17 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

 

It’s good you see your own ignorant perception of what you lack in bible understanding.

Perhaps you should heed your own words! On what makes no sense! Of course, you do understand there is updated understandings of the Greek words. But, in hindsight, it’s basically the same.

 

This will be my last comment to you.

Do you not see that people are getting tired of your dribble, the constant put downs and negativity?

You bring NOTHING to the conversations you impose upon, only angst and hateful speech. You derail topics to puff yourself up, but it fails to do so, especially when your own support evidence destroy's your own position as referenced above. 

You can dismiss me and my comment however you wish, I just hope that you actually do take the time to reflect on your communication skills.

You have dragged me into your world, where I too retaliate in kind, for the last time. 

Good day

Allensmith:

G1781

ἐντέλλομαι

entellomai

en-tel'-lom-ahee

From G1722 and the base of G5056 ; to enjoin: - (give) {charge} (give) {command(-ments}) injoin.

you are presenting a strawman argument with your added commentary of what your perceived emphasis  should be. 

Also, this statement from you makes absolutely no sense: 

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

So, regardless if you approve of our doctrine in how we follow in Christ Footsteps, and God’s commands through the instructions afforded us through Christ, then your argument is meaningless.

Conditional Sentences

Conditional sentences are statements discussing known factors or hypothetical situations and their consequences. These sentences use conditional construction and verb forms, which is called the conditional mood. Complete conditional sentences contain a conditional clause and the consequence. As a refresher, a clause is a group of words with their own subject and verb. Consider the following sentence:

“If a certain condition is true, then a particular result happens.”

“I would travel around the world if I won the lottery.”

“When water reaches 100 degrees, it boils.”

The tricky part about constructing a conditional sentence is it involves many factors both in its form and meaning. Since there are various factors involved when writing conditional sentences, the rules can be explained in different ways. The properties of the entire conditional sentences are determined by the condition’s tense and degree of realness.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But we do need to be careful not to be confused about our dedication and begin believing that we are dedicated to the organization or to the structure and activity or people within it. Our dedication is to God and Christ.

then why is it even mentioned and considered in the baptismal questions? Why must one "agree" to that particular question at all? 

On 1/7/2017 at 9:46 PM, Anna said:

What makes you think one has to repeat those exact words as quoted in Matt 28:19,20?

isnt that Jesus' actual words and command? why wouldn't you want to follow Jesus and what He said? 

On 1/7/2017 at 9:46 PM, Anna said:

Would that mean also that we have to repeat the exact words at Matt 6:9-14?

why not? Does this limit our prayers to only this? No, but it does give us a starting point for those who are just learning. Again, why not, this was Jesus' words and command? 

On 1/7/2017 at 2:11 PM, AllenSmith said:

The question therefore is, does a 3-month-old “baby” have that spiritual maturity to make such a symbolic promise to God?

nope, i wouldnt even do that.

On 1/7/2017 at 2:11 PM, AllenSmith said:

Since your kind of Christianity subjugates such doctrine. While other define that promise in 2 stages. Christening, then baptism.

you are assuming you know "my kind" and you dont.

On 1/6/2017 at 6:55 PM, Anna said:

Of course it applies to child molesters

If you are going to make these statements then please back them up with evidence. How do you know known molesters are being treated the same way as they were before they were found out? How do you know nothing is done?

Indeed. If there is no proof of murder, drunkenness or fornication then not even the Law can do anything about it. The congregation leaves it in Jehovah's hands until there is evidence. You now the saying, "innocent until proven guilty".

How is that policing???

the proof is in the Australian Royal Commission for one, which under oath admitted by each member defending the wt had confirmed that they allowed known perpetrators to remain a member and serve within the organization. Also, it wasn't just lay people within the org, but Mr. Jackson a gb member. 

another is the Candice Conti case in California and another Gonzalo Campo in Linda Vista ca. there are plenty more, but this should suffice to answer your concern. 

10 hours ago, Anna said:

What it boils down to is that someone who is known in the community as being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and is also known to be fornicating, can no longer be called one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they are held accountable not only before Jehovah but before the congregation also.

but this doesn't apply to child molesters? I mean known molesters are still being treated the same as they were before they were found out. These are also still wanting to be a part of the organization and have done so. So where does the organization hold them accountable if nothing is done? If one wants to sit back and claim " leave it in Jehovah's hands" then one must also accept a murderer, drunkard, fornicator within the organization just the same. Would you go out in service with a known murderer, alone? or allow your child to go out in service with a known child molester without you? 

10 hours ago, Anna said:

Neither the elder nor members of the congregation go around policing those who no longer associate and so it is very unlikely that it will discover that this person is now living an immoral life and is celebrating all the holidays.

I seem to recall a "return to Jehovah" brochure that did exactly that, policing those who have faded or become inactive.  

16 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Now, if a person wants to use "invalid dedication" as an excuse for engaging in a sinful course of life, bringing reproach on both Jehovah and the Christian congregation, that's a whole different ball game. Their course will need handling as a judicial matter and a decision made accordingly. That could include a determination on the validity of their dedication as noted in the Watchtower you refer to.

If a person wants to use that same excuse as a justification for no longer engaging in preaching and disciple-making or attending Christian meetings, well, attempts would be made (as previously posted) in harmony with Gal.6:1.

Would you think that those who sexually prey on children, but still want to be a part of the organization, fall into the first category you mentioned? If so, what judicial matter can determine the validity of the claims of child abuse if there is no other witness except the victim? Does this determine the validity of their dedication according to your statement? I mean there are plenty of child molesters who have NOT had their validity questioned because of actions like this and still remain within the organization as a MS, elder, etc. 

16 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Humans are free to take whatever action they choose to take with regard to Jehovah's requirements. They have to also accept the consequences of the actions that they take.

I fully agree, we as humans can choose our sin, but we cannot choose the consequences! 

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This is the key to discussion on this kind of a topic. Jehovah is the one through His son Christ Jesus, who will decide on a person's capability of making a dedication, the validity of that dedication and, whether they are living up to that dedication. Pro.16:2; Pro.21:2. And this should inspire confidence as we can be certain that Jehovah, “the Judge of all the earth,” will always do what is right, “for all his ways are justice.”—Gen. 18:25; Deut. 32:4.

so then what is the point of this article? Doesn't the article make the organization the one who makes the very determination you assert to Jehovah? Are they not saying that one cannot revoke their vow and claim an invalid baptism?

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

f an individual "changes their mind" about dedication, then that is a matter between themselves and Jehovah. No one would really know this had occurred unless the person actually told others. They might exhibit a spiritual problem in their behaviour without engaging in a serious practice of sin. Christian elders obviously have a duty to assist a person spiritually if they become aware that an individual has decided to follow the disastrous course of reneging on their dedication. Gal.6:1. But in itself, it is a matter between the individual and Jehovah. If that person becomes involved in serious sin. elders have to take action and have additional responsibilties in keeping the congregation clean in this regard, (1Cor.5:12-13) . An unrepentant practicer of serious sin must be disfellowshipped. 

 you are saying exactly the opposite of what this article is saying. The publication, produced by the organization, it saying that a baptism is valid, even if you don't like it. 

11 hours ago, Anna said:

No one should get baptized and be ignorant of what they are doing, what with the 100 or so questions, and the elders going through the questions making sure the person has a clear understanding of what they are committing to.

I quite agree, but what 13 year old understands the ramifications or implications of each of those 100 questions? A person of that age is not accountable in a court of law, nor behind the wheel of a car, alcohol, marriage, etc. you get the point. 

11 hours ago, Anna said:

I suppose if someone wanted to go back on their dedication, and no longer wanting to be identified as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, it wouldn't be because of ignorance, but rather because the person changed their mind and no longer believes what they believed when they got baptized....even if they were a child.

so then, does this article not point out the fact that the baptism is still valid and thus they are still connected to the organization? Their dedication isn't void because they changed their minds and decided to do/believe something else. Wouldn't you agree? 

¹³ There is no way to undo a dedication vow, taking back what we promised God. If a person tires of serving Jehovah or of living a Christian way of life, he cannot claim that he was never really dedicated and that his baptism was invalid. * To all intents and purposes, he presented himself as one who was wholly dedicated to God. He will be accountable before Jehovah and the congregation for any serious sins that he may commit. (Rom. 14:12) https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-april-2017/what-you-vow-pay/#footnote2

Romans 14:¹⁰ You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister^[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ¹¹ It is written:

¹² So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

¹³ Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

It appears that this is the case no matter if anyone likes it or not. So say someone who decided to stop going to the meetings and refuses to meet with the elders, are they still part of the congregation? They certainly cannot claim that they were not dedicated at some point. This leads me to a question of if a child (under the age of 16) participated in baptism, do they have the capability to understand what exactly that dedication means? Do they understand that they will not be able to claim it was invalid based upon ignorance?  

15 hours ago, Anna said:

Not really a good argument, since no doubt the law doesn't just arbitrarily qualify something to be called by a particular name just for kicks and giggles, or an organization to be designated a function unless the law is reasonably sure that the organization qualifies. It would not be in the interest of the law makers to do so otherwise. 

So then you truly believe that "The Naked Clown" charity and "Welfare Group Disabled and Sexuality" charity are on par with the wt. They qualify by the law. You're trying to defend the indefensible, not all laws are written properly and MANY take advantage of those loopholes.  

On 12/17/2016 at 1:51 PM, Anna said:

In order for an organization to qualify as a charity, or to have a charitable status, regardless of your definition or the dictionary's  definition, it has to meet specific requirements of the country awarding the charitable status. Obviously, Jehovah's Witnesses meet those requirements in many countries.

you are correct, however just because you call a zebra a dog doesn't make it so, regardless of what the law states. 

18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Because I wish to? Or does personal choice not figure in your universe?

Of course personal choice matters, but because this is a forum and a discussion is what is done here, I chose to point out the irrational logic to further thought. 

32 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

"the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ""does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence""  http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

"So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.  You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said:  ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” Matt.15:6-9.

 @JW Insider has adequately answered this claim.

Are these the Islamic Clerics you refer to? 

ulema - the body of Mullahs (Muslim scholars trained in Islam and Islamic law) who are theinterpreters of Islam's scien-ces and doctrines and laws and the chief guarantors of continuity in the spiritual and intellectual history of the Islamic commmunity,

Whatever, I really don't know how you work out who these are in view of this chart alone????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches#/media/File:Islam_branches_and_schools.svg

Also statements like this lead me to doubt the veracity of your claim.: "However, the Muslims, do not believe that the Bible, in its present form with all of the different books that it contains, represents the original scriptures revealed by Allah."

http://talktoislam.com/39/do-muslims-believe-in-the-bible

 

 I was just making the blanket argument that most can claim the same direction as the post I replied to does. 

Change the names I used to Methodist/Lutheran/Baptist/ etc. it still can be claimed by many other religious groups, which in turn makes it not "special" that jw's claim the same thing. Thus no proving factor of anything. 

9 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

No one is disfellowshipped for their beliefs.....as far as I know.

Is one not reproved and told to step back in line with a sheparding call? And if they do not, is this not grounds for a meeting with the elders? Then if they still do not adhere to the teachings of the wt/gb then face possible disfellowship? 

I think you might have missed the whole point though. You are told certain things are wrong by the gb/wt and you are to "keep up with Jehovah's chariot" but these things change and you are expected to change as well. While not claiming to be inspired any longer, by their own words, why must you toe the company line? Why must you keep up with their chariot when they do not claim any more guidance than the Catholic Pope? 

56 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I understand why you might include the Catholic Church, Jewish Rabbis and Islamic Clerics in your list, but not Hindus. Hindus do not believe in the same God, nor his angels, as far as I know.

At least Muslims believe Allah is the same God of Abraham that Jews and Catholics believe. (The Jewish/Christian Bible even refers to Jehovah as "Allah*" in the sense that the Aramaic portions of Scripture refer to God as "ilah/elah" such as in Daniel and even in Matthew where Jesus calls out to his father calling him "Eli" or "my God.") 

אֱלָהּ ʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god.

*The AL in front of an Arabic word is the word "THE" which is added to the usual Arabic word for God and gods in general which is "ilah." Therefore "Al-ilah" contracted as "Al'lah" becomes "Allah" [and "Elahh" used 90+ times in Ezra 4-7 and Daniel 2-3 can be translated "THE God" when referring to Jehovah.  (Similar relationship between names of God like the Greek Zeus, being pronounced zdeus and therefore related to a word for God in many European/Romance languages: Deus/Dios.)

But Hindu religion doesn't seem related to the idea of the God of Abraham, the God of Daniel, or the God of Jesus.

point taken and you are correct. I was just making the blanket argument that most can claim the same direction as the post I replied to does. 

I want to add something here that is found in the July 15,2014 Watchtower:

"The Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession claims that there is an unbroken succession of popes in a line extending all the way back to the apostle Peter. (The church misinterprets  Jesus’ words that are quoted at Matthew 16:18, 19.) Catholicism also claims that the pope is infallible in matters of doctrine when he speaks ex cathedra, or in an official capacity. I believed this and thought that if the pope, whom Catholics call Holy Father, is infallible in doctrinal matters and has proclaimed the Trinity to be true, then it must be true. But if he is not infallible, then the doctrine may be false. No wonder that for many Catholics the teaching of apostolic succession is the most important teaching, since the correctness or incorrectness of other Catholic teachings hinges on it! "

Basically bg member Gerrit Lösch states here that:

 "I believed this and thought that if the pope, whom Catholics call Holy Father, is infallible in doctrinal matters and has proclaimed the Trinity to be true, then it must be true. But if he is not infallible, then the doctrine may be false."

So then by a member of the gb of jw's, who now call themselves neither inspired nor infallible, he states that the gb's message may be false? Why then are jws forced to believe the statements/doctrines made or face disfellowshipping? 

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I believe the Gov Body are spirit-directed in that they allow their deliberations to be guided by Jehovah's inspired word, look to Jehovah to guide their thinking where understanding needs clarification, and follow the spirit-inspired direction to preach the good news world-wide thus co working with Jehovahs angels.

Couldn't this be said of any religious group? If in fact that is their intention? 

I believe the Catholic Church is spirit-directed in that they allow their deliberations to be guided by Jehovah's inspired word, look to Jehovah to guide their thinking where understanding needs clarification, and follow the spirit-inspired direction to preach the good news world-wide thus co working with Jehovahs angels.

I believe the Jewish Rabbi's are spirit-directed in that they allow their deliberations to be guided by Jehovah's inspired word, look to Jehovah to guide their thinking where understanding needs clarification, and follow the spirit-inspired direction to preach the good news world-wide thus co working with Jehovahs angels.

I believe the Hindu's are spirit-directed in that they allow their deliberations to be guided by Jehovah's inspired word, look to Jehovah to guide their thinking where understanding needs clarification, and follow the spirit-inspired direction to preach the good news world-wide thus co working with Jehovahs angels.

I believe the Islamic Cleric's are spirit-directed in that they allow their deliberations to be guided by Jehovah's inspired word, look to Jehovah to guide their thinking where understanding needs clarification, and follow the spirit-inspired direction to preach the good news world-wide thus co working with Jehovahs angels.

Etc...

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

Rev 21;3,4 Will live one earth in good conditions with no more death

Is this not after the NEW Heaven and New Earth? Where in the temple of God will be among His people and they will be with Him? 

2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

My position, unfortunately, with your aggressive and impertinent responses, is to apply, with regret, the advice of the apostle Paul so eloquently expressed at 2 Tim. 2:23: "Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights."

In more modern parlance, I suppose: "You're fired!".

Does 1 Peter 3:15 mean nothing to you then?. It says "everyone who asks you" 

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I wish it was.

Then explain with scripture your position. 

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Just keep looking. Pray for God's spirit. He will help you if you are sincere.

So you are saying that I should pray to God so that he will help you explain how you come to a conclusion that really isn't obvious nor found in the Bible? lol

I believe this is your escape phrase for when you cannot defend a position you have, I've seen it before from you.  You have not provided any scriptural support for your belief. Its ok, you can believe whatever you want, but don't claim it is from God's word if you cannot support it. 

12 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Then I cannot follow your logic as those addressed  by Paul were designated as Abraham's offspring, due to become  "heirs with reference to a promise". Abraham was not, therefore........................ different destiny.  You don't subscribe to the Trinity doctorine by any chance do you? 

The term of offspring is used as similarity, meaning of the same family/group/ like mindedness.  This is the reason why all belong to Christ who have the same faith as Abraham. Heirs of the promise is described in detail in Galatians chapter 4:21-31 and how the faith that Abraham had distinguishes the difference between those  who try and uphold the law vs the faithful ones. 

14 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Correct. 

then you DO realize that there is not something prestigious about the resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous as if it were something different for Abraham vs the 1st century Christians. 

Again, I have yet to see any scriptural support for there being a different destiny for Abraham vs the 1st century Christians. I want to know how you support this idea. 

2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Hmm. You have a low opinion of the resurrection    

no, I just fail to see your logic in comparison between the righteous and unrighteous in your statement. 

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Abraham will receive a place in the "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous"

not only will Abraham have this "place" but so will the unrighteous.