i do nothing of my own accord........ as i make my way into work i see everyone glued to the television in the conference room listening to reports of an attack by terrorists in the united states.
video is being played over and over again showing how the airplanes flew directly into the twin towers.
and thereafter the buildings do colapse.
Ok I'll bite ...
Faithful Slave what is the message the Lord wants you to share on this forum? With respect, all you have communicated so far has been at proving yourself as a chosen vessel. Setting that aside, if I accept who you say you are, what is your message for me?
this will be studied in two weeks time but it's such a special .
.
.
Oh boy -- where to begin on this one? How about with their faulty historical application --
Paragraph 7 correctly indentifies that the nature of an "apostle" is one who is sent forth to proclaim the good news. Today we might more often use the term missionary. However the paragraph errs when it suggests that this missionary-like role was somehow displaced and "apostle" came to mean "office of oversight". If you look at the entire New Testament, the "office of oversight" is not exclusive to the apostles, as "overseer" is commonly used to apply to local elders.
In selecting a replacement of Judas the criteria was clear, it had to be someone who was with them from the beginning and was a witness of Jesus' resurrection together with the other apostles. Why? Because as an "apostle" such one would be "sent out" to preach the "good news" which included the message of the resurection of Jesus.
Paragraph 9 states the following, "Paul and Barnabas, under the direction of holy spirit, were sent out as missionaries by the Antioch congregation. They also became known as apostles, although they were not included in the original 12." This statement shows again that "apostle" was synonymous with "missionary". When Paul and Barnabas were sent out as "apostles" is wasn't to go to Jerusalem to be a member of some "Governing Body", rather it was to preach the Good News among the nations. Further Paul names other apostles in his letters outside of the 12, who were similarly invovled in this work.
The paragraph goes on to mention that Barnabas and Paul's "appointment was confirmed by the governing body in Jerusalem". This is a huge twist and though the paragraph cites the book of Galatians it makes me wonder if the writer of the article has even read it. Specifically in Galatians 1:15-17 Paul makes very clear that when he received his calling from Jesus Christ he DID NOT GO UP TO JERUSALEM TO SEE THOSE THAT WERE APOSTLES BEFORE HIM.
The first two chapters of Galatians is basically a defense of Paul's apostleship against the apparent pillars of the congregations Jerusalem (who he names as Peter, James, John ). Paul is saying that he received his calling to preach the good news to the Gentiles directly from Jesus and that Jerusalem had nothing to do with it. He further states that he returned to Jerusalem 14 YEARS AFTER he was acting as a missionary, to share with them the work he was doing among the Gentiles and to help settle a matter where those in Jerusalem were causing trouble for Gentile converts (mainly regarding circumcism). Now think about that, the so-called "governing body" in Jerusalem didn't confirm his appointment for FOURTEEN YEARS. It is laughable to suggest that they held some kind of authority or rather he was seeking their approval. Rather what actually happened was that they acknowledged the work he was doing among the Gentiles and gave him their blessing. Now this is just my feeling on the matter, but I don't doubt had the pillars of Jerusalem told Paul they disagreed with his apostolic ministry that he would have ignored them and continued on considering how he claims to have personally rebuked Peter for shunning the Gentiles in Galatians 2. Also note who Paul lists being in Jerusalem in Galatians 1 & 2. He speaks about seeing only Peter (not the other 12) and then fourteen-years later Peter, James (not one of the 12), and John, later in his final trip to Jerusalem before his arrest he deals only with James, the brother of Jesus. So you have to ask, if there was a central "Governing Body" in Jerusalem made up of the 12, where were they?
The paragraph concludes saying "shortly after that, Paul had a part in dispensing spiritual food. He wrote his first inspired letter." So here the paragraph ties "dispensing spiritual food" with writing a letter that became a book of the Bible. (Interesting enough scholars place Galatians as the first "book" Paul wrote. If so this meeting with the "pillars" of Jerusalem really made an impression.) According to the Watchtower then, dispensing "spiritual food" in the first century involved writing what later become accepted as the New Testament. Think about this, if the Watchtower is correct, during all of his preaching as an apostle, Paul hadn't been dispensing "spiritual food", it was only on those limited occasions when he was writing Bible books. This is important point that will be touched on in the next paragraph.
Paragraph 10 attempts to show that only a fraction of the "spirit-begotten Christians" were involved in overseeing the preaching and work and preparing spiritual food. It further points out that only eight men were used to write the 27 books of the Bible. Once again it wants to link "preparing spiritual food" intimately with writing Bible books, disregarding any other teaching and preaching work accomplished by these men. I'd also like to again point out that the primary writer of the New Testament canon was the Paul of Tarsus. As was already shown, he wasn't hanging out in Jerusalem as part of some central "governing body", but rather was a traveling missionary. In fact his "books of the Bible" consist of letters to the various congregations he had preached the good news to, as well as those who had assisted him preaching activity. So if the Watchtower were correct, the "spiritual food" being published in the 1st Century was not coming from the Governing Body in Jerusalem, but when a traveling missionary, who only visited Jersusalem on a few unique occasions.
In this we also have to ask what about the other apostles? The ones that didn't write Bible books and the ones that were inexplicably not around whenever Paul visited Jerusalem to deal with the issue of Gentile Believers? Were they not fulfilling their responsbility as a "faithful slave"? Historically, we do not know exactly what became of the 12 apostles. After the opening chapters of Acts the Bible is silent on the matter outside of Peter. Traditionally it is accepted that the remaining apostles preached the good news throughout the inhabited earth as missionaries. Some of these traditions are stronger than others, for instance is quite likely that Thomas carried the good news to India. Regardless, the notion that these twelve apostles remained in Jerusalem as a Governing Body is severely challenged.
So you read an article like this and it makes you wonder why it is being written. If I had to guess it is to shoot down the notion that any of the "anointed" outside of the central "Governing Body" have authority or obligation to provide "spiritual food". However, if you look at this strictly in a JW context, there would be more Biblical evidence for some brother outside of Bethel in the missionary field providing "spiritual food" independent of Governing Body.
he won't let the death of his daughter bethany over the blood transfusion issue be forgotten, least of all in the courts.
hi randy,.
attached is a copy of my application filed today at the supreme court of canada.
I read through the documents -- can someone tell me if I got the gist of this ?
Mr. Hughes is appealing to the Canadian Supreme court to decide if it was a conflict of interest for the Society's lawyers to act on behalf of his wife and daughter, while at the same time receiving room, board, finances from the Watchtower. He is challenging that the Society's lawyers' primary obligation and interest was in the Watch Tower Society and therefore they were not impartial in providing legal advice to Bethany Hughs.
obviously ray franz must take top prize.
but who do you think the society takes notice of---either here or elsewhere??
?.
Jehovah and Jesus.
if someone came to your door with a religious message and you were attracted to it, would you immediately google the religion and find out its pros and cons?.
Since leaving the JW religion I have been approached by two other religious groups, one mainstream, one less known than the JW's. Each time I checked them out on the Internet. Though I have no personal interest in joining a religion, if I was shopping, I would at least know what I was getting into.
I think the Watchtower is particularly disadvantaged by only having the one official website and discouring members from speaking about their faith online. The majority view on the Internet is quite critical.
i've been saying for almost a year that the wts can only go one way, and that's to be come more hardline and more cultish by tightening their grip on the r&f.. if the recent rumours seen here (and one of them was actually banded about last year) are going to pan out, then the wts is well on it's way to become more cult-ish.. changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.
moving away from judicial action, leaning more towards the person disassociating themselves due to their actions, either of commission or ommission.
or, and i think this is less likely, they have a stand-alone study edition meeting, perhaps later on a sunday?
Here is some speculation --
The "Family Worship Night" TM is proving to be a bust as witnessed by the emphasis on it during this Summer's convention program. The Governing Body will see fit to further regulate in the guise of helping. I can see that they would provide a set program for families to follow, citing the difficulties some parents are having preparing a weekly program of "worship". So the GB will perhaps move the Book Study, Bible reading, and maybe elements of the Service meeting, such as rehearsing field service presentations, to "Family Worship Night" TM This would make room during the weekly meeting to consider the Private Watchtower.
i've been saying for almost a year that the wts can only go one way, and that's to be come more hardline and more cultish by tightening their grip on the r&f.. if the recent rumours seen here (and one of them was actually banded about last year) are going to pan out, then the wts is well on it's way to become more cult-ish.. changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.
moving away from judicial action, leaning more towards the person disassociating themselves due to their actions, either of commission or ommission.
or, and i think this is less likely, they have a stand-alone study edition meeting, perhaps later on a sunday?
The churches in my area that I'm familiar with typically have an extended "worship" session of performing about 30 - 45 minutes of songs, followed by annoucements, followed by a 30-45 minute "teaching", followed by a song or or two to end it out.
Well if you drop the WT study and only have the public talk how will you round out the hour of the Sunday meeting? 30-45 minutes of additional Kingdom Melody's would be sure the way to scare the public away, or bore them out of their minds!!
so i was just cruising www.extj.com/foro.
mary received a interesting bit of osce information via a brother (peter) from germany....... http://www.extj.com/foro/showthread.php?t=14643.
here is the pdf she has uploaded..... http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2009/07/38763_en.pdf.
I recently read out representatives from both the Watchtower and the Church of Scientology sharing a dinner with leadership in France to make petitions regarding religious freedoms. This just struck me as weird as in the US such cooperation would seem as getting involved with Babylon. The Church of Scientology isn't even Christian and in many ways is more of a cult than even the Watchtower. This is weird religion to be buddying up with.
i've had a rash of people commenting on my videos lately that seem to not even understand their own teachings.
it leads me to question if jehovah's witnesses can even explain their own beliefs.
for example if i ask a question about the 1914 doctrine specifically about the biblical backing behind 607 bce being the year for the destruction of jerusalem, 9 times out of 10 i'm going to get some sort of answer that involves the "prophecy" in matthew 24 and how it somehow has been fufilled since 1914.. apart from the fact i honestly don't think i can find a jehovah's witness who will actually understand the question at hand enough to answer the points therein, i'm to the point where i don't know if jehovah's witnesses even understand their own teachings.
I would concur with most of these comments -
The old timers may know the ins-and-outs of the doctrines and prophetic interpretations but newer JW's dont' have near as good of a grasp --
You can look at the progress of the home bible study books from the "Truth" book down the "Bible Teach" book. As you go down the line less doctrine is focused on. In the "Knowledge" book little time is spent on subjects like Hellfire and Trinity than in the "Paradise" book. In the "Bible Teach" book much of this further taken out of the main chapters and relegated to an appendix, topics like "Michael the Archangel" and "1914". The teacher is told that there is no need to go over the appendices unless the student has specific questions.
You can also look at the "depth" of internal JW books on prophecy too. The newer books on the minor prophets sheds a deep discussion of types and antitypes to merely focus on things such as Internet pornography and meeting attendence. Any book study conductor can attest to eyes glazing over during the study of the "Isaiah" book and to a lesser extent the "Daniel" book, as compared to some of the perceived "easier" study books.
some years ago me and my wife we were visited by a relative and his wife (all jws...) ... it was few days after christmass...... upon arival they gave us nicely wraped gifts ..... we joked "wow how nice of you to get us christmass gifts...!".
they replied: well it is not for christmass, but we were with our inlaws recently, and they have this nice tradition of celebrating "happy day".
they held between christmass and new years eve ... you know, its good for kids, so when kids get back to school, they are not embarassed by not having any new presents... so we thought, its neat and decided to celebrate it as well ... how do you like the idea, it is not christmass, its just a substitute...????".
We had "Happy Party Day" - a generic gift-giving day usually timed around my parent's anniversary in February. Usually it would be exclusive to our immediatel family but sometimes a childless pioneer couple would join us. I know of other JW families that had a similar gift-giving day but call it by another name.
We had our Turkey on the day after Thanksgiving like most, and were often privileged to attent congregation a-list Christmas eve and New Year's parties.
