

As I consider the Congregation has a Leader more wise and powerful than me, I WAIT he will fix any situation he considers worth of change when he considers the proper moment.

So with this statement, do you recognize the doctrines discussed here as being false teaching?  JWInsider has given ample proof to show that the doctrine of 1914, and the supporting evidence for such a doctrine, is in fact at odds with the Bible. 

55 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Witnesses believe this even if most of us don't say it out loud because we know that even the Watch Tower Society under Russell and Rutherford and Knorr and Franz had hundreds of doctrines wrong, but we don't judge them as having been judged harshly by Jehovah.

We both know of the changes in doctrine that the wt has made through out the years, so we don't need to rehash those but rather reflect on the attitude and demand for conformity at those times. Here is where I see this as a problem, and maybe other's will not, the requirement to obey the gb or whomever was in charge at the time of said changes in doctrine. what comes to mind here is the exact scripture that bruceq quoted:

23 hours ago, bruceq said:

"If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome  instruction,  which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion,  ⁴  he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything.  He is obsessed  with arguments and debates about words.  These things give rise to envy, strife, slander,  wicked suspicions, ⁵  constant disputes about minor matters by men who are corrupted in mind  and deprived of the truth." 1 Tim 6:3-5.

So you have admitted that the wt has changed doctrine, but you do not judge them or see them as been judged, but here in 1 Tim we see that the word of God has spoken about such matters in the context of what we are talking about. What I do not grasp is how anyone can align themselves to a group or group of men who's foundation is based upon incorrect teachings of doctrine. Its like saying that the Baha’i faith, if they are good people then the foundation of their beliefs will come around. Is Mormons are just good people, then after a while their doctrines will just fall into place? Catholics too? See my point.

56 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But we know that Jehovah considers only two teachings to be of the highest priority: love of God and love of neighbor. He is not concerned with specific works, or works at all. Jehovah is concerned with our motivation, and if our motivation is love of God and love of neighbor, then proper "works" will follow naturally. 

I agree to an extent here, yes these are qualities in which God has instructed us to be. It should be second nature within our character as we serve Him through serving others. 

59 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So the "word" is near to us. If we listen closely with a desire to know God better, we will hear it being preached, we will find Bibles and books that comment on the Bible. Our desire to know God better will ultimately lead to an attraction to the teachings that make the most sense overall, those that let us know what God's will is, those that let us know the "mind of Christ."

yes, I agree.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I believe that, as Christians, it's our responsibility to question all things, but doctrines need not be the highest priority to Christians. They can't be ignored, but Christians should be more conscientiously concerned with moral standards, serving the needs of others and showing love for God and neighbor and allowing those priorities to motivate all of their life and conduct. Doctrines will find their place as time permits.

I'm sorry but I just cannot accept this part of your post in all honesty. In an essence you're saying "just go along and be a good person, nevermind if the foundation of your beliefs are all outta whack, it'll work itself out." 

The doctrines of a belief is the foundations of that said belief. You even eluded to this in a different post. 

1 minute ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Who on earth is this?

The collective JW's posting their view on the overlapping generation doctrine here.  

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I know for a fact, and from personal experience, that it is quite possible to hold differing views from many other Witnesses and continue to have privileges and NOT be disfellowshipped. Among certain bodies of elders one can even make a private request not to be given certain subject matter as assignments and, as long as this never interferes with congregation activities as a whole, this need not be a problem. But I also know that there are some elders and circuit overseers who are quick to create an ultimatum that might lead to disciplinary action. It's ironic that some of the most judgmental of these persons themselves also hold views that differ from the Society's view. (I saw this especially when I worked for Brother Schroeder.)

I thought that all witnesses learn and believe the same thing and that this is a defining factor to prove that the wt is the truth? So you are saying that there IS division among jw's? 

24 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Seems to indicate you understand the meaning of "generation" as per the wt/gb.

I actually think I do, but because it is not consistent with anyone or anything else in the known world as far as "generation" is defined it requires a convoluted explanation that defies logic and reasoning. Thus the reason why no one can give a satisfactory answer to the question in which the collective group can agree and believe. 

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I don't think it is?

It has to be, or this thread wouldn't be here. I have yet to see an explanation from the group here that is collectively the same and conveys the meaning of "generation" as per the wt/gb.

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Remember that the congregations themselves were responsible for rooting out error. There was no hint in the Bible that they were to wait upon a central body to root it out for them.

If that was the practice then, which I agree it was, then why is it required now? 

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Something goes rather subtly off track in all these "generation" discussions for me. It really makes absolutely no difference to the reality of the situation whatever any of us think about the way the final "generation" before Armageddon is structured.

Oh I agree it really makes no difference! My only question/problem is that the adherence is required to keep up with the gb. Why? 

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Really, the only way we are going to know if our current view of an overlapping group of people, connected by their shared experience and destiny, are indeed the "generation" Jesus was referring to, is to be there when the "great tribulation" starts, and by Jehovah's underserved kindness, to be there when the final post Armageddon dust settles. Isn't that the important element of this?

 exactly.  So why is a doctrine that is overlapping, changed from previous thought, hard to explain, required by the wt/gb of its members? 

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Above, I also quoted a WT QFR that mentioned overlapping generations from the Sept. 1, 1952 WT, and it showed why overlapping generations do not effect the length of the generation Jesus spoke about.

Isn't this exactly what the current teaching is today? I mean, isn't it the assumption that it DOES alter the length of a generation according to the wt? 

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Note that it isn't by believing in a potential 'two-lifespan' generation that we are keeping up with advancing light and the leadings of holy spirit, but only explcitly by maintaining a sense of urgency, and keeping on the watch. As Christians we would do this with or without the two-lifespan generation, based on other scriptures, for example:

While I understand your position, I find it interesting that the dismissal of the length of generation concept to accept something that we already know, is perplexing. To further clarify what I mean, how long have we already known to keep watch? Since the NT was written, yes? So that is information we were given far before there was a thought of an overlapping generation, and now it is being used in the wt pubs to give people an easy answer to side step the actual point being raised by the wt,  that a generation according to the wt  is completely different from the  perspective of anyone else, to include the Bible itself. 

Peter, it sounds as though you have the facts. Can you share those facts? While I think you are correct, I would like to know myself. This topic instantly brings me to Corporate America and the policy that if you want to remain, you will do and act as "we" say. Corporate America cares not if you believe in the direction or concept of the corporation, just that you obey and conform. That is a hard pill for some to swallow because it shows that the corporation doesn't care about the individual, only the bottom line. Also, in the corporate world there are instances where the policy is not intended to protect anything but the corporation and each employee knows that it is wrong, but what can they do if they are being paid handsomely? 

37 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He needn't worry. I nudged him over the edge.

If someone would pay for advertising tattoos, I would get several. It is an area in which I would be able to beat out the kids, since older people tend to aggregate more space over time.

I did too. 

lol

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

PS. Could you like my comment please. I've just noticed my reputation figure stands at 666 and I don't like liking my own posts!!

lol, superstitious much?

On 6/17/2017 at 3:35 PM, Melinda Mills said:

Make your own decision based on your faith and what you know about the God YOU serve.

YES!

I love this answer, not because I have tattoo's ( I don't) but because when it boils down to it EVERYTHING you do or do not do is between you and God. Each should make up his/her own mind on the things they choose in life and not let "man" decide for you. 

20 hours ago, The Librarian said:

 The Bible makes it clear that if a holiday or custom is being deliberately participated in by a Christian, it must have absolutely no known pagan religion associations. (Exodus 20:3; Luke 4:8; 2 Cor. 6:17)

The Bible does not speak of any such thing in these supporting verses and stating that "the Bible makes it clear" is misleading and in error.

Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Who is claiming that their earthly father is a god? No one I have ever met thinks this way nor celebrates their father like he is a god. 

Luke 4:8 "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

I have never heard of, or seen for that matter, anyone worshiping their earthly father. Worship is not even associated with father's day. 

2 Cor. 6:17 "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."

Context shows that this verse has nothing to do with earthly fathers, but rather those who practice the things that God does not approve. Since celebrating father's day has NOT been established by these supporting scriptures, then it is only an assumption created by men who govern peoples lives and not a biblical command. Thus there is NO sound reason from the Bible to forbid people to celebrate and be thankful for the great fathers out there who guide and protect their children. 

2 hours ago, HollyW said:

The winning side, of course.  During WWI whose side did your church pray for?

"In accordance with the resolution of Congress of April 2nd, and with the proclamation of the president of the United States of May 11, it is suggested that the Lord's people everywhere make May 30th a day of prayer and supplication. ... As says the spirit through the Apostle Paul: "I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." (I Timothy 2:1-3) Let there be praise and thanks-giving to God for the promised glorious outcome of the war, the breaking of the shackles of autocracy, the freeing of the captives (Isaiah 61:1) and the making of the world safe for the common people--blessings all assured by the Word of God to the people of this country and of the whole world of mankind." Watchtower 1918 Jun 1 p.174

So I have a question HollyW, does this quote from the watchtower reveal that the watchtower itself aligned with the US during the war? I thought they had nothing to do with war? Can anyone else reconcile this? I mean the expression below indicates that they did and approved of the outcome based upon their understanding of the Bible and God:

"Let there be praise and thanks-giving to God for the promised glorious outcome of the war, the breaking of the shackles of autocracy, the freeing of the captives (Isaiah 61:1) and the making of the world safe for the common people--blessings all assured by the Word of God to the people of this country and of the whole world of mankind."

2 hours ago, bruceq said:

 

 Which side was the Trinity on if the followers of the Trinity were on BOTH the losing and winning side LOL

 

Which side was YOUR God on? We see in the quote from HollyW that they supported the US in the war, but there is also a letter written to Hitler aligning themselves with him?