Anna

23 hours ago, Witness said:

"prophet"

There is a reason why prophet is in quotation marks.

11 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

All JB meant was that God is capable of doing anything God wishes to do. 

That's so funny that you are telling us what JB meant. It's almost like you know him 😜

30 minutes ago, Witness said:

it is the elder body who has been designated as the ‘harvesters’ through their shunning and disfellowshipping techniques?

You are getting confused. The role of the elders is to help shepherd the sheep and protect the flock, not to judge who will gain everlasting life and who will not. If someone is disfellowshipped it is on account of known unrepentant wrong doing and according to the scriptures. Since the elders cannot read hearts, the ultimate judge will be Jesus. Which means that possibly some who are disfellowshipped may be judged worthy of life. Thankfully Jesus' got this, and if we're doing all we can to be finally found by him spotless, unblemished and in peace, no one has anything to worry about.

Quite an appropriate lesson for this weekend:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-january-2021/Lessons-From-the-Disciple-Whom-Jesus-Loved/

4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I therefore gave you an example of a group of people that do not behave badly,

You tried, but really this is comparing apples to oranges. When a group that shares a hobby gets together for a few hours or couple of days, sure it's all fun. But the real test comes when you remove that hobby, and that group has to get on with each other with love in normal day to day problems, despite cultural and personality differences, and not only that, but do this over months and years. Try that with your car enthusiasts. Loving cars, is not going to make you into a loving person.

Or it's never a problem if there isn't a problem.

7 hours ago, xero said:

I'm sweet on the sister on the right with the blonde hair at .38 sec

 

Explains a lot 👍😉

@JW InsiderDon't upset him. He had his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck 3 times...

34 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think it is because someone there called him out on how overbearing and self-important he has become.

Yes, many ex-JWs can't stand him.

39 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Name IF wrong pronunciation can bring shame or defilement of that Name.  

There, that's the point: IF.

There seems to be no indication that a pronunciation in another language would bring shame or defilement of that name. God is graciously cognizant of other languages besides the language of his ancient people. 

27 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If they know what missing letters-vowels to put in Jesus name, so they can tell us how to pronounce JHVH? Or

They can tell us how to pronounce it in Hebrew, but we are speaking English. Or do you think God only understands Hebrew?

9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

She is a “theocracy dies in darkness” Witness,

She is not a she! The Librarian is a HE

29 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

do you remember my mistake with - worth noting or worth nothing. One single letter making meaning completely opposite. Is that can be the case also with how to pronounce JHVH? Some people say it can be.

Yes, you would have a point if we pronounced it wrong in the original language. But we are not speaking the original language, we (at the moment) are speaking English. 

29 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But, what Jesus practiced was to say, Father and/or God ... as in his Last and Final Words: Eli, Eli, lama sabahtami . Very significant. Not Father ... Not Jehovah,..... but... My God. His Final Testimony was not speaking aloud name Jehovah or however Jew spelled JHVH. With his last breath He used common title - God.

There is nothing wrong with calling God, God of course, no one is saying that. However, Jesus indicated on numerous occasions that God's name was important, and he quoted from Hebrew scriptures pronouncing God's name. Sure God is a common title, but we must not forget that God did reveal his name to his servants, and that God's chosen nation, the Jews, used that name. There is no prohibition in the Bible against using God's name, unless it is used in vain. Pronouncing it in another language is not using it in vain. 

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

And Almighty God's name is far more important than any other name because it has a far more important meaning

Can you honestly say that the meaning is not changed.

The meaning of God's name does not change just because you pronounce it in a different language to Hebrew. And guess why not? Because anyone who is educated, or cares to do research will associate the name (in whatever language they speak) with the Hebrew God, and the meaning thereof. Google it.

In any case, this conversation is getting ridiculously silly....

12 minutes ago, Witness said:

Are you putting the Almighty God on par with people?

I think those who are serious about not pronouncing God's name in English should also stick to pronouncing Jesus's name as Yeshua. After all he is God's son, the second most important person in the universe. And it would probably be best if they used a Hebrew accent too.

27 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

You keep playing the same old record. But your old record does not give any proof of how Almighty God wants His name pronounced in any language.

5 minutes ago, Witness said:

Maybe, instead of concentrating on a literal contrived name, as a "mark" of faithfulness to God,  there are those who have left the organization who seek to know more behind the true name.  They respect Him as Jesus set the example, by personally approaching in Him in prayer, as "Father". *  

* "let your name be known"

"God said: “Because he has affection for me, I will rescue him. I will protect him because he knows my name". (Psalm 91:14)

 "Those knowing your name will trust in you; You will never abandon those seeking you, O Jehovah". (Psalms 9:10)

Biblical scholar Francis B. Dennio, in an article he wrote, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, said: "Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled connotations of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning their right." ............form "Jehovah" is not a barbarism, but is the best English form available, being that it has for centuries gathered the necessary connotations and associations for valid use in English.

Let's stop playing games. You know you cannot let the name Jehovah pass your lips without shuddering because of your hate for His Witnesses.  Like I said, it tells me a lot.

9 minutes ago, xero said:

<sarcasm>I love how he 'knows' Jehovah's view on things</sarcasm>

Yeah. He said it in a very placating soothing way, like if he was patting a child on the head. I thought, wow, Satan sure knows how to lull people into "blissful ignorance". 

48 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

When in truth it is YHWH. 

It was written that way, but it sure wasn't pronounced like that. It was pronounced in ancient Hebrew with pertinent syllables. We speak English. Each language pronounces names differently. Jehovah understands all languages of the world, including his name in that language. 

But we've gone through all of this before....

So my observation seems correct

20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He will be merging “Almighty God” with Jesus Chrst presently, if he hasn’t already, and it may not be long after that he sends “Almighty God” to the ash heap entirely to worship Jesus

A while ago I watched an interview that was made in the 80's with an ex-elder in Ireland who became dissatisfied with the way the organization was running things. He succeeded in getting a large following. This period of time was even mentioned in one of the yearbooks that talked about Ireland. Anyway, most of the interview was about his gripes with this and that, the usual, but what struck me was that at the end of the interview he was encouraging others who had doubts: not to worry about trying to do things God's way, because God doesn't mind if we get things wrong, and if we happen to feel closer to Jesus, and start praying to him, and worshipping him, then God will be ok with that too.

(Paraphrased, and I have mentioned this on the forum before)

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

victim was never telling the truth, or was projecting the abuse claims onto the wrong perpetrator. Something is off about one of the cases that got a lot of attention in the ARC.

I had the same feeling! I remember thinking; couldn't they have picked a better example.. But it's been a while so I can't remember. I will take a look at the transcripts when I have time. I hope Thinking will be able to give us some insight....I too thought she was a he at first, until a private conversation. 

6 hours ago, xero said:

I'm always suspicious when people avoid using "Jehovah".

Me too! And I've noticed that the majority of those who leave, stop using it. To me that says a lot.

On 3/5/2021 at 1:06 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Good explanation, for sure. But please, don't forget that we are dealing with a religious system in which rank and file need to "know" who teachers and representatives are. That is, to express ourselves in WTJWorg jargon, who is the "channel" through which "all truth and knowledge" comes. ". In this "channel" members should have confidence, trust (statements from GB+Helpers members on JWTV and in publications). Also this channel is “the only one authorized by God and Jesus”, as JW's believe, to give lessons, interpretations and direction.

In this and such context we have to deal with your fine observation and explanation

I already put it in context: As long as this “channel” is in line with Bible principles, then Christians can have confidence in it can’t they?  Your context is erroneous, because it is up to us to make sure that they are in line with Bible principles (make sure of all things) If we did not make sure, then we would just be like any other people who have confidence in anyone who claims to be a prophet or “channel” from God. Why not have confidence in Charles Manson, Jim Jones or David Koresh? Many people did.

I have for a while seen a pattern emerge with ex-Witnesses. It always seems to be those who have not done their research, who have not made sure of all things, who have not “made the truth their own". They had put all their confidence not in the Bible, but in imperfect men, who are fallible and make mistakes. Then when the mistakes of these men disappoint them, then they lose their confidence in them, (which is not surprising of course) and leave. But had they (the ex-JWs) been reasonable, and remembered that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) they may have been able to figure things out, work things trough, like the rest of us have. It doesn’t matter if they are anointed and so full of holy spirit till it pours out of their ears. They are still imperfect and make mistakes. Just like ALL the faithful men and women in Bible times. The only one who could claim perfection was Jesus. And yet Jesus dealt with all these imperfect people. Why? Because they wanted to follow him. They wanted to be his disciples and let Jesus teach and guide them. So, when the GB want to follow Jesus, and want to be his disciples, and want to encourage others to be his disciples, they will allow Jesus to teach them and guide them. This is why they will want to base everything on the Scriptures, because this is where the teachings and guidance from Jesus is found. In the ARC hearing, one of the councilors was puzzled, and even a bit upset that the JWs want to follow ancient guidelines from 2000 years ago. I rest my case.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

People, members, seek guidance and help from those they think are “closer to God,” that they are “more spiritual,” that they “know more,” etc.

We need to ask ourselves how this situation comes about. Is it because of the existence of a "hierarchy", the doctrine that there are "classes" within the assembly. FDS class and non-FDS class. The clergy class and the lay class.

Let’s face it, some people are more eager to look to others for guidance than others. This has been discussed on this forum before. If an individual feels that he is inferior spiritually to someone else and wants someone else’s “spiritual opinion and guidance” then that is up to them. On the other hand, if someone is confident in their own spirituality then they might feel they should not consult with anyone else. It works both ways. You cannot lump everyone in the congregation into the same category. I have known sisters who would practically not breathe unless they asked an elder if it was OK. And I have also known sisters who were able to figure out ambiguous situations by themselves using the Bible and Bible based publications, their own conscience, and common sense. So according to your theory about a hierarchy, this would not happen. Everyone would feel they had to go and seek advice. But as it is, some people are just too lazy to do research and find answers themselves. I think this has a lot to do with personality as well....

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As much as WTJWorg declaratively denies the existence of such differences, it still exists in JW assemblies. Clergy "exist" to give support and answer to members of laity. That is how is in all religion, so why we would expect to be different in JW church?

On the other hand, those who give "answers" to layman's questions have created a climate in which it is "normal" for laymen to ask, and "normal" the clergy know the answers to everything. And clergy wants to know the answers to everything even when they don't really have an answer, even if they don't need to know the answer, nor if do they need to give an answer for what doesn't concern them.

Jesus himself set up older men to shepherd the congregation. The elders are there to be approached with concerns or questions if we wish.  If you are really interested in what the WT actually says on the subject of elders, read this article: https://www.jw.org/hr/biblioteka/casopisi/w20130115/skupstinski-starjesine/

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Also, Bible don't speak about things that Watchtower's "our readers ask", study editions or BOE articles answering. Private opinions made by "spiritual men" have to stay private opinions ....not teachings and doctrines and instructions

In all the “questions readers ask” I have never seen private opinions but rather reasoning on what the Bible says. If the subject is not directly mentioned in the Bible then Bible principles are discussed. I am sure it is the same with the BOE letters. You seem to keep forgetting that the WT’s main concern is that we do not go against Jehovah’s principles. Therefor the Bible is the guiding force. The question is always: what does the Bible have to say on the matter?  Everyone who has a Bible can check for themselves.

If someone wants to ask what does the GB say on the matter, then as long as what they have to say is based on the Bible, then that’s OK too. If we have a Bible, it is up to us to verify if what they say is based on it.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

So tell me why Australia had over 50 years records of Child Sexual Abuse and America GB Lawyers are saying they have 25 years Database

Perhaps because Australian law says you have to keep 50 years of records, and American law says you only need to keep 25 years worth of records? I don't know. If you are so concerned about it why don't you do some proper research instead of just inventing theories of your own. I think I know what your reply will be; You can't be bothered to do research. (You would rather just read what is handed to you on a platter by opposers and stick to your own theories).

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Showing sexuality is a private matter between husband and wife, right? Then why are there GB regulations about it?

As you know, Jehovah's eyes see everything, whether in public or in private. When the GB "counseled" couples using principles in the Bible as to what isn't proper sexual conduct through WT articles and through the letters to elders,  they did so because individuals asked for guidance. Every Christian is and should be concerned about whether the way they are living (public or private) is pleasing to God. Some were not sure whether what they did with respect to sexula acts was proper. So they asked. They wrote letters to Bethel. I know personally of a case where a sister didn't agree with doing something that her husband wanted. So she took it to the elders (!) This was 30 years ago. The elders pulled out WT articles that addressed this "problem" and gave them to her for her husband. Today, as far as I know, the elders would rather not interfere with what goes on inside a bedroom. There is a WT article that came out some years after which  basically says that it is up to the conscience and mutual agreement of the couple with what they do inside their own bedroom. I will try and find that article. Or  someone else might find it...

The point is, had members not asked about private matters inside a bedroom, there probably would have been no articles writen about it. And like I said, because of the Christians concern about not offending Jehovah, they did ask about it. This is the problem with some people. We all have the Bible and our conscience, but for some this is not enough and they need "confirmation" from men. But I can see why that happens. As in the case of the sister I mentioned previously, she obviously didn't want to do what her husband wanted, so she went for backup, instead of figuring things out with her husband only. Some people are like that....

And this is why this happens:

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WTJWorg has a great influence in family and private matters. And it does so as a Company, Organization, Institution.

A person can only be influenced if he allows it.

Paul said:  "Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing". (2 Corinthians 1:24)

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

BUT the GB and their Lawyers still refuse to hand over the Pedophile Database in America. 

And here in UK the Bethel did not want to hand over information, but were taken to court and had to hand it over. 

And the GB Lawyers have been seen on video whilst in court, Telling Lies. 

And Elders claim Clergy Penitent Privilege so as not to give evidence against other Elders in court, but then the Org pretends that Elders are not Clergy.  So how can Elders claim that privilege if they are not clergy ? Hypocrites. 

The problem is you know just enough to get confused. You do not have all the facts nor knowledge, just bits and pieces from various sources. Not only that, but also twisted information. It's like when opposers say Br. Lett said that child sexual abuse in the congregation are all apostate lies. When in fact he said that the JWs supposedly not caring about child sexual abuse are apostate lies.  One says that we deny there is child sexual abuse, and the other says there is sexual abuse and we do care about it. Big difference.