Anna

We do have very good reasons, the math for 1914 wouldn't work out otherwise Yes, I think we would laugh. After all, messing around with numbers to "fit something you want it to fit" sounds pretty cultish. When looking at this subject again, in light of Br. Splane's talk about types and antitypes, and how he said that (paraphrased) we have to make sure that when we are talking about types, that they are genuine types, because the word of God says they are puts a whole different slant on it. Then the idea is enforced even further when he says who is to decide if a person or event is a type, if the word of God doesn't say anything about it and he quotes Br. Shroeder: ( We need to exercise great care when applying accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures as prophetic patterns or types if these accounts are not applied in the Scriptures themselves). Therefor reading the account in Daniel 4 without any preconceived ideas, I see these main lessons: verse 17 "This is by the decree of watchers, and the request is by the word of the holy ones, so that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets up over it even the lowliest of men.” Lesson: (quite self explanatory really) Jehovah can do what he wants because he is the ultimate sovereign. verse 27 "Therefore, O king, may my counsel be acceptable to you. Turn away from your sins by doing what is right, and from your iniquity by showing mercy to the poor. It may be that your prosperity will be extended". Lesson: Listen to Jehovah and do right, otherwise Jehovah will discipline you. verse 37 “Now I, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, am praising and exalting and glorifying the King of the heavens, because all his works are truth and his ways are just, and because he is able to humiliate those who are walking in pride. Lesson: similar to above, and also proof that Jehovah carries out his discipline. ---------------- The reasoning put forward as to why this particular chapter of Daniel (4) has greater meaning (paraphrased from WT October 2014) is that the book of Daniel has a central theme, that of God's Kingdom, and keeps pointing forward to the establishment of that Kingdom under the rulership of his Son, Jesus. For example what it says in Daniel 2:44: "“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever.” I can see that Daniel Ch 2 is talking about Neb's. dream of the statue, representing subsequent rulerships, and that during the feet period God's Kingdom will come. In my opinion this is one valid and definite description of when the Kingdom will come. Then Chapters 7 and 8 are full of cryptic beasts, Chapter 9 prophesy about the coming of the Messiah including his cutting off, chapter 11 more cryptic descriptions, this time involving the king of the north and south, and the last chapter (12) the time of the end with Michael standing up. I need an encoder! I must admit, because of my more practical disposition, when we studied the Daniel book, I did not pay enough attention. My son was quite small and I had my hands full, and I can't even remember if we studied it again after that? For example what are these numbers about?: Daniel 12:11 “And from the time that the constant feature has been removed and the disgusting thing that causes desolation has been put in place, there will be 1,290 days. 12 “Happy is the one who keeps in expectation and who arrives at the 1,335 days!" (It's ok, no need to answer, I can look it up myself). But nothing of that much import actually happened in 607, ,Sorry, I was being confusing. I didn't mean 607 was special. I meant what happened when counting 2520 years from that date, I meant that 1914 was a very significant year. (have to go, will carry on later)

Like you, I find it difficult to envision Christ's enthronement in 33 CE, for pretty much the same reasons as you. The urgency and keeping on the watch would almost seem cruel, if it was to last nearly 2000 years. Unless you think about those who have been waiting since the end of the 1800's and that have now died. Well for them, it was a lifetime of waiting anyway, so pretty much we could say that there would be no difference between someone waiting their whole lifetime in the middle ages and dying, than someone waiting their whole lifetime and dying now. I mean with respect to the individual. It seems like the scripture "Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace" would have practical meaning for both individuals. I am assuming that most ordinary folk (at least in Christianized nations) were aware that if they lived a good and godly life they would land in heaven. That was the reward. But you do make a good point when you say that the holy writings were not accessible to ordinary folk, and most couldn't read so would they even know what Peter wrote about in 2 Peter ch3? On top of that, "Christian" religion, Catholicism, did not advocate millennialism much, if at all. It wasn't until the protestant reformation in the 16 the century that millenialism was revived. Excerpt from the Catholic encyclopedia: (I don't expect you to read it all, just here for info) " Protestant fanatics (lol) of the earlier years, particularly the Anabaptists, believed in a new, golden age under the sceptre of Christ, after the overthrow of the papacy and secular empires. In 1534 the Anabaptists set up in Münster (Westphalia) the new Kingdom of Zion, which advocated sharing property and women in common, as a prelude to the new kingdom of Christ. Their excesses were opposed and their millenarianism disowned by both the Augsberg (art. 17) and the Helvetian Confession (ch. 11), so that it found no admission into the Lutheran and Reformed theologies. Nevertheless, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries produced new apocalyptic fanatics (lol) and mystics who expected the millennium in one form or another: in Germany, the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren (Comenius); in France, Pierre Jurien (L'Accomplissement des Propheties, 1686); in England at the time of Cromwell, the Independents and Jane Leade. A new phase in the development of millenarian views among the Protestants commenced with Pietism. One of the chief champions of the millennium in Germany was I.A. Bengel and his disciple Crusius, who were afterwards joined by Rothe, Volch, Thiersch, Lange and others. Protestants from Wurtemberg emigrated to Palestine (Temple Communities) in order to be closer to Christ at His second advent. Certain fantastical sects of England and North America, such as the Irvingites, Mormons, Adventists, adopted both apocalyptic and millenarian views, expecting the return of Christ and the establishment of His kingdom at an early date. Some Catholic theologians of the nineteenth century championed a moderate, modified millenarianism, especially in connection with their explanations of the Apocalypse. So it would appear that anyone living from 33 C.E up to the 16th century (apart from the disciples and early Christian congregation, and some early church fathers) would have no idea about even the existence of the coming of Christ as king of a 1000 year kingdom...

Now you're getting silly!

That highlights it all. Funnily enough, before you posted this, I had already written a draft of my "1914 musings" last night and thought of this:: "1914 is such an attractive doctrine. The the numbers from Daniel 4 add up quite nicely, and then when applied to 607 BCE we arrive at a momentous and significant world event, which could be said to be the time when Jesus fought with Satan, (as per Revelation) throwing him out of heaven, to the the vicinity of the earth, causing him to be so mad that he arranges for an Archduke to be shot, setting in motion the beginning of a world wide war (pretty significant). Also he (Satan), has a short period of time before all his evil shenanigans are brought to an end by a warrior king, Jesus, and thereby a specific time period, with a beginning and end, is set in motion (the last days) and those days were to start and end within one generation. (As we know, there are complications with 607, but if we were to apply Daniel's numbers to 20 years later, then nothing major or significant happened on the world scene in 1935..although if we were to apply it, then a generation would fit quite nicely in there, making those who were born in 1935, eighty five years old today. This could still buy us another 10 years, and it could still be said that it was one generation. (If we call the lifespan of man a generation). If I remember right though, wasn't it 1935 that SOMETHING significant did happen for the Witnesses? Wasn't it when the great crowd was identified?" ) Yes, a logical conclusion and we have seen this with our own (Russell, then Rutherford, then Franz, and now the current GB....always within in each respective groups lifetime" ) Of course we all know that if the 1914 doctrine was ever changed because of our "love for the the truth and not for the doctrine" (if indeed it turned out to be erroneous) it would be quite significant because it would automatically nullify 1919 when the FDS was supposedly appointed. It brings to mind something else that Br, Splane said in the video. He said something like would we allow an adjustment to previous understanding "touch our spiritual nerve". Good question, especially with regard to 1914. I don't mean to be skeptical, but I wonder if an alternative to 1914 is already being carefully studied....just in case the end is not here yet in 50 years....

Could you post the link to one?

Yes That immediately crossed my mind too! And also when talking about the pyramids, he quoted Rutherford who said "Jehovah doesn't need a stone monument built by pagans to accomplish his purpose" it made me think why would he use pagan Nebuchadnezzar to illustrate Christ's rulership?

I'm not going to make a chart, coz I don't know how. I could always draw one by hand I suppose,lol. Thanks! I got the same impression too... I don't think the new generation of Witnesses (my son's age) attach such great importance to it as the older generation did (heck, I'm not even sure they would know how to explain it). And the older generation is kind of tired now, I think. I agree. I listened again to Br. Splane's talk ( HERE starting at 2 hours:8 minutes mark) that you posted a link to and noted that toward the end he said "Our love should be for the truth, and not for a particular doctrine or teaching". And of course that's very true. So how dear do we hold the 1914 doctrine? And since the topic heading is "A difficult doctrine, with an easy explanation" I am posting one of the difficult explanations from "Bible questions answered" "What Does Bible Chronology Indicate About the Year 1914?" (On line HERE) And lets see how easy we can make it, following the "new way" for Bible interpretation regarding types and antitypes as per Br. Splane. You go first 😎. The Bible’s answer Bible chronology indicates that God’s Kingdom was established in heaven in 1914. This is shown by a prophecy recorded in chapter 4 of the Bible book of Daniel. Overview of the prophecy. God caused King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon to have a prophetic dream about an immense tree that was chopped down. Its stump was prevented from regrowing for a period of “seven times,” after which the tree would grow again.—Daniel 4:1, 10-16. The prophecy’s initial fulfillment. The great tree represented King Nebuchadnezzar himself. (Daniel 4:20-22) He was figuratively ‘chopped down’ when he temporarily lost his sanity and kingship for a period of seven years. (Daniel 4:25) When God restored his sanity, Nebuchadnezzar regained his throne and acknowledged God’s rulership.—Daniel 4:34-36. Evidence that the prophecy has a greater fulfillment. The whole purpose of the prophecy was that “people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets up over it even the lowliest of men.” (Daniel 4:17) Was proud Nebuchadnezzar the one to whom God ultimately wanted to give such rulership? No, for God had earlier given him another prophetic dream showing that neither he nor any other political ruler would fill this role. Instead, God would himself “set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.”—Daniel 2:31-44. Previously, God had set up a kingdom to represent his rulership on earth: the ancient nation of Israel. God allowed that kingdom to be made “a ruin” because its rulers had become unfaithful, but he foretold that he would give kingship to “the one who has the legal right.” (Ezekiel 21:25-27) The Bible identifies Jesus Christ as the one legally authorized to receive this everlasting kingdom. (Luke 1:30-33) Unlike Nebuchadnezzar, Jesus is “lowly in heart,” just as it was prophesied.—Matthew 11:29. What does the tree of Daniel chapter 4 represent? In the Bible, trees sometimes represent rulership. (Ezekiel 17:22-24; 31:2-5) In the greater fulfillment of Daniel chapter 4, the immense tree symbolizes God’s rulership. What does the tree’s being chopped down mean? Just as the chopping down of the tree represented an interruption in Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship, it also represented an interruption in God’s rulership on earth. This happened when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, where the kings of Israel sat on “Jehovah’s throne” as representatives of God himself.—1 Chronicles 29:23. What do the “seven times” represent? The “seven times” represent the period during which God allowed the nations to rule over the earth without interference from any kingdom that he had set up. The “seven times” began in October 607 B.C.E., when, according to Bible chronology, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians. *—2 Kings 25:1, 8-10. How long are the “seven times”? They could not be merely seven years as in Nebuchadnezzar’s case. Jesus indicated the answer when he said that “Jerusalem [a symbol of God’s rulership] will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24) “The appointed times of the nations,” the period during which God allowed his rulership to be “trampled on by the nations,” are the same as the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4. This means that the “seven times” were still under way even when Jesus was on earth. The Bible provides the way to determine the length of those prophetic “seven times.” It says that three and a half “times” equal 1,260 days, so “seven times” equal twice that number, or 2,520 days. (Revelation 12:6, 14) Applying the prophetic rule “a day for a year,” the 2,520 days represent 2,520 years. Therefore, the “seven times,” or 2,520 years, would end in October 1914.—Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6.

You are right. I was equating the importance not so much in the number of times it is mentioned, but that it is mentioned at all! I just tried to create a graph, but alas, since I've never done one either in word or excel, I failed miserably. I got the horizontal axis right, but I just can't find how to create the vertical axis and how to change the data (numbers) for the vertical axis so I completely messed up. In any case, the chart would show that since 1950 Watchtowers, the mention of 1914 has a sharp downward trend. During 1950 to 1959, it was mentioned 891 times, and during 2000-2009 it was mentioned 216 times. I don't have data for the years 2010 to 2019. So comparatively there is a big difference, but it still seems like too many mentions, if we are thinking along the lines of it slowly being phased out. In my opinion anyway....

@JW Insider and there's your 15 minutes of fame!

I have not noticed 1914 diminishing in importance. It gets aired anytime there is a reference to the times of the end, and its closeness (in publications, convention talks and Broadcasting). But you are right, there seems to be a certain hesitancy in directly including 1914 as being part of our "core doctrines". At least in the above mentioned days text. There is also no reference to it in the questions for baptism. Under Christian beliefs, Question 19 asks: How do you know that Kingdom blessings will soon be here? The answers are references to Matthew 24 and 2 Timothy (last days critical times..). IF 1914 was to be mentioned, what scripture references would be used? We can all see it would get very complicated, hence as you rightly called it, it is a difficult doctrine. But the irony is, it is a very fundamental doctrine, so it should be explained (with all the dozens of scriptures) and be a part of the questions for baptism, strictly speaking. So I wonder, why is it not there? That's fine with direct and obvious scriptures and Bible books. But how would you explain (interpret) books such as Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel etc? And I thought we already established that no one would any longer be inspired after the last of the apostles died.

What thread is that? ...oh I see, the "Trump Derangement Syndrome", lol

I hate being a bother but do you have the reference for that at hand? Also the reference for Br. Splane saying we have 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies. ( I had typed that up after I posted my previous comment and it got merged, so I don't know if you noticed it..)

Yes, that is true. I can't think right now, but are there any other instances where we have used someone, or something wicked to represent something good? In any case, now that you bring it up, it does sound odd. But I never looked at it from that angle before, I was always just focusing on the timeline only. (Although I did wonder what Christ had do with Neb, who was forced to acknowledge the true God. Where was there a parallel to that?) ----------------------------------------- "The tree that you beheld, that grew great and became strong . . . , it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong, and your grandeur has grown great and reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the extremity of the earth.” (Dan 4:18-22) WT comment: "Like the immense tree of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar had “grown great and become strong” as the head of a world power. But “rulership to the extremity of the earth,” involving the whole kingdom of mankind, is represented by the great tree. It therefore symbolizes Jehovah’s universal sovereignty, particularly in its relationship to the earth".—Daniel 4:17. (Pay attention to Daniels prophesy ch6, pp 82-97) A little bit of a stretch to say what the tree symbolizes when Daniel already clearly says it symbolizes Nebuchadnezzar rulership. But I guess if we did try to stretch it as far as it would go then we could say that because ultimately everything belongs to God, then the rulership was God's too. But is it what the bible book of Daniel meant....? Do you have a reference for that?

Just for interest, here is an interview with prince Andrew. It's acutely embarrassing the excuses he makes and the denials.... Read comments, they are entertaining

Word for word. Yes. Just watched it. I like that you talk about the broad effects of the impact whistleblowing has had in this particular area. It's not just the Witnesses, but many institutions. Many guilty people would have probably got away with sexual abuse 20 years ago, but not so much today. Even royalty have been put under the microscope. History is rife with stories of rich dirty old men having sex with underage girls and getting away with it. When enough people make noise, it can't be ignored.

I would like to expand on the above quote. New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule". So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood. So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"? (Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) (Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)

I haven't watched it yet. Did he really say that, because that's what I've always said. Some people didn't like that though, unfortunately proving that they were kind of "worshipful" of the GB, and believed the GB were ultra special and more than anyoe else.

Some good points there Srecko. It was obviously God who decided when it was ok to kill, based on laws that superseded the command not to kill. The question then is, when it comes to shunning, who decides when it's ok to shun and when it is not ok? Or is there something that supersedes the command to shun? First I want to address this comment you made: I understand the parallels you are trying to draw. There are many examples in history of family members disowning other family members, cutting them off as if the other person no longer exists. In these instances it is humans that make their own personal law. Sometimes it's based on understandable reasons, (extreme evilness on the part of the one who is being disowned) and sometimes on purely frivolous grounds (used as blackmail). Of course there are many many different reasons, too many to mention. I suppose this sounds reasonable. Usually when this situation occurs, the person is not in a disfellowshipped state. I have often thought about this problematic and I have still not found satisfactory justification for some of these actions. I can understand that a person guilty of breaking the Bible's commands and not repenting, or changing, should not be a part of the congregation. The congregation must be kept clean, otherwise Jesus "could vomit it out of his mouth". (Rev 3:16) He says "All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent" (Rev 3:19). And "‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first. If you do not, I will come to you, and I will remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent". (Rev 2:5) and “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam...... So repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war against them with the long sword of my mouth" I think just those few scriptures in Revelation show clearly Jesus' feelings about keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. We also have Paul's counsel. However, we know that those who have not repented are not thrown out of the congregation literally, but symbolically. They can still attend the meetings if they want. But they cannot participate and speak to anyone. Why? Because they have been disfellowshipped. So in this sense they have been "removed" BUT by being able to still go to meetings they are able to receive Jehovah's instructions and come to repentance, and then be welcomed back. Now imagine if this person had literally been thrown out, and was not allowed to put foot inside the KH. How would they be able to "repent and come back"? How would that work in practice? So in this sense, disfellowshipping is a merciful and loving provision, because the person is still able to receive spiritual instruction. But if they weren't disfellowshipped, and everyone would speak with them, then there would be no difference at all would there? Now the questions I ask is, it makes sense for the congregation, but how is it outside the congregation? This is where I find the difficulty. There are several things to consider. One is; are we Christians only inside the congregation, or are we Christians 24/7? Obviously we are Christians all of the time. So we could argue that whatever applies inside the congregation should also apply outside of it. Then there is the family. Frequently there is a misunderstanding in what family means. The broad definition is "a group of people who share common ancestors" a more usual definition is "group of people that may be made up of partners, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents" then the classic definition, and the ones JW mean when they say family is; "a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household" It's also called the nuclear family. We know that members of a household or nuclear family are not shunned. Only those living outside the household. I am ok with that, but I think that associating with family living outside the household should be left up to conscience, (your first conclusion). That is just my opinion. So is there something that supersedes the command to shun? (this is for anyone to answer, not just Srecko) The basics are in the Bible, for anyone to see

wonderful??? British sarcasm

So then predators were created with eyes that look ahead so they could focus on prey, and herbivores were created with eyes on the side of the head so they could keep a better watch for those predators.

The reason why I said what I did in that post was to highlight that "a little molestation" leads to "big molestation" unless the "little molestation" is stopped. What happened to me was nothing really. It did not traumatize me, and I was on good terms with my uncle. I doubt I would ever think of bringing something like that to the police, and my mum obviously didn't think it warranted it either. And to let you know, my mum was a tigress when it came to protecting me. Then in my reply to you I said: I mentioned that elsewhere too. No one thinks child sexual molestation is ok. And no one thinks "a little molestation" is ok either (that is why I said something, and that is why my mum handled it). If my uncle had been a Witness, and not my uncle, my mum would have gone to the elders and told them what happened.The the perpetrator would have probably made some excuse, or shown remorse, got a warning and a slap on the wrist. He would probably never dare to do anything like that to me again. The pertinent question is, would he do something like that to someone else? And if he did, would that someone else report it? And if they didn't report it would the "little molestation" lead to "big molestation"? That is the problem. I have no idea if my uncle molested someone else. He was my aunts second husband and had grown children. It probably didn't cross my aunts mind. I don't think it crossed anybodies mind, that other children could be in danger. Its because that's not how these things were generally perceived or understood. I am not making excuses. That's just how it was. In a similar manner, elders in those days were not aware that others could be in danger. They probably thought that a warning was enough to ensure it would not happen again. We now know the likelihood of something like that happening again is high. Yes, unfortunately it does appear that way. But to be fair, I would put both on the same plane. Child molestation is abhorred as much as the accusation of being tolerant of it, or hiding it. Especially when felt it is not justified (the accusation).

That was not the impression TTH gave me. Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW leaders. I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

Jesus’ followers have limited authority in every way. The authority given to them by Jesus is to look after the sheep in their care, not lording it over them, to keep the congregations morally and spiritually clean, and encourage them in the work Jesus commanded (preaching the good news). Also they were to provide spiritual food at the proper time. This did not mean re- inventing scripture or experimenting and then being dogmatic about the interpretation unless its proved crystal clear. If the holy spirit had authority to “make” people do things, then people under its influence would never make any mistakes. It does not have that authority. Holy spirit only works if the person is willing to be molded by it. We know mistakes have been made in interpretation and organization. Obviously Holy spirit was unable to influence that. The organization itself does not like the word dogmatic being applied to it because of its negative connotation. This is because imperfect humans do not have the right to be dogmatic about anything really.

I know what you're saying, it's just that a hand on the inner thigh or rear end, if done deliberately, is usually just the beginning, and is like a test leading to other stages. Maybe the degree of molestation should be categorized in stages? Stage one: hand on inner thigh and buttocks, stage two: ........and so on. The thing is, if the molester gets away with stage one (no one reports it, or the victim doesn't stop it) then you know for sure it will lead to stage two, and if that's not reported to stage three etc. So in my opinion, at least, it doesn't matter at what stage the molester gets caught or reported, because really it's about the potential, or goal of the molester, the actual "gravity" of the act is merely contingent on carrying on until he gets stopped. I consider my uncle (non JW) as molesting me when I was 13. I was wearing a t-shirt with some logo on it across my chest. He took his finger and begun tracing the writing and then at the end he tweeked my nipple. It all happened so unexpectedly that I didn't even think of moving. At the end of it I knew it had been deliberate because of the nipple thing. However, I nipped that one in the bud (no pun intended) by going straight to my mum reporting what had happened. My mum went straight to my aunt, and my aunt went straight to my uncle. Needless to say, that was the last time he touched me. I hate to think what could have happened had I not said anything....

Dogmatism: "the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others". So I think Jesus had the right to be dogmatic because he had authority from God to lay down principles, and he didn't need to consider evidence or opinions of others for the same reason. However, in areas that didn't demand it, he did consider others, and at no time was he arrogant and haughty. Arrogance and haughtiness are negative synonyms of being dogmatic. Same goes for the apostles, but of course since they were imperfect, they didn't succeed as Jesus did.