So because of a new job that I got, I have to stay in my parents' city for 6 months. Thereafter I can move.
So I am back at my parent's house. My dad is fully awakened now, it will just take time for him to accept the invalidity of the blood doctrine and the disfellowshipping doctrine, or anyone for that matter.
My mom was delighted when I said I wanted to join them in the Family Worship night. I only placed one condition: BIBLE ONLY. No WT literature allowed. My mom agreed, anything as long as I join them in it. Besides, it IS the Bible we were going to read.
So we read all of 1st Timothy, NWT. My mother has the new Bible, my father and I have the reference NWT.
Here were some of the highlights:
(1 Timothy 1:3-4) 3 Just as I encouraged you to stay in Eph′e‧sus when I was about to go my way into Mac‧e‧do′ni‧a, so I do now, that you might command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith.
My mother paid attention to the bold part, myself and my dad paid attention to the italicized part.
(1 Timothy 1:7) 7 wanting to be teachers of law, but not perceiving either the things they are saying or the things about which they are making strong assertions.
Saying that you are "The Truth" counts like a "strong assertion" in my books!
Here comes the juicy part:
(1 Timothy 2:5-6) 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times.
I asked my mom if she though that Jesus was her mediator. She said yes. I asked her if she thought the Scripture could mean anything less than all mankind. She looked at me funny (kind of like, what sort of stupid question is that?), and said, no... and just to drive home the point, "Just like Jesus's ransom is available for all mankind, he can be the mediator for all mankind, right?" She said yes!
What she didn't know is that she was therefore condemning the WT!!
(1 Timothy 2:9-15) 9 Likewise I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, 10 but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.
I asked her if she thought that these were literal. She said, no, Paul meant something different. I asked her for proof. She had none. I said, well, I will let you investigate why we say this is symbolic. What if it IS literal? Would we be doing something wrong? I mean, you have gold jewelry, the sisters in the hall have braids sometimes... How about the one, "she will be kept safe through childbearing"? Some groups believe that these things are literal. What do you think?....
(1 Timothy 4:1-2) 4 However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron;
I asked her, mom, so what is a prophet for you? Mom: Someone who foretells the future. Me: So, if someone predicts something, would that make them a prophet? Mom: Yeah. Me: Well, if someone predicts something and that does not become a reality, does that make them a false prophet? Mom: Yes, that would be a false prophet. (I look at my dad, he looks at me, we both smile discreetly)...
(1 Timothy 5:19) 19 Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Mom, did you know that this text is used a lot? Did you know that there is a rule that to accuse someone of serious sins, there must be two or three witnesses? Mom: Yes. I know about that rule. It protects the brothers who are accused falsely. Me: Yes, but did you also know that, for example, it can allow rapists to be in the congregation? Suppose a sister is raped, and she accuses a brother in the congregation. The brother did rape the woman, but he flatly denies it. Do you know what the elders tell her? There is nothing that they can do.
My mom, thinking a thing like this (someone flatly denying wrongdoing) would never happen, said:
Well, usually they confess. And if they don't, then Jehovah will take care of things.
Me: Mom, you DO realize that this allows rapists and other people like that to run free in the congregations?
Mom: Yeah, but Jehovah will take care of it...
So... two home-runs (unknowingly she agreed that Jesus is our Mediator and that JW's are false prophets), one strike...
Have you had success or any stories like this?
ILTTATT