Anna

22 hours ago, Anna said:

I will leave that to @JW Insider He is much more competent than me. 

Note, I never said 1914 was wrong. But I won't say it's right either.  And I actually think it's OK being undecided (in this particular instance).

 

28 minutes ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

I can appreciate your reliance on man, rather than Jah! While sitting on the fence.

How does what I said above make you conclude that I rely on man instead of Jah? And I did make it clear that there was nothing wrong with sitting on the fence with regard to SOME issues, obviously not all.  In this case, I don't think believing or not believing in 1914 really makes a blind bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. Prove me wrong.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What's hard to understand is why you claim that you will always prefer the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses even if you are aware that the Bible teaches something different.

6 hours ago, bruceq said:

here ya go. Thanks for admitting your thinking about Jehovah's Witnesses. Now its on record for all to see.

The Bible teaches whatever our HEAD tells us we do = JESUS. NOT you and Christendom. LOL seriously 

@bruceq how does this have anything to do with what JW Insider said above? All he did was indirectly quote you, and said he finds it hard to understand. You might need to read it again, several times. It's a claim you made, after all!

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No that wasn't 'all you asked. And if you are really willing to let the dishonesty of that previous post stand with no response then I will assume that you really are willing to sully the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's good name.

I don't think Bruce was intending to be dishonest, I think the problem is he just didn't get what you meant with your analogy at all...

7 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

 I have no doubts that in time the religion will become like another Church.

I agree with all your prior thoughts except this one.

Jehovah promised he will have a people (a group, not individuals scattered throughout the world) who will be united in worship of him. These peoples will beat their swords into plowshares and will not learn war anymore. They will have love among themselves, and they will follow in his son's footsteps. Whatever Jesus did, and told his followers to do, they will do to their utmost ability. This includes preaching the Kingdom as the only solution to mankind's problems. I do not see that this will ever stop until Jehovah says it is done. These peoples as a group, a great crowd, are the ones to inherit the earth.

"In the final part of the days,*The mountain of the house of Jehovah+Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains,And it will be raised up above the hills,And to it peoples will stream.+  ²  And many nations will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah And to the house of the God of Jacob.+ He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.” For law* will go out of Zion,And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.......

 ⁵  For all the peoples will walk, each in the name of its god,But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God+ forever and ever". - Micah ch. 4

2 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

PROVE 1914 IS WRONG!!!

I will leave that to @JW Insider He is much more competent than me. 

Note, I never said 1914 was wrong. But I won't say it's right either.  And I actually think it's OK being undecided (in this particular instance).

4 hours ago, Anna said:

The thing is, these bumps in the road are our own making. We create the bumps.They are nothing to do with Jesus. The changes made by the Chariot are because WE had got thing wrong. If we had got them right the Chariot wouldn't need to change at all. It shows Jesus' and Jehovah's purpose does not change but sometimes has to take a detour to go around a wrong teaching (the bump) and get back on the correct path (when we finally get it right)

3 hours ago, bruceq said:

No they are not. You have to look at this from a spiritual way not a physical way. JESUS is in control of the Chariot NOT any humans. We do not have ANY control over it including any movements or "bumps".

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I am looking at it in a spiritual way. This is exclusively a spiritual subject since the chariot is not a physical thing.  I never said Jesus was not in control of the Chariot. In fact I said he WAS, and that sometimes he has to take a detour to ride around a bump that WE his Witnesses have created. ( I say WE in a broad sense, since of course it is the FDS who are in charge of what is taught). Or are you saying that a wrong understanding that the FDS put forward is really Jesus saying it? I don't think you are, since you, like me, believe that all that Jesus says is the truth. It is OUR interpretation that can sometimes be wrong (drinking his blood etc.) So, in view of that, if we have a wrong interpretation, and put it forward as a true teaching, then that must be the bump that Jesus in his chariot has to go around isn't it? Both Jesus and Jehovah work with us, despite our imperfections, and hence also our imperfect interpretations. No, of course we do not have any control over the movement of the chariot, since it is Jesus who is the driver. However the bumps in the road are NOT created by Jesus are they?

And I never aid Jesus was not head of the congregation either. I believe he is.

3 hours ago, bruceq said:

Even if we do not fully understand or agree with a decision, we will still want to support theocratic  order.

This is mainly talking about a decision made by the Elders regarding a congregational matter. This is not talking about doctrine. Nevertheless, by extension, if there is a doctrinal understanding we do not agree with, we can still support theocratic order by waiting on Jehovah, since the passage of time will eventually show whether our thoughts were correct or not. If we were wrong,  then the  chariot will bring us back on track. If the FDS were wrong then the chariot will bring them back on track. It's a win win if you support theocratic order. Of course we would never support anything if it was blatantly scripturally wrong.

P.S. Bruce, let me ask you a hypothetical question so that I am clear on your thinking. IF the GB said tomorrow that all Witnesses must commit suicide to prove their loyalty to God and to get into the new system, would you go ahead or not? Please give reasons why you would chose your decision.

17 hours ago, bruceq said:

It is possible to believe in something that later is decided by Jesus as being the truth.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this

17 hours ago, bruceq said:

Oh perhaps you were right after all but is it not better to stay in the vehicle

I agree with you

17 hours ago, bruceq said:

As for teachings that were not true but later were the same thing applies. Jesus is head of the Congregation. Certainly he knows the road ahead better than we humans do and sometimes can make decisions that according to our limited human viewpoint from the back of the bus seem wrong or actually is wrong. For example Jesus told people to eat his blood and flesh. Not only was that wrong according to Jewish Law but common human decency. Yet who was right?

I don't really see that when Jesus told people to drink his blood and eat his flesh is an example of something that wasn't true but later was. This is just a case of interpretation. The people interpreted that to be taken literally (false premise), but Jesus meant it symbolically (correct understanding). Using your example of drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh, it's like if we had taught that this was literal, but later, we correctly discerned it was symbolic. According to your argument Jesus would be guiding this thinking when we thought it literal?

17 hours ago, bruceq said:

Sometimes the driver can go over bumps in the road or swerve to avoid certain things but it is not wrong if the Driver knows what he is doing. Do you not think Jesus knows what he is doing? We may become anxious or get vertigo from the changes made by the Chariot but a true follower of Christ will follow him no matter where he goes without complaining to him about the road taken.

The thing is, these bumps in the road are our own making. We create the bumps.They are nothing to do with Jesus. The changes made by the Chariot are because WE had got thing wrong. If we had got them right the Chariot wouldn't need to change at all. It shows Jesus' and Jehovah's purpose does not change but sometimes has to take a detour to go around a wrong teaching (the bump) and get back on the correct path (when we finally get it right). Who knows, the chariot might be taking a big detour right now around 1914. It had to take that detour several times because of a wrong date. It took one around the 1925 teaching until 1925 passed, and the Chariot could get back on track....

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's true that they literally thought that it was some kind of attack on them if groups of brothers and sisters were meeting together just to read and discuss the Bible reading without Society publications at their side at all times.

If I remember right, is it  those Bible discussions that eventually led to the "dissidency"? I don't think it was just reading and discussing the Bible, but it was coming up with another interpretation, which they liked better than the official JW teaching.....

11 hours ago, bruceq said:

If Jehovah's Witnesses is the true religion then their teachings are true since Jesus is the head of those teachings,

Ummmm...I hate to sound critical, but I will ask the obvious question, what about those teachings that weren't actually true and we taught them as truth, until we found out otherwise. Are you hereby saying Jesus was lying?

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Well, as you can tell from the image attached to the link, above, it quickly turned into thread about buzzards and elephants and even took a detour down Broadway.

LOL. And there was me thinking at one point, I think it was beginning of July, we had all reached an amicable conclusion, something to the effect of we will agree to disagree and still be friends, but then the thread got re-visited with added fury a month later, and more than doubled from a previous 6 pages to 13. It looks like it just can't be given a rest, but those little humorous interludes do brighten things up a bit, and give everyone a breather, to gather strength for the next "scholastic" onslaught

20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

COJ did the same thing the Watchtower is being accused of. Aligning the dates to fit his agenda.

What was COJ's agenda?

10 hours ago, Arauna said:

All the knowledge in the world cannot fight against the knowledge of Jehovah...

Very true

10 hours ago, Arauna said:

and he can use his spirit to assist who he wants?

Yes, no doubt about that

10 hours ago, Arauna said:

When a "mistake" (some people used their influence to say it is a mistake) turns out to be spot on later - as more historical facts were opened up - is it not quite revealing?  Don't you agree? 

It is revealing, I agree. And then there are other things that have been put forward as undeniable truth, which later turned out as being a mistake.

It's like you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, except the opposite. We always seem to be right whether it's a mistake or not. That is the general impression I get, but I'm not sure if this attitude has scriptural support...

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, I can just imagine even some of the personalities that show up on this forum and imagine what they would be like if they thought they had the actual power to cast someone into Gehenna, for example.

Hahaha, I was thinking that too!

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

His 'discovery' was, in fact, what had long been already known and established in ANE and biblical scholarship.

Yes, I am aware of that, but it was "news" to him

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

His downfall was believing that the Society was interested in the truth of the matter.

Yes, in the truth of the matter in his opinion. I know, you are going to say there are thousands others with the same opinion, but still, no matter how right you think you are or how much support you have, when you see you are not getting anywhere the wisest thing is to move on. Which he eventually did, but he could have spared himself the alienation. Now, from what I can see, he has adopted so many of Christendom's reasonings, and criticizes other beliefs of JWs.  He didn't just stay with disputing chronology.

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Unfortunately, the responses from HQ were inadequate, rehashing what had already been questioned or rebutted, and they repeated platitudes and promises to address the evidence - which they didn't do. Instead, they urged him to keep quiet

I am familiar with the correspondence between him and the society

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

In the end the truth will eventually always come out'? The truth had already come out - several times before COJ's treatise. The truth had been flagged up in Russell's day, in Rutherford's day, and many times since, by those inside the org and by never-been-JWs.

"The truth coming out"...I mean on a much bigger scale than just a few people inside the org. I mean that the truth will eventually be known by ALL.

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Could it be that Jehovah has been nudging and jabbing the leaders of His people to make corrections all along, but they've been ignoring Him?

Possibly...

Sorry to the others because this is totally off the subject. Just skip over it if you have to. 

 

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

Thanks Anna for reaching out to me.  I believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech. My character is also known for being a free spirit...but not too free!  I am extremely friendly, always smiling and always caring and helpful - at least that is what I strive to be.  There is always something that is crazy happening around me... I like to stimulate people and get feedback (in field service - we usually have a blast!) 

Thank you for your reply Arauna. I am assuming that you would go in field service with me then? Although you did not give me a direct answer, I will not insist on one. I think you understand that the point I was trying to make was that as long as one does not become obnoxious and pushes others to accept their ideas, then it is ok to have a different opinion on some of our teachings, especially if those teachings are not clear cut (or we don't perceive them that way personally). But you definitely sound like someone I would like to have as a friend (we have a lot in common)

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

So I understand the idea of breaking out and being free and looking at new ideas or new ways of doing things.   I am always ready to read about new things going on in the world and undercurrents most people are not aware of -

Me too! Unfortunately I barely have the time, which means I am not as well informed about a subject as I would like to be, especially subjects as deep and time consuming such as this one. This is why my best bet is to keep an open mind and not condemn one opinion over another until perhaps I have all the facts possible, and even then, we are still human and make mistakes, even the experts. I like to try and understand where the other person is coming from. I do this on here, I do it in FS. So what I do not like (IÂ’m not saying you do this) is when people are dogmatic and do not give another opinion a fair trial. And when they start judging the person for their motives. I think no one has the right to judge another oneÂ’s motives, since we really have no way of knowing. We cannot read hearts. And especially we cannot judge people from merely what they say, we need to see actions as well in order to form a halfway correct impression of someone, and that is impossible on a forum of course...

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

I will even give it a thought........ BUT I do not dwell on bad things ...and try to stay away from things that I perceive to be disruptive, counter productive, unkind or misleading.

I agree, that is a good way to do it, just stay away. We all have different levels of what we can take, and we should not allow others to dictate what is ok and what isn’t, or how far we should or shouldn’t go, and neither should we dictate to anyone else what they should or shouldn’t  read or do either. We all have the same information from the Bible and our meetings. Of course I am not saying we shouldn’t show concern for a friend if we see they may be going down a spiritually dangerous road, or that we shouldn’t accept advice, but we can hardly do that on a forum because we don’t know the person.

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

many people self-indulge in a passion with no self-control and then cannot understand why it is not presentable to others. Self-indulgence in anything is usually not good. One can go on and on.....with it - it will bring personal satisfaction - but in the end it is not perfect because it does not "share" well with others.

Hahah, this is so true! I always say those ones just like the sound of their own voice!

A brother once told me that humility is essential if one wants to stay in the truth. The older I get the more I see how true that is.

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

Jehovah created us to live together as social animals.... there are boundaries one does not cross if you want to live and work together in peace and harmony..... because one infringes on the happiness and freedoms of others.  

Yes.

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

I believe in personal freedom curbed by personal self-control and social responsibility.

Yes, that is a good way of putting it. Brings to mind James 1:14, 15

 

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

In future, to curb the extreme ideologies floating around (which is threatening the "security" of the people and the state) - they will come down hard freedom of thought. Especially on JWs because we have learnt to think differently to the rest of mankind. 

Hmmm.......it certainly seems to be going that way. And we will stick out like a sore thumb!

13 hours ago, Arauna said:

I studied Islam - the dark sinister part of it - but realized that I must not delve too deep into satanic things.... 

Is it really that bad? My sister in-law was married to an Arab and lived in Saudi Arabia for several years. She was disfellowshipped at the time so she didn't do anything with the Truth anyway, but now she is back and she was telling me some horrendous things. I also had a return visit from Eritrea who was a Muslim, and she was a lovely lady (they went back now), she told me that Islam is good, it's some of the people who twist it.....Unfortunately I have not read the Quran so I cannot form an opinion (that's another one of those things on the back burner, and I doubt I will ever get around to it, I have trouble with keeping up with the Bible reading). I also worked with a Syrian girl, and she was also very nice, we had quite a few discussions about the Bible etc. and she valued our strong faith as JWs, she said most people do not have strong faith. It was difficult to persuade her to accept the Bible though because she believed the Quran replaced it, and in her words, why should she accept something if it has been replaced with something more up to date and better. You would probably have known what to say to her. If I had read the Quran perhaps I would have been better equipped. In any case I have read quite a few things about Muhammad but it's difficult to sort out what is true....

And now I have a return visit on a Muslim Doctor...I need help

 

Yes, what Arauna said is true, humans LOVE to share their bits of knowledge, and if it’s something they’ve discovered themselves, so much more so. But it’s natural for us to do it and it’s not always bad, and nor are the motives behind it always bad.  I believe when Carl Olof Jonsson first “discovered” what he did when he researched the Gentile times, he had no bad motives. He obviously believed he had found the truth regarding that subject, and believed the WT didn’t realize they were in error. Put yourself in his shoes. Imagine how you would have felt if your “exciting” discovery was met with reservations almost bordering on indifference. His downfall was not the research, nor his discovery, nor his writing to the society about it, but his hurt ego, and pride that HIS discovery was not recognized.  We all want to be recognized for the effort we put into something, and he had put a lot of effort into it. It doesn’t feel good if someone tells you “you leave the thinking to us and you go and play in the sand”. However if someone tells you that they do not accept your opinion, that they see things differently, then humility should move us to let it go. No point in arguing or forcing our opinion on others. In the end the truth will eventually always come out.  But unfortunately he (COJ) was “trapped by his own cleverness”.

I like what one GB member said, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that we should respect that. We do it in FS all the time. Don’t we just love it when someone gives us the opportunity to explain some aspect of the Bible to them, but don’t we also just have to accept that it may not change their previously held opinion? It happens all the time, and we just have to move on.  Just think the many times you reasoned with someone on the trinity, and showed them the many scriptures to refute it. But we don’t stand there browbeating them until they see things our way do we?

Similarly in our brotherhood,  we are not all cookie cutter the same. We don’t all have the same opinion on everything. We may even have differing views on some aspects of the Truth. A very good friend of mine, a very spiritual and zealous sister, who doesn’t just talk the truth but she walks it too, does not believe in the new interpretation of the generation. She doesn’t go around trying tell others why not, I only know about it because we are very close. She doesn’t make a big deal out of it, it’s just her opinion after all, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am sure there are many who do not believe in the overlapping generation and I am sure there are quite a few who are not convinced about 1914 either. Does that make them a “bad” Witness?  @Arauna if we were in the same congregation, and you knew me from here, would you avoid me? I am sure FS would be lovely with you, would you let me go with you, or would you say no, because I have my own opinion on the generation and 1914? I would really be interested to know your answer because your answer will show whether it really matters what I (and by extension others) believe regarding these subjects or not.

47 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Agreed.  "and the people began to fear Jehovah and to put faith in Jehovah AND in his servant Moses". And we know the "rest of the story" of how some were stumbled because of not having respect and loyalty to Jehovah AND the one "taking the lead". "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you+and be submissive" Heb. 13:17. Trust that Jehovah has his organization in complete control like the Celestial Chariot in Ezekiel.

So how do I feel? Great because:

Abundant peace belongs to those loving your law, and for them there is NO stumbling block.”—PSALM 119:165.

 agape, Bruce

My previous comment was neither opposed to putting faith in Jehovah and the FDS, nor respecting and being loyal to Jehovah and the ones taking the lead. It was also not opposed to being obedient to those taking the lead and being submissive.  And also not opposed to the idea that Jehovah has his organization in complete control.

So what was your point?

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

Abundant peace belongs to those loving your law, and for them there is NO stumbling block.”—PSALM 119:165.

 Exactly. So why worry about 1914?

2 hours ago, bruceq said:

If the Faithful slave says it is so then it is so

By the way is the kind of comment that lands people who make it, out of the truth. May you never be stumbled.

 I hope one day the faithful slave is not going to change their understanding of 1914, to one similar to what is presented here by JWI. If they do, it won't make me think any less of them. What is it going to do to you though? And don't say it will never happen, because it HAS happened on many occasions where they taught one thing, and then "refined" their understanding. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against refining our understanding, or even changing our understanding. We should never dogmatically insist on something, and as far as I can see, change is proof that the FDS have not dogmatically insisted on something when further evidence came to light. So why should WE be dogmatic? Is it wrong to say that there are some interesting scriptural arguments being brought forward? Why insist on something "just" because for the present this is what the FDS teach? At least THAT should NOT be the argument. The argument should be a well presented scriptural counter argument. So far I have not really seen this on this thread, or on the other one. The majority has just been diversions, and attacks on the person and their motive.

What if I was to call into question your person and motive? Are you perhaps scared if 1914 is wrong, where will that leave a lot of our beliefs? Where would that leave you? Are you afraid this could delay the end?  Is that why you are sidestepping the issue and diverting attention from the "message" to the person? What are you afraid of?

So, how did that feel.

2 hours ago, bruceq said:

I believe the true faith is a minority. Therefore its beliefs would not be shared by the majority such as Christendom in regards to the subjects under consideration.

Yes, I believe the true faith is a minority too. The scriptures tell us so. We don't believe in the trinity, immortality of the soul and no Jehovah in NT do we?  Why include that in the mix with visible parousia and king in 33 C.E. though? Does that make it wrong just because the majority believe that? The majority also believe other things that we as JWs believe also.

Just as a side issue, I noticed that in the new 2013 NWT there are several instances where we changed the wording to be more in line  with other (Christendom's) translations.  You know the saying,  truth is truth no matter who says it

5 hours ago, bruceq said:

OR on more likely common definitions of Christendom {Majority view}............God is a Trinity, Soul is immortal, Jehovah not in NT...

Why are you bringing this into the discussion?

I had wanted to answer some points further up the thread, but I'm so backlogged due to lack of time, that I'd rather address your latest post before I get really behind.

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

REASONABLENESS versus PRESUMPTUOUSNESS; or, TRUTH versus SPECULATION

It has even been suggested that perhaps the teaching about 1914 really is wrong, or perhaps it's not, but it's not really our responsibility to "test" what we believe and "make sure of all things." In effect, people are saying it's not our own personal responsibility to "handle the word of God aright" as long as we are loyally following along and not questioning (out loud) the teachings of the Governing Body

Just today, during the WT study, this very thing came to mind when we were going through Par. 16: "From time to time, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or some Scriptural passage may be adjusted. When such new understandings are provided, we ought to take time to study the information carefully and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Tim. 4:15) We seek to understand clearly not only the major adjustments but also the subtle differences between the old understanding and the new one. In this way, we are certain to place the new truth securely in our own treasure store". July WT 2017 p.25

So here the advice is that we SHOULD study the information carefully and meditate on it.    This is assuming that the only thing preventing us from accepting the new understanding as our own is if we don't take time to study the information carefully, but what may happen is after we've studied the "new understanding" carefully is that we may actually not see it that way....

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Please feel free to let us know if you think it is reasonable.

If you are meaning the GB could/should say that, then I very much doubt they ever would.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Red pill to go back in time to fix all my mistakes until I get right up to the very last mistake I had made before going back. That would, of course, be the time that someone offered me a blue and red pill, and I took the red one. I will then fix that mistake by taking the blue pill this time. This way I can have my cake and eat it too!

Of course, that last step isn't even necessary because every mistake I ever made included all the days I sold stock or traded mutual funds a day too early or held onto them a day too long. Fixing those mistakes will easily produce the extra 10 million in cash.

How did I know you were going to say something like this!

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Everyone gets one failed end-of-the-world date per lifetime. 

Is that like 15 minutes of fame?

This is getting scary. Now Allen Smith is the VIRGINIAN!!!!

3 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

...... I am a compulsive reader.

But be careful you don't get worn down, because Allen Smith and several of his alter egos will find scriptures that condemn this very thing, and beat you over the head with them