TrueTomHarley

Bolding WT publications such as this one, do you imagine you have uncovered some dark mystical “gnostic” secret? Or is this not the way knowledge of anything is acquired? If you want to be an electrician, isn’t the best way to put yourself in close association with someone who has already grasped the material?
Knowledge in the case of this Watchtower quote is not the hidden knowledge of the Gnostics. It is Bible knowledge, available to all. All that is needed is a guide. 
And it apparently works. The Bible tenets that describe Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jehovah’s Witnesses alone are found nowhere except where the GB is taking the lead.
That there is no immortal soul, no trinity, use God’s name, kingdom a real government, everlasting life on earth, why God permits evil, exactly how the ransom works, what happens to the dead, and so forth. Few Christian denominations teach even one of these. No one teaches all of them. Only where the GB is present does it happen. In that sense, though G Jackson was ridiculed for it, he is exactly right. They serve as “guardians of doctrine.” Where they are not present, doctrine is scattered to the four winds..
Nor do they “decide what knowledge is” in the sense you imply—simply making things up as though from a secret “gnostic” source. In all cases it is from the Bible. They point people to it—no more—after which it is clear the Bible itself does the instructing. As in the following case:
“Philip ran alongside and heard him reading aloud Isaiah the prophet, and he said: “Do you actually know what you are reading?”  He said: “Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?” And he entreated Philip to get on and sit down with him.” (Acts 8:31-32)
There is nothing mystical about the know in this verse. It’s not gnostic. It is just plain and simple knowledge of the scriptures. The eunuch just needed someone with a key to unlock it. 

This Bro Kaplan makes a pretty good spokesman: "We are not afraid to be different, but we are not out to provoke. Those who know us, including serious institutions in democracies, know that we are not a group of crazies with apocalyptic visions.”
I like, too, how he points to the irony of in every land, Witnesses are derided on the basis of being anti-Christian, but in Israel on the basis that they are Christian.
Jews know what it is to be persecuted and they do not confuse it with people deciding not to hang out with you.

If so, expect the exJW crowd to become virulently hostile to vaccines.

This Bro Kaplan makes a pretty good spokesman: "We are not afraid to be different, but we are not out to provoke. Those who know us, including serious institutions in democracies, know that we are not a group of crazies with apocalyptic visions.”
I like, too, how he points to the irony of in every land, Witnesses are derided on the basis of being anti-Christian, but in Israel on the basis that they are Christian.
Jews know what it is to be persecuted and they do not confuse it with people deciding not to hang out with you.

This Bro Kaplan makes a pretty good spokesman: "We are not afraid to be different, but we are not out to provoke. Those who know us, including serious institutions in democracies, know that we are not a group of crazies with apocalyptic visions.”
I like, too, how he points to the irony of in every land, Witnesses are derided on the basis of being anti-Christian, but in Israel on the basis that they are Christian.
Jews know what it is to be persecuted and they do not confuse it with people deciding not to hang out with you.

No. That’s called making the same missteps as the original disciples did, missteps all stemming from an eagerness to see the kingdom come.
“When, now, they had assembled, they went asking him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” (Acts 1:6)
“While they were listening to these things he spoke in addition an illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly. (Luke 19:11)
It’s not ideal, then or now, but that’s what imperfect people do. It sure beats the pants off of giving up on the whole project.

The reason the Wt cannot tolerate these “spurious” scriptures is because they are “spurious.” Nobody else worth his salt in the world of biblical scholarship can tolerate them either. Just because a passage appeals to sentimentality does not mean it belongs in the word of God.
Up till now I thought you at least knew scriptures, if not their proper application. Now it appears you do not know scripture either. Any tear-jerker of a passage you uncritically accept.
What “proofs” does your website offer to counter the fact that it is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts? Besides the fact that it appeals to you, I can see only:
1) Jesus said a lot of things, all the scrolls in the world could not contain them, so probably this is one of those things.
2) It is not vague but has specific details.
That’s it!
I could write a biblical passage to meet these criteria, and you would probably accept it.
In fact the Trutomicom excerpt, unjustly excluded from modern Bibles, but I have found an ancient manuscript of such in my glove box, includes the following “missing” passage from Revelation:
”And loud voice was heard from the rider of the white horse, crying “Whoa!!!” As the angelic troops ground to a screeching halt, amidst the whinnying and neighing  and snorting of horses, the rider’s voice rang out:
”Really, what business is this of ours? Here below we see ones who do not know their right hand from their left. It’s their affair! Let the one who has no sin among them throw the first bolt. Since there is not such a one, I forgive them as well.* Now let’s go home.
*all except for the sins of a certain 8 men in New York State. They really tick me off! I’ll let all sins slide except for theirs. They’re gonna fry!”
Happy?

So here we see why WItness defends the passage, despite flimsy evidence for it being genuine and strong evidence for it being spurious. She does it to undermine the provision of disfellowshipping.
There is plenty of reason to not believe it. Though Jesus forgives sin frequently in scripture, there is always some evidence of repentance on the sinning one’s part. There is some basis for forgiveness. Here there is not.
All that is lacking in the spurious passage is for Jesus to say at the end: “Boy, I can’t believe what a nasty bully my dad is!” 

No. That’s called making the same missteps as the original disciples did, missteps all stemming from an eagerness to see the kingdom come.
“When, now, they had assembled, they went asking him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” (Acts 1:6)
“While they were listening to these things he spoke in addition an illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly. (Luke 19:11)
It’s not ideal, then or now, but that’s what imperfect people do. It sure beats the pants off of giving up on the whole project.

Next thing you know, she’ll have the wrongdoer ascending with Jesus to paradise that day, nevermind how it conflicts with the rest of the scriptures.
I think it is pretty clear that scholarship does not matter to her and that she uses her special ‘anointed’ sense to tell if a passage is any good or not. If it helps her in her battle against her ‘rival anointed,’ is is golden.

Next thing you know, she’ll have the wrongdoer ascending with Jesus to paradise that day, nevermind how it conflicts with the rest of the scriptures.
I think it is pretty clear that scholarship does not matter to her and that she uses her special ‘anointed’ sense to tell if a passage is any good or not. If it helps her in her battle against her ‘rival anointed,’ is is golden.

The reason the Wt cannot tolerate these “spurious” scriptures is because they are “spurious.” Nobody else worth his salt in the world of biblical scholarship can tolerate them either. Just because a passage appeals to sentimentality does not mean it belongs in the word of God.
Up till now I thought you at least knew scriptures, if not their proper application. Now it appears you do not know scripture either. Any tear-jerker of a passage you uncritically accept.
What “proofs” does your website offer to counter the fact that it is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts? Besides the fact that it appeals to you, I can see only:
1) Jesus said a lot of things, all the scrolls in the world could not contain them, so probably this is one of those things.
2) It is not vague but has specific details.
That’s it!
I could write a biblical passage to meet these criteria, and you would probably accept it.
In fact the Trutomicom excerpt, unjustly excluded from modern Bibles, but I have found an ancient manuscript of such in my glove box, includes the following “missing” passage from Revelation:
”And loud voice was heard from the rider of the white horse, crying “Whoa!!!” As the angelic troops ground to a screeching halt, amidst the whinnying and neighing  and snorting of horses, the rider’s voice rang out:
”Really, what business is this of ours? Here below we see ones who do not know their right hand from their left. It’s their affair! Let the one who has no sin among them throw the first bolt. Since there is not such a one, I forgive them as well.* Now let’s go home.
*all except for the sins of a certain 8 men in New York State. They really tick me off! I’ll let all sins slide except for theirs. They’re gonna fry!”
Happy?

So here we see why WItness defends the passage, despite flimsy evidence for it being genuine and strong evidence for it being spurious. She does it to undermine the provision of disfellowshipping.
There is plenty of reason to not believe it. Though Jesus forgives sin frequently in scripture, there is always some evidence of repentance on the sinning one’s part. There is some basis for forgiveness. Here there is not.
All that is lacking in the spurious passage is for Jesus to say at the end: “Boy, I can’t believe what a nasty bully my dad is!” 

So here we see why WItness defends the passage, despite flimsy evidence for it being genuine and strong evidence for it being spurious. She does it to undermine the provision of disfellowshipping.
There is plenty of reason to not believe it. Though Jesus forgives sin frequently in scripture, there is always some evidence of repentance on the sinning one’s part. There is some basis for forgiveness. Here there is not.
All that is lacking in the spurious passage is for Jesus to say at the end: “Boy, I can’t believe what a nasty bully my dad is!” 

@Witness The WHY is due to a gain on the opponent's end. It all points back to the councils.

Whoa! I almost said something so dumb that PSomH could call ME a dodo and I would have little defense. 
My quick impression was that if was Jason who agreed, but was embarrassed, etc, leading me to almost ask: I never thought he was a Witness—is he? But after reading the remark 200 time, I see it is you who agree but is embarrassed. 
I dunno. Yeah, I see your point, it is a little odd there, but it is just an appeal to testimonial. After all, if they quoted Bro Splane, people would say, “Well, of course, he would say that.
There is a Russian professor they could have used to, Gordienko? I think, who says: When the authorities make accusations against the Witnesses, the do not realize they are making accusations against the Bible itself.’ He has the advantage of being dead, so the Russian authorities cannot arrest him.
 

Whoa! I almost said something so dumb that PSomH could call ME a dodo and I would have little defense. 
My quick impression was that if was Jason who agreed, but was embarrassed, etc, leading me to almost ask: I never thought he was a Witness—is he? But after reading the remark 200 time, I see it is you who agree but is embarrassed. 
I dunno. Yeah, I see your point, it is a little odd there, but it is just an appeal to testimonial. After all, if they quoted Bro Splane, people would say, “Well, of course, he would say that.
There is a Russian professor they could have used to, Gordienko? I think, who says: When the authorities make accusations against the Witnesses, the do not realize they are making accusations against the Bible itself.’ He has the advantage of being dead, so the Russian authorities cannot arrest him.
 

I haven’t seen them either. She probably blocked me, too.

Nothing at all wrong with you in my book, though I am surprised at the extent to which you lock horns with people who have proven conclusively for many months, even years, that they are not going to budge one iota.
Just above this comment, Patiently Sitting on my Hands wants you to “prove” something or other. The point is, it doesn’t work that way. “Prove to yourself” is how Romans 12:1 puts it, and he must prove it to himself, which he has abundantly demonstrated that Christendom’s hell will freeze over before that happens. 
“Taste and see Jehovah is good,” Ps 34:8 says, and for us, Jehovah comes part and parcel with his earthly organization. He has tasted and seen that he and it is bad—even the Name he discards. How can you “prove” to someone that their tastebuds are bad? If they don’t like it, they don’t like it.
I do sometimes comment where the bad boys and girls hang out, but it is usually in the sense of talking past them to the audience beyond who may be influenced by them. But when there is no other audience beyond other than ones exactly like them, then it seems you run the risk of violating Jesus’ counsel to leave blind guides be.
Lately I’ve been drawing away from this side of the forum in favor of the one where whatever you say is not instantly hurled back in your face with a very few arguments that you can answer till you’re blue in the face but they never change—they just repackage them and run them through again. Who would have thought that good @Annawould have provided respite? I was leaning this way even before Bro Spane’s talk—which is just a restatement of the same—and he just put more icing on the cake. 
Oh—and you’re a little given toward conspiratorial things, but that’s not a minus in my book. I appreciate the extra viewpoint. I don’t necessarily hold with it all, but on the other hand, it might turn out exactly that way.
Seriously, you are always welcomed for your insights on the closed forum and you won’t find fierce resistance to every syllable you utter.
 

Nothing at all wrong with you in my book, though I am surprised at the extent to which you lock horns with people who have proven conclusively for many months, even years, that they are not going to budge one iota.
Just above this comment, Patiently Sitting on my Hands wants you to “prove” something or other. The point is, it doesn’t work that way. “Prove to yourself” is how Romans 12:1 puts it, and he must prove it to himself, which he has abundantly demonstrated that Christendom’s hell will freeze over before that happens. 
“Taste and see Jehovah is good,” Ps 34:8 says, and for us, Jehovah comes part and parcel with his earthly organization. He has tasted and seen that he and it is bad—even the Name he discards. How can you “prove” to someone that their tastebuds are bad? If they don’t like it, they don’t like it.
I do sometimes comment where the bad boys and girls hang out, but it is usually in the sense of talking past them to the audience beyond who may be influenced by them. But when there is no other audience beyond other than ones exactly like them, then it seems you run the risk of violating Jesus’ counsel to leave blind guides be.
Lately I’ve been drawing away from this side of the forum in favor of the one where whatever you say is not instantly hurled back in your face with a very few arguments that you can answer till you’re blue in the face but they never change—they just repackage them and run them through again. Who would have thought that good @Annawould have provided respite? I was leaning this way even before Bro Spane’s talk—which is just a restatement of the same—and he just put more icing on the cake. 
Oh—and you’re a little given toward conspiratorial things, but that’s not a minus in my book. I appreciate the extra viewpoint. I don’t necessarily hold with it all, but on the other hand, it might turn out exactly that way.
Seriously, you are always welcomed for your insights on the closed forum and you won’t find fierce resistance to every syllable you utter.
 

Thank you for calling me good Tom. 
I have not listened to Br. Splanes talk yet, we were away and did not get to that part yet. Just getting around to watching the first part of the Daniel drama. But I have heard what it's about since when we got back home we joined our Saturday FS group as usual, this time for a review of the Saturday afternoon session. My hubby and I sat there like two numpties, since we had nothing to say. I did try and bluff though by looking down as if at my notes, lol. But I don't think anyone was fooled because usually we answer several times. Anyway, I look forward to listening to the talk, no doubt accompanied by accusatory sideways glances from my husband. I was thinking about you during the FS discussion, wondering what Tom thought of the talk....

Nothing at all wrong with you in my book, though I am surprised at the extent to which you lock horns with people who have proven conclusively for many months, even years, that they are not going to budge one iota.
Just above this comment, Patiently Sitting on my Hands wants you to “prove” something or other. The point is, it doesn’t work that way. “Prove to yourself” is how Romans 12:1 puts it, and he must prove it to himself, which he has abundantly demonstrated that Christendom’s hell will freeze over before that happens. 
“Taste and see Jehovah is good,” Ps 34:8 says, and for us, Jehovah comes part and parcel with his earthly organization. He has tasted and seen that he and it is bad—even the Name he discards. How can you “prove” to someone that their tastebuds are bad? If they don’t like it, they don’t like it.
I do sometimes comment where the bad boys and girls hang out, but it is usually in the sense of talking past them to the audience beyond who may be influenced by them. But when there is no other audience beyond other than ones exactly like them, then it seems you run the risk of violating Jesus’ counsel to leave blind guides be.
Lately I’ve been drawing away from this side of the forum in favor of the one where whatever you say is not instantly hurled back in your face with a very few arguments that you can answer till you’re blue in the face but they never change—they just repackage them and run them through again. Who would have thought that good @Annawould have provided respite? I was leaning this way even before Bro Spane’s talk—which is just a restatement of the same—and he just put more icing on the cake. 
Oh—and you’re a little given toward conspiratorial things, but that’s not a minus in my book. I appreciate the extra viewpoint. I don’t necessarily hold with it all, but on the other hand, it might turn out exactly that way.
Seriously, you are always welcomed for your insights on the closed forum and you won’t find fierce resistance to every syllable you utter.
 

Because it is true. If it were not, it would not have been said.
You are not someone who is equipped for a debate(s), especially if it is solely Bible based, so do not ask for something you know you cannot handle, mainly towards someone who started off from CSE and debated a lot there for a time (as with Trinitarians irl in the post Bible debate era) this is evident by the questions addressed earlier, which was not answered, although they were very obvious - for we know what the Bible speaks of concerning marriage. Wild accusations and an appeal of motive also shows you are not capable of such, for the last debate here concerning religious leadership and or seat of office, the focus was on the Bible, but the common theme I see is they need to interject JWs or the Watchtower. Even with finances regarding bonds, Solutions to aid children, or that of the United Nations, JWs/Watchtower is always invoked.
So - be careful of what you wish for. I already have pity for the misguided because they do not know any better.
That being said, a debate is the last thing you need, and such will be left at that.
Receipts can be found, and some people act upon something that they say they would not do at times.
Also be minimum discernment, you are an ExJW, thus it level you open to nearly everything, and more so, you do not deal with people who are at a certain level.
But even outside of belief, you speak of such. This is evident with the Strong's itself, or the very Hermeneutics of Scripture, like here, concerning Hands/Wrists, where you jump to the Watchtower with a total disregard to Concordances and what was concluded in the crucifixion.
We know by the concordances of what the Scriptures speaks of concerning those who or imprisoned, and how they are, as is with the way Jesus was handled. As stated, reading into things literally is problematic, which does not differ from the Trinitarians, Jehovah Warriors, KJV-Onlyist, who says Jesus is God because they see God mentioned close to the Messiah by name, when in reality, there is a distinction between God and Christ. Likewise with the nails being impaled into the Christ, we should look at the real meaning, as is historical depiction and the history of crucifixions as a whole, in this case, excluding the cross/stake notation since that isn't the focus.
So what is their view on where the nail has been placed? It isn't different from the majority.
If you want to talk about differences, there are those who take into account of dangers, and those that do not within Christianity. Just from your last response, this can be found concerning endurance and vigilance, of which the Bible states we must have.
That being said, you made the biggest claim of this month concerning a community, who contributes everything for lost souls, you were called to tasked to answer, you shying away from it only proves the point made.
Again, making a claim or an accusation about something of which you know nothing of is a huge mistake, and you never address you made a mistake most of the time. If you'd said that to said community in question, and the fact that you are a former Jehovah's Witness the reaction, for some of them will be colorful, mainly after what they contributed.
I still wait on the claim though, so I did not forget about that, for that is quite damning of an accusation.

Nothing at all wrong with you in my book, though I am surprised at the extent to which you lock horns with people who have proven conclusively for many months, even years, that they are not going to budge one iota.
Just above this comment, Patiently Sitting on my Hands wants you to “prove” something or other. The point is, it doesn’t work that way. “Prove to yourself” is how Romans 12:1 puts it, and he must prove it to himself, which he has abundantly demonstrated that Christendom’s hell will freeze over before that happens. 
“Taste and see Jehovah is good,” Ps 34:8 says, and for us, Jehovah comes part and parcel with his earthly organization. He has tasted and seen that he and it is bad—even the Name he discards. How can you “prove” to someone that their tastebuds are bad? If they don’t like it, they don’t like it.
I do sometimes comment where the bad boys and girls hang out, but it is usually in the sense of talking past them to the audience beyond who may be influenced by them. But when there is no other audience beyond other than ones exactly like them, then it seems you run the risk of violating Jesus’ counsel to leave blind guides be.
Lately I’ve been drawing away from this side of the forum in favor of the one where whatever you say is not instantly hurled back in your face with a very few arguments that you can answer till you’re blue in the face but they never change—they just repackage them and run them through again. Who would have thought that good @Annawould have provided respite? I was leaning this way even before Bro Spane’s talk—which is just a restatement of the same—and he just put more icing on the cake. 
Oh—and you’re a little given toward conspiratorial things, but that’s not a minus in my book. I appreciate the extra viewpoint. I don’t necessarily hold with it all, but on the other hand, it might turn out exactly that way.
Seriously, you are always welcomed for your insights on the closed forum and you won’t find fierce resistance to every syllable you utter.
 

Ah. Now I see I have said the same as what @Pudgyjust said, only with less color.