Shiwiii

:)) I apologize, but wish to react on this "fraze", on this "fama" from WT Company. 
In Prov 4:18 we read this; "The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day."
First of all the main point here is THE PATH and not the light! Path of some person (righteous one) can go in good direction only with help from higher Source (the light aka God and this LIGHT is NOT CHANGEABLE  as it is JW light of/on interpretations.
Light from god is the same in all stages of the day - no shadows.
In literal meaning of Proverbs, daylight gets brighter because of sun. But this light changes his intensity in the same day. Until evening you are in the dark again.
In parable (with modern fulfilment on WTBTS inc.) or allegorical meaning picture looks something like this short description ; :)))
WT JWorg is the sun (despite the fact that JW members firmly believe how their and WT source of "light" is JHVH ), because WT doctrinal explanation are making full day circle - morning, noon, evening, night. And just as the daylight have all this phases, the same "destiny" WT interpretations have too. In the "morning" some of WT teachings looks like it shows something what promise big hope. In the "noon time" this teaching firmly stand as "the truth based on bible evidence". As daylight lose his power "evening" bring disappointment to JW people (and GB bible scholars too) and  through the dark period of night some sleepless people (bible scholars) try hard to see where they made mistake. And after working in the night (without the proper light) they are ready to bring "new light idea" in the "morning" of a new day.        :))

Arians/Unitarians such as JWs claim that Jesus is the first (in chronological sequence) to be born? And they site for support Colossians 1:15, claiming that the Son is a member of creation. The Watchtower also add the word “other” to the passage in their bible version to give that impression.
 
Guys, if the reference to "firstborn" in Scripture primarily means being the first to have been given life, then that title could never be lost because it would refer to a factual event, the first birth.
 
Further, the title could never be applied to someone that was not truly the first in sequence.
 
But the Bible shows that the title of "firstborn" can be removed or gained independently of whether a person is the first one to be born. 
 
1 Chronicles 5:1-2 shows that Reuben was the first one born to Isaac and yet he lost this position due to bad conduct. The position of "firstborn" passed to Joseph. 
 
David was called "firstborn" yet he was the youngest in the family (Psalm 89:27, 1 Samuel 16: 11-13). 
 
Ephraim was called the "firstborn" even though he was the second born (Jeremiah 31:9, Genesis 41:51-52). 
 
Thus we can see that the term "firstborn" can be used as a title. And it is in this sense that it is used in connection to Jesus in Colossians 1:15, it has nothing to do with sequence of birth or creation, but rather it is to do with authority.
 
If Paul was saying that Jesus was the first one created then why didn’t he use the Greek word “protoktisis” (first-created) a term which is never used of Christ in the Scriptures?
 
From the context we can know whether the Greek word prototokos in Col 1:15 means "first one born" or "the first in authority".
 
In Col. 1:18 we read of Jesus, "so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything”, this clearly shows the way prototokos should be understood in the preceding verse.
 
So from the context, the Greek word prototokos affirms Christ’s supremacy and sovereignty over all things and does not signify first in chronological sequence. <><

Ms DeeDee,
  
Let me first of all say that the expression “image of” entails identity of nature and essence.
 
The Greek word eilon (“image”) according to Vines Expository Dictionary,  “involves the two ideas of representation and manifestation” (see also Vincent, Word Studies in the N.T). “Image” does not suggest a mere likeness to God or a paradigm of His person, but a real manifestation of true Deity in body form.
 
I’d like to show you, from the scriptures, how this word eikon can be used to convey the reality; turn to Hebrews 10:1, here we see the  “shadow” (or picture) and how it is contrasted with “the very image” (eikon), which is the reality of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. I hope this helps you to understand, if not let me know and I will expound on this further. <><

Exactly, and shouldn't all evidence confirm the Bible and the Bible all evidence. That is of course if one believes the Bible to be true, which I do. 
So now, if there is no support for 607, but there is for 587, then why the long held belief in 607? Is it just to make a date of 1914 ring true? It appears that way.

"Almost every reference to Ptolemy, especially in the Insight book, has a somewhat negative side added to it:"
Yes, however it is still claimed to be accurate in one instance and discredited in another.  That was my only point. Using it when it fits the theology and distancing themselves when they like. 
 
Back to the point. I agree with your findings here:
"It's as if the example above called: "10th Year of King So-and-So" was identified as 405 BCE and then another diary was found for the same king and it was called "15th Year of King So-and-So" and its astronomical phenomena exactly matched 400 BCE."
We can only go by what we have, and not speculation on what might have been. So, like you said, there is NO  support for 607. What resources can even come close to supporting 607? I mean we have canons, cuneiforms and astronomers from that time, and even IF those don't exactly go in hamony with each other,  what evidence is there? If we discredit all of them, then isn't any date acceptable?  So do we throw out records if they do not agree with us? Then it becomes the opinion of men and who you choose to follow. I'd hardly throw out ALL historical evidence for the sake of man's wants or ideas.

28 Then Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.”

Did the vast majority of JWs come to the conclusion that 1975 was the date of Armageddon – on their own? 
How did these people come to the realization of the world ending, unless they were convinced that the leaders in control understood Bible chronology?   Consider global warming; whether you believe it or not, you are relying on the scientific experts to tell you what’s happening with the planet; but in this case it doesn’t affect your relationship with family and friends if you choose one side or the other.
Surely you see the confusion by individuals reading the various articles and references to the date, as well as hearing live talks -  all coming from “Jehovah’s organization” and his “mouthpiece”.   
There was a 14% growth in member in 1974.  Why?   I am sure you know why.
By 1976 the growth rate dropped to 4%. 
In 1977, it dropped further, -1%
“Expectation postponed” made their hearts so sick, that many realized the Watchtower was not an organization run by God. 
How do you dismiss scripture, Eoin?  How do you read God’s word that condemns false prophets and ignore it?  Was there ever an instance that God told the nation of Israel to tolerate it?  Think of the generations of JWs that have put up with false dates and changing doctrine; hanging on because the authority over them so thoroughly convinced them it was “Jehovah’s will”, that they remain faithful to the organization!
 “And the Lord said to me, “The prophets prophesy lies in My name. I have not sent them, commanded them, nor spoken to them; they prophesy to you a false vision, divination, a worthless thing, and the deceit of their heart. 15 Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the prophets who prophesy in My name, whom I did not send, and who say, ‘Sword and famine shall not be in this land’—‘By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed! 16 And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; they will have no one to bury them—them nor their wives, their sons nor their daughters—for I will pour their wickedness on them.’”  Jer 14:14-16
Isn’t this exactly what the organization teaches, that no sword or famine will come upon the Watchtower?  If we take all of this with a grain of salt, then we are blind to God’s righteous expectations to follow his Word closely.  Ezek 14:21; Rev chapter 6
It appears you are attempting to defend a sinking ship.  I truly pray you get off before its too late.
 

There was a JWTV broadcast last year (can't remember the month) that interviewed a lawyer who had been funded by the Org. to get his law degree. Anthony Morris (?) said Bethel wouldn't be sending Bethelites to College anymore because of the dangers.
Also last year (1/13/15), a letter was sent out to the Bodies of Elders calling for legal experts within the congregation who might be able to volunteer their services to HQ and to quietly make enquiries. The letter said:
"We trust that you will use discretion in approaching publishers regarding volunteering to
assist the organization in the above way. Please note that we are not encouraging individuals to
pursue higher education or university degrees to obtain skills related to legal matters. (w13 10/15
pp. 15-16 pars. 13-14) Thank you for your assistance."
3/6/12 BOE letter.
"Appointed men must be exemplary in heeding the warnings given by the faithful slave and
its Governing Body when it comes to education. (Matt. 24:45-47) Would an elder, a ministerial
servant, or a pioneer continue to qualify to serve as such if he, his wife, or his children pursue higher
education? Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. When such a situation
arises, the body of elders should consider the following questions and scriptures:

• Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? (Matt. 6:33)
• Does he teach his family to put Kingdom interests first?
• Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher
education? (3 John 9)
• Do his speech and conduct reveal that he is a spiritual person? (Ps. 1:2, 3; 1 Cor. 2:13-16)
• How is he viewed by the congregation?
• Why is he or his family pursuing higher education?
• Does the family have theocratic goals? (Phil. 3:8)
• Does the pursuit of higher education interfere with regular meeting attendance, meaningful
participation in field service, or other theocratic activities?

As the body of elders prayerfully and carefully considers the matter, it may be readily apparent
that the brother has a positive attitude about what the organization has published regarding
higher education and still retains the respect of others in the congregation. They may also observe
that he and his family are keeping Kingdom interests first if the education does not interfere with
meetings and the ministry. In such a case, the elders may determine that he could continue serving.—
1 Tim. 3:2, 4-6; Heb. 13:7.
On the other hand, if an elder or a ministerial servant is promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring, he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation because of the effect on his and his fellow appointed brothers' freeness of speech. (1 Tim 3:13; Titus 1:9) The body of elders may therefore determine that the brother no longer qualifies to serve. In most cases, however, such a determination should be made in conjunction with the visit of the circuit overseer." 
 

I think hate is the wrong word. I think oppose is more accurate. By opposition and dialog it is almost the same thing as the jw cart. Trying to reach out and help the other see a different side of the coin then they are use to. Of course there are some who become overbearing in their quest to reach out, and thus come off as haters, but I think their intention is the same. They just let their ego get in the way of reaching out. We ALL do that at times.  

Further in Romans 13 -    
"Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.  For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.  Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. "   Rom 13:2-5
 
 

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.

Very succinctly put;  "both laws - divine and human"  
 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.  Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."  Matt 5:17-20

Many of JW members who read the topics in this forum can not accept the fact that the main church body aka Gb violates both laws - divine and human.
GB asks of every member to report any fact and person that violates the JW Code in the assembly. But the GB does not want to report and give facts, evidence, documents, statements that would allow a justice, even "imperfect, worldly" justice. hehe

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.

Yes, did you happen to notice the different types of charities that those kids donated to? I looked through your links and noticed that these charities support not a single organization, but rather the good of all. That is in far contrast to the WTS. Does the WTS have a nursing home? Do they have women's shelters? Orphanages? Food banks? What form of assistance can you get from the WTS if you need it? I'm sorry but I just do not see the WTS as a charity.
Full Definition of charity
plural charities
1:  benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity
2a :  generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also :  aid given to those in needb :  an institution engaged in relief of the poorc :  public provision for the relief of the needy
3a :  a gift for public benevolent purposesb :  an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift
4:  lenient judgment of others
 

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. 

Yes, that is part of it, although this part directly accepts the evidence Ptolemy presents as inline with "other sources as well" which is being used here as accurate support.  If you go to pages 455-458 and read through from "Ptolemy's Canon" through to "from human creation to the present" to you will see collectively that the WTS supports Ptolemy's Canon in its use of supporting the dates and accuracy. Here is just a sample:
"But even though Ptolemy may have calculated accurately or recorded the dates of certain eclipses in the past (a modern astronomer found three fifths of Ptolemy's dates correct),"
"These astronomical diaries contain references to the reigns of certain kings and appear to coincide with the figures given in Ptolemy's canon."
"Finally, as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the astronomical information ( as now interpreted and understood ) on the texts discovered is basically accurate,"
"Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.c.E. , supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. ( Secular sources for Cyrus' reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.)"

Not only this, but the fact that the WTS only accepts secular chronology when it suits them and their teaching. In one publication they support the use of the Canon of Ptolemy ( Insight vol 1, page 454, under Persian Chronology) in finding the date 539 B.C. as well as being accurate (Insight vol 1, page 455). Now in the Oct 1 Watchtower under the article When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed? - Part one they discredit the Canon with this statement:
"In general, Ptolemy’s canon is regarded as accurate. But in view of its omissions, should it really be used to provide a definite historical chronology?" (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736).
We just saw in the Insight book that it IS used as an accurate source for chronology, according to the WTS. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. This is completely dishonest. 
I look forward to other information that hopefully will come out of this discussion and my learning more about what others feel. This topic is the foundation of the organization itself as it directly relates to 1914/1919, so it should be interesting. 

Please, show me place where G. Jackson said that, that i would be able to check for myself, thanks! 
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/c2d1f1f5-a1f2-4241-82fb-978d072734bd/Report-of-Case-Study-No-29
"Authority to produce or revise child sexual abuse policy
Mr Geoffrey Jackson said that the Governing Body’s expectation is that Branch Offices around the world will act in accordance with the procedures and guidelines set out in the 2015 Branch Organization Manual.113 Mr O’Brien told the Royal Commission that ‘the theocratic or Scriptural direction that the Governing Body provides, is the same in every branch and for all Jehovah’s Witnesses, worldwide’.114 Mr O’Brien explained that the Branch Committee faithfully implements and follows the direction of the Governing Body.115 Mr Toole said that Jehovah’s Witness congregations in Australia take their direction and instructions from the Branch Office.116
It is apparent that the Governing Body retains authority over the general principle and framework of all publications in the name of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation, and any view or perspective contrary to the Governing Body’s interpretation of the Scriptures is not tolerated."

Hi Shiwiii,
 
Yes I believe so. The booklet became an embarrassment to the JWs because of all the false and misleading quotes. <><

Ding Ding Ding Ding, I take "what we are allowed to read and what is forbidden" for three hundred Alex. 
 
Hey, isn't that why the WT pulled the Trinity book in the first place? Something about the quotes used were taken out of context and those whom the WT quoted fought back? 

Ding Ding Ding Ding, I take "what we are allowed to read and what is forbidden" for three hundred Alex. 
 
Hey, isn't that why the WT pulled the Trinity book in the first place? Something about the quotes used were taken out of context and those whom the WT quoted fought back? 

Ding Ding Ding Ding, I take "what we are allowed to read and what is forbidden" for three hundred Alex. 
 
Hey, isn't that why the WT pulled the Trinity book in the first place? Something about the quotes used were taken out of context and those whom the WT quoted fought back? 

Ms Fofana,
 
Once again thank you for your response and for sharing a little of your background. I know what you mean about TV evangelists sometimes the way they speak can seem a little off-putting, but in general that does not mean that what they say is wrong, for its not.
 
Can I just say that Jesus, the Son, is not the Father! I looked up the beliefs of the United Church of Christ head office at http://www.ucc.org, and they nowhere claim to believe that “the son is the father”. I don’t know where you got this Oneness idea from, which is not the Trinity at all.
 
You mention what JW’s believe, but what you give under “definition” is not a clear representation of the Trinity, sorry. And you then go on to quote, questionably, from certain secular source.
 
The first from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which, in your quote gives the impression that the Trinity developed some 300 years after the apostles; this is NOT the case as I have stated before. Interestingly left out of this quote is a lot of information which is contrary to the innuendo of your quote, for example the Encyclopedia Britannica has, “Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126 emphasis mine)
 
You know, I wonder if you actually have read the whole article from the Encyclopedia Britannica or if you just read the misleading quotes given in Watchtower publications/website?
 
Your next quote comes from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and again the quote is very misleading. The article your quote from in this Encyclopedia concludes “it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity Vol. 14, p299-300).
 
Not only does your selective quoting not give the full picture, it does not even investigate the primary objectiveness of the article from where the quote comes.
 
Next is the quote from The Encyclopedia Americana, this quote of yours is again misleading and projects the false impression that early Christian teaching was not Trinitarian. The Encyclopedia Americana, says under the article “Trinity Doctrine” Vol. 27, page 67, “In the New Testament it is evident that the doctrine of a trinity in the divine nature is clearly and copiously taught”.
 
Next the quote from Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel. When read in context, the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel doesn't say that the Christian trinity is borrowed from either the Platonic or pagan trinities. All that the dictionary says it that Plato borrowed his trinity from the pagans. The dictionary suggests, which clearly indicates that it is not sure, ("appears to be" means not certain) that there is a connection between the Christian trinity and the "Platonic trinity". In other words, the dictionary is guessing!
 
And lastly you quote from John McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible; but your quote fails to mention that in the very same article it states, "He (Jesus) knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, page 899).
 
It is very deceptive to quote articles out of context and then to portray a false innuendo by those misquotes.
 
The fact that the early church spoke of the Tri-unity of God long before the fourth century shows that you JWs are wrong in your claims; and as history shows it was Arianism which was developed in the fourth century, and that Arianism was totally unknown prior to this date.
 
We have Christian writers before the fourth century, such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus who all spoke of Christ as God and of the Trinity. These early Christian writers demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ and the Trinity did not originate in the fourth century as you JW’s mistakenly claim. Here are some examples of this fact:
 
Justin Martyr 100 AD – 165 AD “…you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order TO PROVE that Christ is called BOTH GOD AND LORD OF HOSTS…” ( Dialogue with Trypho, Chpeter 36 emphasis added).
 
Hippolytus 170 AD – 235 AD writes “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, WHO, BEING GOD, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8 emphasis added)
 
I could easily call up many more examples from the early church, all before the fourth century, that refute the JW claim, but because a lot of the above is taken up with showing you how the quotes you cite are deceptive in their implied innuendo, this response has already turned out quite long. The writings of the early church demonstrate clearly that Arianism (which is similar to the JW belief system) was invented in the fourth century. <><