djeggnog

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 660 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by djeggnog

• 
  43

  The imperfections of the elder

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  outsmart - you keep mentioning the imperfections of the elders....and how people need to overlook them because we are all imperfect and we need to learn what true humility is.....etc etc.

  dj - if this is what you believe to be true, then you are mistaken, because even though jehovah's witnesses are directed by holy spirit, we have at times 'gotten it wrong.

  dj - i can agree that jehovah's witnesses are god's mouthpiece today, that we do speak for god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  (Duplicate message)
• 
  43

  The imperfections of the elder

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  outsmart - you keep mentioning the imperfections of the elders....and how people need to overlook them because we are all imperfect and we need to learn what true humility is.....etc etc.

  dj - if this is what you believe to be true, then you are mistaken, because even though jehovah's witnesses are directed by holy spirit, we have at times 'gotten it wrong.

  dj - i can agree that jehovah's witnesses are god's mouthpiece today, that we do speak for god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @outsmartthesystem:

  [T]he FDS feels that they have the authority to "extend" the bible. They say that it is bible based but is it? Where does the bible say that buying a raffle ticket to help raise money for cancer is a form of greed? It doesn’t. The FDS made "extensions" to include that. Where does the bible say that a man should not have any "privileges" if he grows a beard? Where does the bible give the authority to disfellowship someone who refuses to curtail their association with a disfellowshipped person? The list of "extensions" is practically endless.

  @djeggnog:

  Neither did I say that you knew the members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses personally. I'm not cognizant of there being a problem with the governing body, but this doesn't mean that you have one or more gripes against these men yourself.... You come off as if you know the members of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses personally, so that [if] there are things in particular that, say, Theodore Jaracz, Stephen Lett or Gerrit Losch have said to you, [things] over which you have gripes, then why not take a pen and paper to one of them to let them know your feelings[?]

  @outsmartthesystem:

  Exactly how did I come off as though I knew the governing body members personally? Did I mention [anyone] by name? Did I relate any personal experience? No. My "griping" was in regard to the governing body as a whole and I tried to make that clear. You said in your opening line "neither did I say that you knew the members" thus indicating that you finally understand that I do not know them. Yet immediately after that admission….you continue to ramble on with a pointless employer/employee example.

  You made yourself quite clear, which was the reason I provided that example, especially considering the fact that you are a hypocrite that is only pretending to be in the truth because you are in fear that were your family members in the truth to learn that you wear two faces -- one face at the Kingdom Hall and the other face here on JWN -- then they would be forced to end their familial relationship with you. My point to you is that if you don't know these men personally, then it's a cowardly move on your part to be spreading your opinions of them, as gossip, to me, to the rest of those here on JWN. For example, if you have something against me, a complaint of some sort, and you are telling everyone else about this complaint you have against me, except approaching me directly as to the gripe you have against me as Jesus instructed us to do to gain our brother when we perceive that he has committed a sin (Matthew 18:15), then it is clear that you don't want to resolve the issue with me at all. You would rather spread gossip, slander me, disparage me, which exposes a character flaw in you, a sin on your part, a desire to magnify my perceived faults in the eyes of others in order to persuade them over to your point of view that they might also find fault in me as did Satan when pointing out one of Jehovah's perceived faults to Eve, rather than growing a spine and doing what makes for peace between us by approaching me directly. Your telling me and others here in this thread about your gripes against all members of the governing body, and gossiping, slandering, disparaging them without specifically naming anyone, is either an attempt on your part to solicit support from active, inactive or former servants of Jehovah for your cause to make your brothers and sisters disgruntled for the same reasons that you are disgruntled and to turn them away from serving Jehovah, and/or an act of cowardice on your part. Frankly, upon reading your gripes in this thread, I am convinced that you are a coward.

  @outsmartthesystem:

  Again…..being still baptized and having family still involved in this cult, do you really think that picking up a pen and paper and writing all of my beliefs and issues out and sending it in to NY will possibly have a good ending? I will get a "loving" letter back in the mail that proves none of my accusations wrong….rather..it will only reiterate the governing body’s stance on the issues. The local elders will be CC’d and they will want to talk with me. If they talk with me and I agree with what they say then YAY! An imaginary sheep has been saved. If I continue to disagree, I may be subject to disfellowshipping. Great plan, DJ!

  It is evident that you have a gripe with someone, that "someone" being the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, so why haven't you confronted any member of the governing body with your gripes? I don't care what your gripes might be since I believe all of them to be imperfect human beings that are doing whatever they can that is humanly possible for them to do as a central body of elders to ensure that Jehovah's Witnesses are spiritually equipped to spread the message regarding the good news of the kingdom to as many people as possible before the end comes. Maybe you have one or more ideas that would be an improvement on the way things are being done now, but your griping over one or more decisions on which they have signed off because you don't agree with those decisions or because you do not know the basis upon which these decisions with which you don't agree were made would make sense if these gripes were actually directed to one or more members of the governing body. Like, if you knew how Theodore Jaracz, a member of the governing body voted on, let's say, how disfellowshipping should be handled in the local congregations, and you didn't agree with his vote one way or the other -- perhaps because your reading of the Bible suggested an approach be taken much different than Jaracz' approach to administering discipline in the congregation – then it might not make a lot of sense for you to be getting into the face of another member of the governing body, like, say, Stephen Lett, when he may not have even voted the way that Jaracz voted on the matter, right? But if you don't know how Jaracz or Lett or Gerrit Losch or Samuel Herd or whomever voted on whatever matter that has gotten your panties in a twist, then how can you know if your gripe is being appropriately directed to the governing body member(s) with whose vote you disagreed? In the above, you speak of your "being still baptized" -- as if it were even possible for someone that has been baptized to be un-baptized -- "and having family still involved in this cult," which I take to be an admission on your part that you have no desire to leave the "Jehovah's Witness cult," which is, of course, your decision to make, but it does seem strange that you would be here telling me about some of the things that make you hate the very cult from which you refuse to separate yourself because you have family still in it.

  Be that as it may, my viewpoint is Jehovah's viewpoint in that he drew you to him and handed you over to his son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who has never lost anyone that Jehovah has given him, and I am your brother despite your apostate views that are pretty much the same apostate views that were espoused by Ray Franz as may have been cauterized by Don Cameron's Captives to a Concept, which book, along with Franz' Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom books -- were written exclusively with active and inactive Jehovah's Witnesses in mind to indoctrinate them with what some here have referred to as "the truth about the truth." In fact, you and I are able to communicate on a level that most professed Christians cannot begin to do because Jehovah has taught us so many things. You may have gripes, but I don't need to hear any of them; you are disgruntled, but I'm totally fine knowing as I do -- and as you know, too -- that we are all of us imperfect, and that we all of us have shortcomings. Following baptism, we both came to belong to a teaching organization, where some of the things that we might teach others can affect us – bite us in the butt, so to speak -- if we should ever begin to think ourselves to be superior, not just to our brothers and sisters in the faith, but to the man or woman that has no intention of obeying the word of Jehovah and getting baptized. Either write a letter and send it, and prepare yourself to deal with the consequences that could follow once the local congregation is made aware of the concerns you expressed in it to our governing body elders, but the hypocrisy you were telling me about in your still attending meetings when you are really an apostate ought to end. Why be two-faced and deceive your own family into believing something about you that isn't even true when you can be just be honest with your family and with yourself, and take a break? Make no mistake about it: You have been indoctrinated and there is nothing that you can do short of submitting to a lobotomy to unlearn the accurate knowledge that you have obtained as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. You want to unlearn the knowledge of God by indoctrinating yourself with apostate teachings of Franz, but even these apostate teachings require that one have obtained a knowledge of God in order for them to have any success. I'm sure you didn't know this, so I'm now telling you so that you cannot say that you didn't know. You know me as being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which I am, so I won't tell you that I am also a representative of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, for this might be too much information for you to digest, but I would advise you to get out of your head, move to a new town where you can attend meetings at a new congregation, and tell your family that you will be away for awhile, but you will keep in touch and let them know how you are doing. Here a few things that might give you the closure you need so that you can be what you really want to be, but without the hypocrisy that I know you must abhor:

  With your being in a new town and attending a new congregation, you will be free to come and go as you please, no one in the new congregation will ever come to see you until you should tell the elders in your new congregation that you are going to be making their congregation your congregation, in which case they will be sending a letter to your old congregation. You do not have to comment at any of the meetings you decide to attend nor should you engage in the field ministry, especially since there are things you know it would not be honest for you to teach anyone since you have doubts as to the veracity of certain things that Jehovah's Witnesses believe, such as Franz' and Cameron's doubts as to "who really is the faithful and discreet slave" is also one of your doubts. This "break" from whatever was your previous routine at your old congregation may give you the time you need to decide whether or not you are going to do God's will despite the fact that there are imperfect men that you do not really think to be spiritual men are serving as a central body of elders. In this way, you won't have to suffer the scrutiny of your new local congregation that you suffered at your old local congregation, nor will you be compelled by anyone to preach the word like some hypocrite when you yourself don't believe most or any of it. Your family ties won't be severed or be in any jeopardy unless, of course, you should give your family reason by what you say to them, either on the telephone or face-to-face, to believe you are not living as someone that is "in the truth," and hopefully you will come to realize before the great tribulation that you are much better off in the truth, even though you might have to be benched after you have introduced everyone to your two-, five- or nine-year-old daughter born out of wedlock to a pretty women you met three, six or ten years ago at a party, who hates your guts because you won't vote or you don't support the concept of gay marriage or you're not as comfortable as she is as a Baptist or a Lutheran or a Seventh-Day Adventist with tithing or with singing the national anthem or with the lyrics to the popular church hymns. If your "significant other," as one's unmarried lover might be called today here in the US, should be a political activist that feels she was deceived into falling in love with someone that is still one of Jehovah's Witnesses and for this reason refuses to marry you, even though you have told her hundreds of times over the years that you aren't one of Jehovah's Witnesses any longer, and that, besides she and your daughter, you have confirmed your love for only Jesus as your God, and not Jehovah, which she also refuses to believe, then you might get "benched" for a year or two if you should decide to begin actively associating with Jehovah's Witnesses again, should a reproof or disfellowshipping action follow, but at least you will have come back on your own terms, that is, because you want to be back and this time because you don't want to put your family ties with your significant other and your daughter in jeopardy being the hypocrite that your significant other won't allow you to be as a condition to her actually marrying you (finally!).

  You see, no one trusts a hypocrite and no one will knowingly marry one. BTW, if family members in the truth should want to enjoy non-spiritual fellowship with you, your significant other and your daughter should a decision be made to disfellowship you for a time, they are certainly free to do so just as they are free to say "Hello!" to a disfellowshipped person they run into at the market or at the doctor's office where their boss is your doctor, for it is only spiritual fellowship that is discouraged when someone has been disfellowshipped. You might believe that I can speak to anyone I wish whether the individual is in a disfellowshipped state or not, because you may believe that only elders are privileged to do so, but contrary to popular opinion, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun anyone that is in a disfellowshipped state unless he or she should be one that spreads apostate views in view case we won't even say a greeting to such individuals. It is unloving to shun someone that has made a mistake, but it would be wrong to treat the disfellowshipped individual as if he or she were not disfellowshipped so as to carry on conversations of a spiritual nature with them at spiritual gatherings or in our homes when such individuals are present considering that such persons have been removed from all spiritual association with us.

  @djeggnog:

  As the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Christian congregation, you are mistaken to believe that you can check the hand of our king to tell him what things you don't like about his leadership over the remnant of his own congregation, especially considering the fact that all mature Christians recognize the fact that he appointed the faithful and discreet slave over all of his spiritual belongings in 1919 or whenever it was that he and his father, Jehovah, came to his temple to judge the work that his followers here on earth were doing at that time. Our growth demonstrates God's blessing is with the work that the slave has done since 1919, considering the Bible example of how Achan caused God's blessings to be hindered upon his people in Jericho, when he decided to steal from Jehovah. (Joshua 6:19; 7:1-26) Of course, if you're not spiritually mature, then you won't be able to make the connection here in the [account] in the book of Joshua with the blessings that Jehovah's Witnesses have had in connection with their spiritually activities since 1919, so I'm hoping that you are able to take my point that it doesn't much matter whether or not you personally approve of the work that Jehovah's Witnesses have been doing and are currently doing, or the work that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses have done and are currently doing. We are seeking Jehovah's blessing on our efforts, even if whatever we are doing doesn't meet with your approval. We are working out our own salvation.

  @outsmartthesystem:

  Yes I am referring to that direction. As mentioned before but you seem to have difficulty remembering, I am still in theory a baptized witness. And as mentioned before, my family is still involved in the cult, so yes, I have a vested interest in their mind control and spirit-lacking teachings. So…..the GB doesn’t govern with man made laws? OK. Just wanted to make sure. I am not checking the hand of Christ. I am challenging the authenticity of the GB’s claims that Jesus chose them (technically their predecessors). Please provide some proof that Jesus appointed Rutherford and his minions in 1919. If you can do so, then I may actually believe that Christ is actually your head and that he directs your organization. Your growth demonstrates God’s blessing is being bestowed? Really? How about the Mormons? They’ve really grown in the last 100 years. God must really be blessing them. How about Scientology? Islam? All are growing....

  I thought it was clear to what I was referring, considering the fact that I had not mentioned Scientology, LDS or Islam; I thought it was clear that I was referring to the growth of Jehovah's Witnesses, since it was foretold that 'the little one would become a thousand and the small one would become a mighty nation in its own time.' (Isaiah 60:22) I have faith that God has used men like Pastor Russell and Judge Rutherford, despite their many faults, to take the lead in accomplishing the work that needs to be done "in its own time," which had led to the growth of God's organization, but there is no need for you to believe this to be true. No other religion on earth is preaching the good news of God's kingdom as Jehovah's Witnesses have been doing for more than 100 years, which is why I have concluded that indeed God has blessed the efforts of "the small one" and continues to bless his "little one" today. You asked me to provide to you "some proof that Jesus appointed Rutherford and his minions in 1919" as if such would prove to you that Jesus is the head of his congregation, as if such would be regarded by you as proof that Jesus "directs [my] organization." At an annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society that took place on January 6, 1917, Rutherford was nominated and elected to serve as president, which had been president-less since Russell's death on October 31, 1916. We believe that just as Jehovah's spirit had been on Russell until his death to champion the Bible truths that the prophet Daniel had foretold would "become abundant" during the time of the end, that this same spirit was operative upon Rutherford, Russell's successor, as well. (Daniel 12:4) You were taught by Jehovah, and you were formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses that is still "in" (but not really!) and are now a counterfeit Christian, but, even so, you are one of the few people that can understand what I said in the previous paragraph and what I'm about to say in the next paragraph, and it would be derelict on my part were I not to say the following: Those of us that have studied the Bible and are spiritually mature believe these two imperfect men -- Russell and Rutherford -- to have been anointed by and sealed with God's spirit as a token in advance of their heavenly inheritance as adopted sons of God, sanctified by Jesus' shed blood that have been taken into the kingdom covenant made by Jesus with them and with the rest of his spiritual brothers that served as "ambassadors substituting for Christ" to become corulers with Christ in the kingdom, and that these men were charged with gathering together "the things on the earth," Jesus' "other sheep." (Ephesians 1:9, 10, 13, 14; 2 Corinthians 5:20; John 10:16)

  Having said this, why did you never learn, why did you never come to understand, what Paul meant about all mankind being sinners that fall short of God's glory? (Romans 3:23) If Rutherford should have said something with which you do not agree, if the governing body has said something with which you do not agree, why is it so hard for you to forgive these men, your brothers, their shortcomings "from the heart," or don't you want God to forgive you your shortcomings? (Matthew 18:35; Mark 11:35) Rutherford may have misspoken several times and so have we, many times; the man we knew or read about is dead. Jesus taught us to give others their shortcomings. Paul wrote that we should be willing to 'put up with one another and forgive one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against Rutherford.' (Colossians 3:13) Ok, Paul didn't mean that we should forgive just Rutherford, but I'm sure you get my drift. Forgive the members of our governing body, too, and show them some respect for they are glorious ones that aren't perfect. Stop speaking abusively of these men. (Jude 8) You don't believe any of these things to be true, which in my mind makes you spiritually immature, for after you had been washed clean with Jesus' blood -- precious blood -- you have come to view your baptism with disdain, have joined the ranks of those that have returned to their own vomit and are now engaged in the work of enslaving those that had escaped this world's defilements by enticing them to roll in the mire with you. (2 Peter 2:18-22) Now some believe that Jehovah's Witnesses ought to believe exactly the same things that Rutherford believed when he was alive here on earth as if we should ignore evidence to the contrary if any such evidence should come to our attention. It is often the case that after something has been published that the widest scrutiny is given to such published statements, and that these publications are what give rise to the many letters that the Society receives daily from readers making inquiry as to their veracity, or which expose errors that have required corrections be made.

  For example, Judge Rutherford, who passed away on January 8, 1942, completed his earthly course believing that Pluto was the ninth planet in our solar system, but fast forwarding some 64 years after Rutherford's death, Jehovah's Witnesses today have made adjustments as have non-Jehovah's Witnesses in that we no longer accord planetary status to Pluto, viewing it as a dwarf planet. Similar, Rutherford passed away with an understanding of what Jesus meant by "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 that was different than what Jehovah's Witnesses today speculate as to what Jesus meant by this phrase, and so, since Jesus himself didn't know the "day and hour," we cannot be 100% certain as to what Jesus meant. In Rutherford's day, Jehovah's Witnesses believed Jesus was referring to the lifetime of people when he referred to "this generation." Today, we now know that this was a mistaken viewpoint. The masthead in the Awake! dated November 8, 1995, proved to have unintentionally misled some into believing that, contrary to what the Bible teaches, we actually did know the "day and hour" for it read, "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away," and based on how we understood Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34, many regretfully concluded that Armageddon would have to arrive before the oldest of Jesus' anointed servants had passed away. Today, that masthead reads, "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things." The masthead in the Awake! wasn't designed to deceive anyone, but was designed to build confidence that the end is near, and not to make folks grab their date calculators as if, contrary to what Jesus stated at Matthew 24:36, it were possible for one to determine the "day and hour" that Jesus himself didn't know. Since we realize that Jesus had employed a bit of hyperbole in this verse, we now believe that Jesus' reference to "this generation" referred to the sign of his invisible presence during which his anointed brothers living contemporaneous to this generation of the sign. We cannot be dogmatic, but we believe that those of Jesus' brothers that were living when the generation of the sign began in the year 1914 as well as those of his brothers that are alive when the generation of the sign ends when Armageddon arrives is what Jesus meant when he said that "this generation" would not pass away before all of the things that Jesus indicated would occur in his prophesy about the conclusion of this system of things had taken place.

  @outsmartthesystem:

  Now then…you say that the GB (or Jehovah’s Witnesses) does not make law. Let’s go back to the whole beard thing.... Remember….the topic here is the GB and THEIR failed prophecies. Try to stay on track, please. I’ll give you an example. Here is a quote from your spiritual granddaddy Mr. Rutherford, ".... Of course you will not refer to this as a failed prophecy.... The accusation of adding to the bible should not be taken literally. If anyone would understand not taking things too literally (your belief of the rich man and Lazarus) I would think it would be some like yourself. You know….a "mature Christian". That is why I mentioned that Apr 15, 2008 article.... The bible does not prohibit birthday celebrations….but the FDS does.... Now that I think about it….there is one area of the bible that comes to mind that the Witnesses added. Take a look at Colossians 1:16 and 17. It is very clear why the NWT has the words [other] inserted. But please tell me where….in the original Greek writing is the word "other" found? Yes….the word "other" is found in brackets thus indicating that the original text did not include it…..but…if the original text didn’t include it then why did they feel the need to put it in there aside from making it match their theology?

  I had asked you to provide proof of something that had been added to the Bible, and you replied by telling me again about some failed prophecy articulated by my "spiritual granddaddy," and rules promulgated by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding men not wearing beards and about the procurement of raffle tickets being unacceptable and the celebration of birthdays and the fact that in the Bible, at Colossians 1:16, 17, the word "other" was added to the text within brackets, and you went on to quoted something you read in a Watchtower article, but, first, I don't regard any of these things as proof, and second, let I told you before, I don't care to discuss with you what any Watchtower article says to you. If I didn't write the article and no one on the governing body wrote the article – likely it was someone on the Writing Committee that did – then you would have done well to have written a letter to the Society and requested an explanation for that with which you disagree. I didn't personally assist in producing the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, but if you were able to read koine Greek, then you would know that adding "other" to Colossians 1:16, 17, in the NWT is no different than the word "he" that was added by the NWT translators and by the King James Version translators at John 8:24. It is obvious to me that you are clueless on this subject, but here you are pretending that you can school me on what constitutes tampering, such as Comma Johanneum found in the KJV, which is a real example of tampering with the Bible text. (1 John 5:7). This is what I do know: Elders should be accorded "double honor" by those who aren't appointed as such, and even if you should disagree with the opinion of the local elders or of the central body of elders that make up our governing body, on what basis do you reject their authority, by Christ, to carry out their duties in God's household? (1 Timothy 5:17)

  I fear that you never learned how "you ought to conduct yourself in God's household," which stands in "support of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Consequently, you actually think that this kind of input – these gripes of yours – will help the local elders and the central body of elders (the governing body) to carry out their responsibilities toward God, toward Christ, and toward the flock? Just as we read that there were "decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men" (Acts 16:4) in God's congregation back in the first century, before you were even born, there were "decrees that had been decided upon" by Russell and Rutherford, and depending upon your age, maybe even Nathan Knorr, but I fear that you never learned how to stay in your place. When you decided to join our ranks, what gave you the impression that we were in a quandary over matters having to do with grooming or with gambling or with established doctrines that were already being taught when you first joined our ranks as a publisher of the good news? It's really hard talking anything that you say here seriously here because of your contempt for duly-constituted authority; you are disrespectful, not just in what you say to me, but in what you say about our governing body. (3 John 9) But there you are, sitting with those who are really Jehovah's Witnesses, at meetings, a hypocrite hiding in plain sight and below the proverbial radar of the local body of elders, deceiving everyone into believing you to be someone that you really aren't, including your own blood relatives.

  @djeggnog:

  You have here quoted from something you read in a Watchtower article, but I don't care to discuss what this Watchtower article says with you. It is evident from what you say here that you are of the belief that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, who merely represent the faithful and discreet slave, are, in fact, the faithful and discreet slave, and that your are also of the belief that our governing body believes it has authority to "'extend' the Bible."

  @outsmartthesystem:

  Why do you refuse to discuss the article with me?

  I would be delighted to defend any article that I write that should appear in the Watchtower, but you haven't identified any such article, nor would you be in a position to know who writes what articles, but suffice it to say that someone that sits on the Writing Committee writes the articles that appear in the Watchtower.

  @djeggnog:

  If anyone desires to buy a raffle ticket, he is free to do so; if anyone desires to wear a beard, he is free to wear one. If anyone feels he must continue his association with a disfellowshipped person, that's ok; he is free to do this as well, but in his engaging in any such conduct when admonished not to do so, he is not submitting to God's arrangement, and this is the point. It doesn't matter that the proceeds from the raffle ticket sales will benefit cancer research when there will be no sickness or death under God's kingdom. At Luke 9:60, Jesus also admonished his followers to "let the dead bury their dead, but you go away and declare abroad the kingdom of God" since God's kingdom will eliminate cancer and all diseases that are the cause of death, pain and sorrow. (Revelation 21:3, 4)

  @outsmartthesystem:

  Who says it is God’s arrangement that people not buy raffle tickets and that brothers not have beards? Those are not decrees in the bible or even principles that could be stretched into a decree.

  No, no. These are decrees that had been decided upon" by the central body of elders that Jehovah's Witnesses recognize as their governing body (Acts 16:4), and these decrees are based on Bible principles, principles with which you either do not know or do not agree. It is God's arrangement that the elders in the Christian congregation would be the ones taking the lead and speaking the word of God to the congregation, and all of those in God's household ought to "be submissive" to them, even if we may not want to be submissive. (Hebrews 13:7, 17) You should already know these things, so if you don't know them, then you're ignorant and you need to get to know these things. (1 Corinthians 14:28) You may wish to dispute for some other arrangement, but the congregations of God have no other arrangement. (1 Corinthians 11:16)

  @outsmartthesystem:

  That last post of mine printed a whole lot of stuff at the end which is nothing more than a repeat of previously posted stuff. I'm not sure how to delete it now that it is posted. Sorry

  No worries. Recall that I dd tell you in a previous message that I wouldn't be responding to repetitive questions, and many of the questions in your last message made your message ridiculously lengthy due to such repetition. I also told you that I will not discuss something you read and thought you understood in our publications. I think we're done.

  @djeggnog
• 
  43

  The imperfections of the elder

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  outsmart - you keep mentioning the imperfections of the elders....and how people need to overlook them because we are all imperfect and we need to learn what true humility is.....etc etc.

  dj - if this is what you believe to be true, then you are mistaken, because even though jehovah's witnesses are directed by holy spirit, we have at times 'gotten it wrong.

  dj - i can agree that jehovah's witnesses are god's mouthpiece today, that we do speak for god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @outsmartthesystem:

  I still have not had the time to spend the hours that will be necessary to respond to your last rambling. But I did notice this....

  This last message from you ignores my last message. As you know, I took the time to respond to your message, which was a rather lengthy one, but I do not consider this last message of yours to be a response to my message, but something in addition. In my previous message, I'd spent much time responding to many of your concerns, and because you had indicated that it would take you "some time to respond" to the responses that I provided you in my previous response, I understood that I would have to wait until you had returned from your "long weekend." Take whatever time you need, but I don't intend to respond to any more of your questions until you have responded definitively to my last message.

  The fact that you repeated the same question several times in your previous message makes it necessary for me to wait until I know which points, if any, you have conceded, so that I might know, going forward, how I should proceed in this thread. Alternatively, if you should decide that you would rather withdraw from this thread without responding to my last message, no worries. I'm ok with you doing so.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @castthefirststone:

  You said you needed a memory refresh where you said 50 years must be rounded up to 70 years. In post 434 you wrote:

  djeggnog wrote:

  You see, @AnnOMaly totally misunderstood this quote from Against Apion, I, xxi, by claiming that when "this Pharisee" -- Josephus -- stated that "the temple was desolate for 50 years," that he meant that Solomon's temple had lay desolate for only 50 years.

  So what are you trying to say with that statement, other than the 50 years are symbolic and must be rounded up to 70 years?

  I didn't say I needed any "memory refresh." This is what I had written you in my previous message:

  "When did I ever say that anything that Josephus wrote is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Post the message I posted to this thread, so I can read it. I don't recall saying or intimating this at all."

  You didn't read the entire post, for had you done so, then you would have realized that I was telling @AnnOMaly that she had wrongly understood Josephus' reference to "50 years" as if what he said in Against Apion contradicted what he said about the temple Antiquities of the Jews, X, ix, about Judah and Jerusalem having been "a desert for seventy years" and in Against Apion, I, xix, about there having been an "interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus."

  The fact that you understood me to have asserted "that Josephus is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Jerusalem" means that you suffer from the same reading comprehension disability problem as does @AnnOMaly when Josephus' mention of the Phoenician histories had absolutely nothing at all to do with your assertion about 587 BC and, quite frankly, was a zany conclusion for you to have reached.

  The 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar is relevant because it is in the same statement that you use for your theory.

  I don't think it is. Did you get to read @AnnOMaly's message in which she includes a quote from a footnote in John Barclay's translation of Against Apion suggesting that Josephus was referring to "the seventh year of the reign of Ithobalos"? At any rate, whatever it was Josephus meant is irrelevant to the point that I was making and you don't get to tell me what is relevant to me.

  Can you see the relevance now? Probably not because you are blinded by your ego and cognitive dissonance.

  No, I don't. One thing I know for a certainty: You suffer from a reading comprehension disability. You read the same thing in Against Apion that @AnnOMaly read and came away from it thinking that Josephus had said that Solomon's temple had lay desolate for only "50 years." You read "seventh year of the reign of Naboukodrosoros" and have the temerity to tell me that it's somehow relevant to the point that I was making as to the 13-year siege on Tyre that occurred "[i]n the reign of king Ithobalos," but before the reign of Baal, according to Josephus. I don't suffer from "cognitive dissonance," and you should really not use phrases that you don't understand; my "suffering" comes from expecting an apostate to be reasonable. My bad.

  djeggnog wrote:

  [Cyrus'] first regnal year began in Nisan 538 BC and ended in Nisan 537 BC, but what I took into consideration was the six months that began in Cyrus' accession year, Tishri 539 BC, and ended in Nisan 538 BC. I don't know how exact Josephus was in his reckoning of the length of Eiromos' reign, but I do know that Eiromos' 20-year reign would have come to an end in 533 BC if it was "in the fourteenth year of the reign of Eiromos" that Cyrus "seized power."

  You wonder how Cyrus' regnal year allows me to add an [additional] year to Eiromos' reign, but Eiromos reigned for 20 years, and I'm not comfortable counting back from his 14th year, because I don't know how Eiromos' regnal year ran. Tishri 539 BC could have been toward the beginning of Eiromos' 14th regnal year or toward the end of Eiromos' 14th regnal year, so when I add six months that remained in Cyrus accession year, I decided to round up and count 15 years.

  Consequently, for Eiromos' reign, I had been subtracting 20 years from "54 years, with 3 months in addition," which from Nisan 538 BC would bring us to 556 BC "with 3 months in addition," so I decided to round up and reckon this additional three months as an additional year and count 16 years. Since Josephus had encapsulated the reigns of the Tyrian kings, I am more comfortable taking, not 14 years, but 16 years of Eiromos' 20-year reign, and adding 4 years to Merbalos, 1 year to Balatoros, 6 years to Myttynos and Gerastartos, 1 year to Ednibalos, Chelbes and Abbalos, and 10 years to Baal, or -539 + (-38), which brings me to the year 577 BC.

  @castthefirststone wrote:

  I see your super duper speech recognition dictating software is acting up again. You again assign the end of Eiromos' reign to 533 BC. Which is it 533 or 535? While you are at it, say the numbers 5 3 5 and 5 3 3 out load and hear how ridiculous your assertion is that it's a misquote or typo.

  What's "acting up again"? Your reading comprehension disability is really what is at work here, for notice that a hypothetical is being expressed by the words in red:

  "I don't know how exact Josephus was in his reckoning of the length of Eiromos' reign, but I do know that Eiromos' 20-year reign would have come to an end in 533 BC if it was 'in the fourteenth year of the reign of Eiromos' that Cyrus 'seized power.'"

  You left the land where lurkers live to join live debate on JWN, but it was a mistake for you to think that you could come out of the shadows and take me on, knowing before any of us here did that you suffer from this reading comprehension disability that has now been exposed, and now you're out here on your own lobbing stupid insults thinking that they will help you win arguments. It's now likely that I will start ignoring your messages because I'm afraid I'm going to discover that this disability is not really your fault, but due to the fact that you are mentally ill or really stupid.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  When did I ever say that anything that Josephus wrote is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Post the message I posted to this thread, so I can read it. I don't recall saying or intimating this at all.

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  Yikes! Early onset Alzheimer's, eggie? You're real forgetful. Perhaps you ought to print the following out and stick it on your computer screen so you'll be reminded of what you've already written, thereby avoiding further humiliation. (Btw, bold emphasis mine.)

  From eggieface post #451, p. 24:

  [castthefirststone formerly] The issue really is: Can Josephus be used to disprove conventional chronology, when you have to rely on the same conventional chronology to get to the start of Cyrus' rule?

  [djeggnog] Yes, and Josephus can also be used to provide another measurement to determine about when it was that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre

  Where in this clip do I suggest that something that Josephus wrote was proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? I don't see it; enlighten me.

  From eggieface posts #433, p. 22, and #434, p. 23:

  [Ann formerly] End of Tyre's siege - 594 BC according to you. 594 - 577 = 17 YEARS LONGER THAN JOSEPHUS' CALCULATION! Therefore, you cannot use his Tyrian king list to support your argument, can you?

  [djeggnog] Why shouldn't I? Because this happens to be a kinglist that doesn't fit your notion that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BC? I don't have a problem relying upon the Tyrian kinglist provided in Josephus' Against Apion, I, xxi, and I do appreciate that Josephus poses a big problem for you and for all of you for whom 587/586 BC is so precious.

  Where in this clip do I suggest that something that Josephus wrote was proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? What I say here is that it is "your notion that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BC."

  From eggieface post #430, p. 21:

  [CTFS formerly] Now if you are really as well intentioned as you profess to be, please provide a summary with verifiable proof of how you get to 607 BCE. Not paragraph after paragraph of this nonsense.

  [djeggnog] The only "verifiable proof" I will provide in response to the request you make for a summary of how I arrive at the year 607 BC is citations from the Bible and a quote from Josephus' Against Apion. ... with indicates that it was during the reign of Ithobalos that Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege against Tyre took place. If Baal's reign as king of Tyre began in 577 BC after the reign of Ithobalos ended, then Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege ended during Baal's reign, which cannot be the case for such a conclusion would be in conflict with Josephus' recitation of Phoenician secular history (as quoted above).

  ... But if Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC as secular history asserts, then when the siege on Tyre ended in 574 BC, some 13 years after it began in 587 BC, Baal's ten-year reign would had begun, which contradicts the Phoenician timeline

  Where in this clip do I suggest that something that Josephus wrote was proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Here I point out to you hypothetically that "if Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC as secular history asserts, then when the siege on Tyre ended in 574 BC, some 13 years after it began in 587 BC, Baal's ten-year reign would had begun, which contradicts the Phoenician timeline with indicates that it was during the reign of Ithobalos that Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege against Tyre took place." Josephus doesn't write anything specific with reference to 587 BC, but I merely point out here that what you believe about 587 BC doesn't fit the Phoenician timeline.

  From eggieface post #407 way back on p. 14: (gotta love the grammar on this one LOL)

  What things Josephus wrote regarding this 70-year period of Jewish exile is at odds with your anti-God viewpoint

  , so it isn't because you cannot believe what Jehovah's Witnesses have concluded as to destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar's armies occurring in 607 BC, and it isn't because you care one wit about history. It's just that you don't want to believe what Jehovah's Witnesses have concluded based on the prophesies of Jeremiah and Daniel, which conclusions find support in some of what things Josephus wrote.

  Where in this clip do I suggest that something that Josephus wrote is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Please enlighten me. (I do love the grammar on this one.) You included four (4) clips from previous posts, and yet not one of them prove that I had either suggested or intimated that something written by Josephus was proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, so why did you do this, @AnnOMaly? Do you even know why? Only members of your cult that are morons would applaud your efforts here in including these four clips that do not prove what only they could be persuaded by you -- their hero, their champion -- they prove. This was a silly stunt on your part, @AnnOMaly, and you get no respect from me for this attempt at deflection.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @castthefirststone:

  I see you like to attach the propagandist label of apostate onto me.

  Ok, I'm going to have to take this up a notch.

  I'm assumed until now that you were a man. If, by way of reply to this message, you should inform me that you are not a man, I'll have to revise what I'm about to say to you now, for even now I make the assumption that you are a man. In cyberspace, here on JWN or on any internet website, I do come on a bit stronger than I would in real life since you are who you say you are here, and I really cannot judge whether you are a man or a woman, or whether you are lying to me or telling me the truth. We are all (most of us!) anonymous, and so, for this reason, I feel you should man-up and take responsibility for what you are, because your words have betrayed you so that anyone that is not a moron would know that you are an apostate. If in your opinion, your being called out as such is a "propagandist label," then it is what it is. I don't want to get suckered, any more than I have already here, into helping you digress from this thread because you might want me to know how much I've hurt your feelings by calling a spade a spade.

  I really don't care what you call me.

  No, you do care what I call you, which is why this digression occurred in the first place. If you decide you want to withdraw from this thread, don't reply; just withdraw from it by not posting anything more to it. It's ok; I'm pretty sure that there is no here that has read any of your posts to this thread that actually believes that you don't care that I have called you an apostate, because when you forgot yourself and thought you were in a position to direct me to read -- what was it? -- Proverbs 3:32, I was reminded of what Satan did in quoting Psalm 91:11, 12 (at Matthew 4:5, 6), for he, too, abandoned true worship by rebelling against divine sovereignty of Jehovah God, but I believe it was you that wrote the following:

  (@castthefirststone:)

  "I suppose you are correct, I am an apostate, an apostate against falseness and lies that you keep spewing.

  I suppose you must have also forgotten having wrote this, but if you man-up, anyone that should throw a "propagandist label" at you won't set you off or make you want to bawl your eyes out over it.

  You see apostasy is in the eye of the beholder and one person's apostate is another's reformer.

  What I behold is that you are an apostate and since you had both admitted and already supposed that I am correct in believing you to be such, are you now telling me that you are a reformer?

  To illustrate: Stephen was stoned to death for apostasy and to the Pharisees: Jesus was the greatest apostate who ever lived.

  Did either Stephen or Jesus ever abandon true worship? Yes or no?

  Back to your theories, let's get this straight, you say that Josephus is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Jerusalem by doing the following:

  1. Rounding up 50 years to 70 years.

  2. Rounding up 3 months to 12 months.

  3. Rounding up Eiromos' 14th year to 15 years.

  4. Then taking all the other numbers literal including the 13 years siege of Tyre.

  5. Taking the "In the reign of king Ithobalos" as literally meaning "During the reign of king Ithobalos".

  6. Ignoring the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

  7. No way of reconciling the rest of the 54 years and 3 months.

  When did I ever say that anything that Josephus wrote is proof that 587 BC is an incorrect date for the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem? Post the message I posted to this thread, so I can read it. I don't recall saying or intimating this at all. What I said about Josephus is that what he wrote about the "54 years, with 3 months in addition" makes clear to me that neither Nebuchadnezzar nor his son, Evil-Merodach were alive by the time Baal had begun his reign as king of Tyre in 577 BC if Nebuchadnezzar didn't survive the end of Ithobalos' reign, whose reign ended the year that Baal's reign began. Josephus stated, in pertinent part, that "in the seventh year of the reign of Naboukodrosoros ... he began to besiege Tyre," and that "[i]n the reign of king Ithobalos, Naboukodrosoros besieged Tyre for 13 years. After him Baal reigned for 10 years."

  (I don't focus on Josephus' mention of Nebuchadnezzar's "seventh year" because it's irrelevant to the point I'm making, whereas the fact that Josephus indicates that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for 13 years is relevant to the point I'm making. I also don't comprehend what you mean by my "rounding up 50 years to 70 years"; I don't recall doing that in anything I wrote. Perhaps you think you have a point, so maybe you'll clarify the point you wish to make by posting where in this entire thread I did this.)

  Anyway, what this means is that "in the reign of Ithobalos," Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre, but after Ithobalos, "Baal reigned for 10 years," so since Tyre survived the siege, then Nebuchadnezzar must had died since there was no siege during Baal's reign. Don't you recall making a big deal over my having determined, based on what Josephus wrote, that Baal's reign began in 577 BC? Here's one of the things you wrote regarding the year 577 BC, which I had estimated as being the year when Baal began his reign:

  (@castthefirststone:)

  2. You try to confuse the issue with regnal year of Cyrus. Josephus mentions Cyrus from the Chaldeans perspective and contrasts it to the Phoenicians history. Cyrus took over the kingdom from the Chaldeans in 539 BC, which you are in agreement with. I don't see how the regnal year allows you to add another year to Eiromos' reign. If you use the regnal year of Cyrus, it takes you [further] away from your precious 577 BC that you cling to.

  First of all, I didn't use Cyrus regnal year. His first regnal year began in Nisan 538 BC and ended in Nisan 537 BC, but what I took into consideration was the six months that began in Cyrus' accession year, Tishri 539 BC, and ended in Nisan 538 BC. I don't know how exact Josephus was in his reckoning of the length of Eiromos' reign, but I do know that Eiromos' 20-year reign would have come to an end in 533 BC if it was "in the fourteenth year of the reign of Eiromos" that Cyrus "seized power."

  You wonder how Cyrus' regnal year allows me to add an addition year to Eiromos' reign, but Eiromos reigned for 20 years, and I'm not comfortable counting back from his 14th year, because I don't know how Eiromos' regnal year ran. Tishri 539 BC could have been toward the beginning of Eiromos' 14th regnal year or toward the end of Eiromos' 14th regnal year, so when I add six months that remained in Cyrus accession year, I decided to round up and count 15 years.

  Consequently, for Eiromos' reign, I had been subtracting 20 years from "54 years, with 3 months in addition," which from Nisan 538 BC would bring us to 556 BC "with 3 months in addition," so I decided to round up and reckon this additional three months as an additional year and count 16 years. Since Josephus had encapsulated the reigns of the Tyrian kings, I am more comfortable taking, not 14 years, but 16 years of Eiromos' 20-year reign, and adding 4 years to Merbalos, 1 year to Balatoros, 6 years to Myttynos and Gerastartos, 1 year to Ednibalos, Chelbes and Abbalos, and 10 years to Baal, or -539 + (-38), which brings me to the year 577 BC.

  Note, please, that I have not so far even mentioned the year 587 BC or the destruction of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, have I? For me to have said this would have been as ditsy as your accusing me here of making such a statement, which I never did since my mention of Josephus in this context has nothing at all to do with 587 BC. Do you not also remember writing in a previous message the following:

  (@castthefirststone:)

  Fact1: Baal didn't start his reign in 577 BC as djeggnog stated, as this will contradict Josephus.

  Fact2: Even if Baal somehow started his reign in 577 BC (if one uses flawed djeggnog logic), this still proves absolutely NOTHING!!!

  You and others here believe that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year would have been 605 BC, that his first regnal year would have been 604 BC and his 18th regnal year would have been 586 BC, making Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd regnal year 561 BC, but these dates don't work when due consideration in given to the facts presented by Josephus to the effect that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre during Ithobalos' reign, and Ithobalos' reign ended when Baal's reign began in 577 BC.

  The Bible teaches that it was during Nebuchadnezzar's "seventh year," after "three months and 10 days," that King Jehoiachin, his mother, as well as "court officials and the foremost men of the land," which would have included Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, were led away as exiled people to Babylon. (Jeremiah 52:28; 2 Chronicles 36:9; 2 Kings 24:15) Ten years later, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar so that he returned during his "eighteenth year," killed Zedekiah's sons as Zedekiah watched and then blinded him, as he was led off captive to Babylon where Jehoiachin had been living in exile for the entirety of Zedekiah's 10-year reign. (Jeremiah 52:29; 2 Kings 25:7) (BTW, in Jewish Antiquities, X, 181, 182 (ix, 7), Josephus makes reference to "the fifth year after the sacking of Jerusalem, which was the twenty-third year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar," which is the what the Bible describes at Jeremiah 52:30, but this is auxiliary to the point of this message.)

  The reason I know that Nebuchadnezzar died before Baal's reign began is because 2 Kings 25:27 states that it was during Jehoiachin's 37th year as an exile in Babylon that Evil-Merodach "in the year of his becoming king, released Jehoiachin "out of the house of detention," and if Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile occurred when Evil-Merodach was "the king of Babylon," this means that Nebuchadnezzar was no longer living at this time. I should mention that Josephus believes Evil-Merodach reigned for some 18 years, but for reasons I don't give here, I don't agree with Josephus' statement.

  If Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 607 BC, then his 43rd year would have been 582 BC. We can know this by doing the math: Just subtract 25 years from 582 BC [-582 + (-25) = 607]. This means that Nebuchadnezzar died during Ithobalos' reign, some five years before Baal's reign began in 577 BC. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year couldn't have been 561 BC, since by 561 BC, he would have been dead for some 21 years (582 BC) and his son, Evil-Merodach, for some 18 years (579 BC).

  If Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 607 BC, then his 43rd year would have been 582 BC, and Evil-Merodach, who succeeded his father, but died in 579 BC, had been dead for two years, and his father for five years, when Baal became the king of Tyre in 577 BC.

  All these cognitive gymnastics and you conclude that the established fact of 587 BC is wrong.

  What are you talking about now? You can believe what you want about the year 587 BC; I accept the fact that you and I disagree, but my dates that are based on Solomon's temple being destroyed in 607 BC works for me and 587 BC doesn't work for me.

  Yes, readjust your hearing aid and click repeat on your text to speech software: 587 BC is an established fact, not a theory.

  I don't wear a hearing aid just yet; maybe I should start giving some consideration to getting eyeglasses, but I don't use "text to speech software." I use speech recognition software to dictate most of what I post here to JWN. All of these shots you are taking at me make you come off as both an immature little girl and clueless, and you really should man-up. If you should be more interested in being foolish and in taking shots at me than in discussing this topic further, then I'm going to have to withdraw from this thread.

  @djeggnog
• 
  43

  The imperfections of the elder

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  outsmart - you keep mentioning the imperfections of the elders....and how people need to overlook them because we are all imperfect and we need to learn what true humility is.....etc etc.

  dj - if this is what you believe to be true, then you are mistaken, because even though jehovah's witnesses are directed by holy spirit, we have at times 'gotten it wrong.

  dj - i can agree that jehovah's witnesses are god's mouthpiece today, that we do speak for god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @The Finger:

  Do you see a connection Djeggnog? Do you see what I mean?

  No, I don't see any connection between Jehovah's Witnesses calling themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses" and something you indicate having read in the "God's 'Eternal Purpose' Triumphing for Man's Good: Is This Life All There Is" (1974) and "The Truth Shall Make You Free" (1943) books. I also don't see any connection with your asking me these questions in a thread started by @outsmartthesystem which seeks clarification as to how Jehovah's Witnesses view the faithful and discreet slave that Jesus indicated he would appoint over his belongings during his invisible presence and the work undertaken by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Very specific questions were asked me in this thread started by @outsmartthesystem regarding the direction provided by God's holy spirit in connection with the preaching and teaching activity of Jehovah's Witnesses, but you seem to want to discuss what objections you have to something you read in two books that were published back in 1943 and 1974 in which I have no interest.

  I tend to make what things we are teaching today my focus since Jehovah's Witnesses have abandoned what beliefs we may have had that have been determined to have been based on erroneous conclusions, which is why those who have become Jehovah's Witnesses during the past 10 years live in the present, and have no need to divest themselves of such abandoned conclusions found in older publications that we no longer use that had been abandoned before they became associated with Jehovah's Witnesses as those that may have been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses for longer than 10 years must do since they've been around longer, especially those that haven't been studious in keeping up with the adjustments that have been made in our understanding since they first became Jehovah's Witnesses more than 10 years old.

  If what Jehovah's Witnesses may have believed or even speculated some 10 years ago, or 50 years ago or 100 years ago should disturb you, nothing I say is going to change your viewpoint, but I have the advantage of hindsight that Jehovah's Witnesses did not have in 1943 or in 1974 or whenever it was that these older publications were published, so that today I do believe any of those former things that we may have believed 10 years, 50 years or 100 years ago to be true, and now view such things as being nonsense or as being just false. No, Jehovah's Witnesses do not have all of the answers now and we might even speculate on what these answers might be, such as when the end of this system of things will occur, and when we do speculate about something, we will use words like "probably" and might," but we have faith that we will have these answers in God's new world ("GNW").

  Frankly, as I see it, not everyone is cut out to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, because not everyone that reads the Bible has faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, which doesn't mean hearing the words, but doing what the holy spirit directs by means of God's word. It means listening to divine instruction, it seems paying heed to the things that have been written in the Bible for our instruction and not deciding for yourself which things you are going to obey and which things you are not going to obey. If one doesn't put faith in the good news of salvation, and that "good news" is that by God's undeserved kindness, he had made a provision by means of which we can be saved based on exercising faith in this life-saving provision, namely, the ransom by which the penalty of sin has been lifted from all mankind by the blood of Jesus, who God sent to provide a release to mankind for forgiveness of sins.

  The good news is much bigger than this, but essentially the work in which Jehovah's Witnesses are actively engaged in based on our sharing with as many people as we find in the world for whom Christ died this provision of the ransom that God has made for all mankind, so that they might gain eternal life in GNW. Jehovah knew, even as Jesus knew, that there would be those whose interest would be piqued for a time, and those that would just not be disposed to listening to anyone that should tell them about this provision that Jehovah had arranged for the everlasting benefit of believing mankind, but it is through the word about the good news that the lives of many people have been, and are being, transformed for the better as they have learned and are still coming to learn in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide how to forgive and put up with the shortcomings of others since we all have them, as we prepare ourselves for life in GNW.

  In the meantime, God has caused to be recorded the accounts of God's dealings with human beings over the past 6,000 years that serve to help us to understand God's view on matters on a variety of issues that had arisen, and whether what we read in the Bible is about God's past judgments on wicked individuals or wicked nations, or his past administration of discipline to his people during the 40-year sojourn in the wilderness of Sinai and during the 70-year period in Palestine, what Jehovah's Witnesses have concluded is that these Bible accounts, along with the things that Jesus taught, help us to better comprehend God's will.

  Now you may not personally believe in God or in angelic creatures, or in Adam and Eve and talking snakes, that eight people survived a global deluge aboard an ark or even that a man named Jesus performed miracles; you might not subscribe to the interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses with respect to the book of Revelation; and you might not yet discern Christianity as being a "sword" that divides those that do not wish to 'accept their torture stake and follow Jesus' from those that do, even though Jesus came to divide "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law" over the kingdom issue (Matthew 10:34, 35); but if everlasting life depends upon our exercising faith in Jesus' ransom -- and it does! -- then this might mean for some their withholding judgment on all of these things that the Bible teaches (and that you may have found too incredible to believe!) until after Armageddon when faith in these things ought to be a lot easier for you.

  Like I said already, your remarks here have been off-topic, but even so if you don't agree with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, there are some people that do agree with them, including the significance of baptism, for one doctrinal belief that Jehovah's Witnesses have that we all of us take very seriously is that baptism signifies one's unreserved dedication of themselves to do God's will, and we would not expect to receive God's blessing upon us if we were to disregard what the Bible teaches as to disciplining unrepentant wrongdoing if such occurs in the local congregations.

  If anyone chooses not to take their baptism seriously or should he or she over time no longer view baptism as being a serious vow, and should desire to live by their own standard of morality instead of by God's standard, then that would be their choice to make, but Jehovah's Witnesses cannot treat such individuals as if they were like the people in the world that had not been spiritually enlightened as they were, as if they were like the people in the world that had not once escaped the defilements of the world and come to know accurately the path of righteousness as outlined in God's word. (Hebrews 6:4-6; 2 Peter 2:20, 21)

  There are many religions in the world besides that practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses, and hundreds of them are even said to be Christian religions, but the problem that those who have formerly been or formerly associated with Jehovah's Witnesses have is the fact that they have been "brainwashed," so to speak, in that their minds have been transformed so that their thinking is not aligned with the thinking that governs this system of things, but their minds have been made over such that they leave us knowing what the will of God is, making it harder for them to assimilate with any of the world's religions that their Bible-trained conscience informs are not doing God's will.

  I don't say that one cannot learn new behaviors after having been one of Jehovah's Witnesses or after one has been associated for a time with Jehovah's Witnesses, but what I am saying here is that anyone having a Bible-trained conscience can be expected to have not a bit of difficulty embracing religion that is not in accord with true worship garnered through the study they made of the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses. When one becomes a Christian, one does become a "victim" of mind control, but he becomes a willing victim of mind control, since one is free to either accept Bible morality as one's way of life or reject Bible morality as one's way of life.

  Mind control, however, isn't the same as thought control, where one might be persuaded to believe that blacks and gays are by nature bad people, or that the US and Great Britain ("the West") is anti-Islam and anti-God, and its citizens godless infidels that must be annihilated if the world is to ever become a better place. I have a book here about brainwashing in China, which tells how some people that were incarcerated for several months' time had actually been persuaded by means of thought control (brainwashing) to believe that they were not in confinement at all, but that they were home, so that those brainwashed had no desire to leave prison.

  But Jehovah's Witnesses desire to follow Bible teachings, to follow the leading of God's holy spirit by doing what things we learn through our study of God's word that we ought to be doing as Christians desirous of doing God's will. (James 1:22) Christians have in no way received the spirit of the world from God, but what we received is the spirit of God, so that we no longer wish to be led by this world's divisive and ungodly spirit as it is our wish to be led by holy spirit, knowing that if we continue walking by means of it, we will not carry out any fleshly desire at all. (1 Corinthians 2:12) It is our endeavor as baptized Christians to live in peace with our fellow man and to not engage in conduct that we know to be in conflict with God's law. (Galatians 5:16-25)

  Just one last thing (i also apologize for being on this thread)

  The apostle Paul said this in corinthians.

  14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised." (NIV)

  If our preaching is false in anyway surely this would apply to us?

  You do not need to apologize for being on this thread, @The Finger, but like I said above, you are off-topic. I would presume to speak here on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses and for myself in telling you that I believe the preaching of Jehovah's Witnesses as to God's having raised Jesus from the dead is not false, so IMO Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 15:14, 15, would not apply to Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the only group on earth today that is "declaring the good news of Jesus and the resurrection." (Acts 17:18) There is no Christian group out there is preaching the good news "concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus" with respect to the ransom he gave "in exchange for many," except for Jehovah's Witnesses. (Acts 4:33; Matthew 20:28)

  Concerning Jesus, Christendom preaches that "whosoever believeth in him ... have everlasting life" (John 3:16, KJV) and those that "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31, KJV), but it doesn't teach what either of these scriptures mean consequently many of these sincere people are condemned because they have "not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18, KJV) Why even non-Christians are uttering the personal name of "Jesus," but believing on Jesus' personal name is not what it means to "believe on the Lord Jesus."

  Anyone can assign honor to someone else's personal name, even an atheist can assign honor to Jesus' personal name when he enters a church service, like a funeral, but this isn't at all what it means to "believe on the Lord Jesus." People will rise in respect when a judge enters the courtroom or when a head of state like the president of the US enters the House chamber to give the "State of the Union" speech, but when they rise it is just to assign honor to the office, not because they believe in and agree with the decisions made by that judge or by that POTUS. A devout Muslim might enter a Christian church and even sing a Christian song along with everyone else, but this does not for this reason make him a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ by his just being respectful in his not trying to get a discussion going during the church service about Allah, which he knows would be appropriate for a mosque, but inappropriate for a church.

  To believe on Jesus' name means to believe on what his name stands for, namely, the ransom, for no one that doesn't put faith in Jesus' blood can be saved, and because Christendom doesn't teach anyone the need to exercise faith in the ransom, they have lots of sincere people out there believing that Jesus is God as they marginalize Jehovah, when it was 'God that raised Jesus up from the dead' (Acts 13:30), and having them assign honor to Jesus' personal name, telling folks that this is what it means to "believe on the Lord Jesus," rather than explaining who God is and that it was He that set forth his only-begotten son, Jesus, as a ransom "offering for propitiation through faith in his blood." (Romans 3:25) Thus, these folks are in darkness and they will not be saved, unless they start exercising faith in the ransom. It is Bible truths like this concerning Jesus' ransom that are only being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses today, so, @The Finger, I am confident that we will not be "found to be false witnesses about God" in what we are definitely the only ones that "preach Christ impaled" as a ransom. (1 Corinthians 1:23, NWT; 1 Corinthians 15:15, NIV)

  @djeggnog
• 
  43

  The imperfections of the elder

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  outsmart - you keep mentioning the imperfections of the elders....and how people need to overlook them because we are all imperfect and we need to learn what true humility is.....etc etc.

  dj - if this is what you believe to be true, then you are mistaken, because even though jehovah's witnesses are directed by holy spirit, we have at times 'gotten it wrong.

  dj - i can agree that jehovah's witnesses are god's mouthpiece today, that we do speak for god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @outsmartthesystem wrote:

  The end was originally supposed to have come in 1914. 1975. Within the lifetime of the generation that saw the events of 1914. The "men of old" were supposed to have been resurrected in 1925. Nothing happened. And this isn’t misleading?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  No, I don't recall any such prophecies being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses, and you are here repeating yourself as to what you provide as one "example" of our having misled 7 million people, your reference to 1975. While Rutherford and others had speculated back that the beginning of the antitypical jubilee would occur in 1925, which jubilee corresponded to Jesus' 1,000-year reign, but this wasn't a prediction, nor a case of misleading 7 million people (or whatever number of Witnesses there were back in 1925). What was hoped in the lead up to 1925 was merely an expectation that was unrealized. Can you do any better than this? Frankly, speaking for myself, I do not believe that I have not been misled by anyone.

  @The Finger:

  What do you think about what was written in " Light, Book One, by Judge J.F. Rutherford. Published in 1930 by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Commentary on the book of Revelation." ?(This I found on the internet) (Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly)

  I have no thoughts that I'm prepared to share with you about an old book. Rutherford died on January 8, 1942, roughly 69 years ago, so whatever the reasons were for what he wrote died when he died as a man here on earth. One thing I do know is that none of what he wrote had been received under inspiration from God, which is the case for all of the publications produced by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. I never knew Judge Rutherford, but I understand that he was a zealous proclaimer of the good news, but having the benefit of the hindsight that he didn't have, I don't agree with many of the things he wrote when he was alive.

  We will always know the things on which he and his predecessor, Pastor Russell, were wrong since we can always refer to the books that were released to the public during their stewardship over the Society, but I do not pretend to be able, nor will I try to defend any wrong viewpoints that these men had when they were alive, and if they were alive today, I'm pretty sure that they would be make the necessary adjustments so as not to continue defending such wrong viewpoints either.

  In the book "Revelation Its Grand Climax at Hand!" Page 138.

  In commenting on Revelation 8:10,11 Where it says "And the third angel blew his trumpet."

  It says, "No doubt at the direction of the angel that sounded the third trumpet, a forceful resolution was there adopted and later 50 million copies were distributed as a tract. It was published under the title Ecclesiastics Indicted."

  By reading the "Light, Book one" we find the message given at this convention "Civilization Doomed" In support of the "Indictment" which was published as a tract (pictured on Page 141 of the book Revelation Its Grand Climax at Hand) was tied to the 1925 Jubilee teaching....

  Do you think that this was at the direction of an angel as suggested in the "Revelation Its Grand Climax Hand!"?

  I understand Revelation 8:10, 11, to be referring to is the effect this "star" (Christendom) came to have on the waters of truth, which waters were turned into "Wormword" and led to the spiritual deaths of many. Frankly, I don't have any thoughts regarding either of the Light books that were published under Rutherford's stewardship to share with you. I don't care about the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower either; these men are all of them dead and their thoughts, whatever they may have been, died with them, although the writings they left behind may now be subject to interpretation.

  As to how Jehovah's Witnesses today would interpret the meaning of Revelation 8:10, 11, if you have a copy of the book Revelation Its Grand Climax at Hand!, you can go to chapter 21 and, starting at page 136, read paragraphs 28 through 42. Reference is made there to the fall of Christendom's clergy after 1919 when those 'having the work of bearing witness to Jesus' (Revelation 12:17) issued a tract, which exposed such poisonous doctrines, like the trinity, called "Ecclesiastics Indictment" that was released at a convention held in 1924. Just as Christendom offers its own Bible commentaries with which you may or may not agree, the Revelation Its Grand Climax at Hand! book is a commentary on the book of Revelation, which book contains the interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses, and with some of them you may or may not agree.

  Contrary to what things apostate Christendom preaches, Jehovah's Witnesses endeavor to preach what things God's word urges all mankind to consider before the end of the system of things arrives, such as the importance of their becoming reconciled with God through Christ by exercising faith in his name as Redeemer, and getting baptized, apart from which no one will be saved. (Mark 16:16)

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @castthefirststone wrote:

  3. Please provide proof for your statement that Nebuchadnezzar was dead when Baal was reigning. I am not interested in an arithmetic lesson, provide proof that Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended in 582 BC (562 BC is the generally accepted date, by the way) or provide proof that Nebuchadnezzar was dead when Baal was reigning. Neither of these statements are correct and two incorrect assumptions doesn't proof anything.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  What's wrong with you? If Baal began to reign as the king of Tyre in 577 BC, then his predecessor, Ithobalos, would not have been reigning, correct? Why would you need proof that Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended in 582 BC when if Josephus indicated that Ithobalos was the king of Tyre when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre, then according to the popular premise that his siege on Tyre began in 587 BC and ended 13 years later, then this siege would have occurred during the reign of Baal, who Josephus essentially tells us had by 574 BC been ruling as the king of Tyre for three years since 577 BC. If Ithobalos was no longer the king of Tyre in 574 BC, then logically Nebuchadnezzar wasn't either. Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe Josephus indicated that the siege occurred during the reigns of both Ithobalos and Baal, did he?

  @castthefirststone wrote:

  @djeggnog it's ironic that you ask me what is wrong with me. What is wrong with you?

  You first. I asked you whether Josephus had indicated that the siege on Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar occurred during the reigns of Ithobalos and Baal, and you didn't answer my question. Please answer my question.

  You call me an apostate, but what makes me an apostate?

  You were once one of Jehovah's Witnesses and yet you are asking me what is it that makes you an apostate? You know what makes you an apostate, so it is unnecessary for me to describe what you already know yourself to be.

  Posting on this site?

  I post messages on this site and I'm not an apostate. The fact that you post messages to JWN doesn't prove that you are an apostate. However, your pretending that you aren't an apostate would be like pretending that you've never had testicles, ever. Maybe you don't identify with being a man any longer, I don't know, but just as the things you say betray what you are as a person, the testosterone levels in you betray whether you are a man or a woman. Anyone can post messages to JWN, whether one should be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or an apostate.

  What does that say about you?

  Why don't you tell me what you believe my posting to this site says about me?

  I suppose you are correct, I am an apostate, an apostate against falseness and lies that you keep spewing.

  Say what now? An apostate against falseness and lies...? What kind of an "apostate" would that be?

  @castthefirststone wrote:

  With all the typos that you make, I suggest you change your keyboard as it seems faulty. It is difficult enough to read everything you post but compound that with your typing mistakes, it makes it almost impossible to follow your logic.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I don't usually type anything; I dictate, and what you often read are the result of recognition errors, as to which I wouldn't expect you to know anything.

  @castthefirststone wrote:

  Dictating must be lamest excuse I have ever heard.

  Did I make an excuse? I didn't make any excuse, let alone a lame one. I essentially told you that you were mistaken; that I have no need to change my keyboard, that I don't exactly make typing mistakes as much as recognition errors sometimes creep into what I dictate to my word processor. I sometimes type, like when I create a table to post here, but most of time I dictate what I post to JWN. Who are you to me that I should lie or make excuses to you? I didn't attack your character; you are an apostate, so why aren't you proud of who you are and why don't you stop pretending to be offended over what you yourself know yourself to be?

  How do you dictate a wrong number?

  What "wrong number?

  I asked you about the 54 years and three months and how it connects to the reigns of the [Phoenician] kings because you brought it up. You use the three months of the 54 years to add 2 years to Eiromos' reign. Perhaps you should get a narrator to read back your posts to you as it seems that you can't remember what you posted.

  But I do remember what it was I posted. I also know that Josephus was merely providing an estimate since he spoke of "the whole period" being "54 years, with 3 months in addition." I have no way of knowing -- and you don't either -- whether Josephus was relating in what he wrote in Against Apion, I, xxi, that Eiromos' reign was exactly 20 years or longer. Here's what we know about Eiromos: That he "reigned for 20 years," and that "[i]t was during his reign that Cyrus became ruler of the Persians." We also know that it was during "the fourteenth year" of his reign that "Cyrus the Persian seized power."

  Now I have no way of knowing how Josephus reckoned Eiromos' 14th year or whether Eiromos' reign was 21, 22 or even 23 years. For all I know Eiromos reigned for 21 years if Josephus were to have included his accession year, but because Josephus also indicated that Solomon's temple lay in a "state of obscurity for fifty years," it does seem like Josephus might have done a bit of rounding. The total number of years that Josephus provides with reference to the reigns of the kings of Tyre total less than 54 years, 3 months, so if Eiromos reigned as king for at least four years after Cyrus deposed Babylon in 539 BC, then there would be a difference of 16 years, 3 months, during which the reign of Ithobalos and Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege occurred.

  If Josephus provided approximations as to the reigns of the kings of Tyre, then the most I can reasonably account for is 38 years if I were to assign only 16 of Eiromos' 20-year reign when "Cyrus the Persian seized power" and 4 years to Merbalos, 1 year to Balatoros, 6 years to Myttynos and Gerastartos, 1 year to Ednibalos, Chelbes and Abbalos, and 10 years to Baal, or -539 + (-38), which brings me to 577 BC when I do the math.

  Back to Josephus, the fourteenth year of Eiromos is when Cyrus took the kingdom. Josephus doesn't say in his 16th year and then add three months to his 16th year. Nothing you say can remove those facts, it is not an interpretation, it is explicitly stated as such. As I said before you trying to confuse the issue with Cyrus' regnal year doesn't work as it makes the starting point of the 13 years of Eiromos one year away from your precious 577 BC.

  Ok.

  577 BC is also wrong because you can't stretch Eiromos' reign in the context of Josephus. Josephus clearly states that he only reigned 20 years.

  Ok.

  This is the same problem you have with stretching Nabonidus/Belshazzar reign.

  What does the reign of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, both of whom were Babylonian kings, not Phoenician kings, have to do with this?

  You have absolutely no proof for either assumptions, yet you brazenly continue to try to proof your theories by spewing fallacies.

  You're right; I don't, but neither do you have any proof for your assumption that Eiromos' 20-year reign is exactly 20 years.

  I didn't join this forum to debate anything. I joined as I wanted to see if there was anyone that can defend the theory that 607 BC is the correct date and the established 587 BC is incorrect. You seem to be the only person willing to engage on this issue and the rest of the accusers that make up the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses are not willing to defend their position regarding this. You have failed to do so and use deceit to try to prove your theories.

  Have you ever seen what I have spelled out here regarding Josephus' account in Against Apion, I, xxi, spelled out in any of our publications? Ever? Maybe in the future mention will be made, but why do you mention the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses here? You have not engaged a member of our governing body here and I am not a proxy for our governing body. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I know the truth, and so I am not tied to our publications as are many of Jehovah's Witnesses. The year 607 BC may, in fact, be a theoretical year, but so is the year 587 BC, since the Bible doesn't provide the year when Solomon's temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. The year 607 BC is based upon the date when Cyrus deposed Babylon and my faith that when Jehovah spoke of "the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon" by the Jews during which the land would pay off its sabbaths "to fulfill seventy years" that he meant 70 years! (2 Chronicles 36:21)

  @castthefirststone:

  The issue really is: Can Josephus be used to disprove conventional chronology, when you have to rely on the same conventional chronology to get to the start of Cyrus' rule?

  Yes, and Josephus can also be used to provide another measurement to determine about when it was that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre.

  @djeggnog
• 
  492

  607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

  by Witness My Fury in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if this has been covered before i apologise in advance.

  using only the bible and a bit of common sense.. ok, here goes:.

  do the "seventy years" count from jerusalems destruction or not?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @castthefirststone:

  With all the typos that you make, I suggest you change your keyboard as it seems faulty. It is difficult enough to read everything you post but compound that with your typing mistakes, it makes it almost impossible to follow your logic.

  I don't usually type anything; I dictate, and what you often read are the result of recognition errors, as to which I wouldn't expect you to know anything.

  I want to know, if you knew you made a mistake and later corrected it, why didn't you inform us, like an honest person does? You rather opted to try to slip it past the forum and then blame it on typing mistakes. You made at least three typing mistakes when you tried to explain your Tyre chronology. My opinion is that it isn't typing mistakes but rather deviously trying to draw conclusions that makes no sense.

  What I will typically do is use brackets, as I have done many times in this thread, to indicate that I have corrected a typo, either my typo or someone else's typo, and at times I might even highlight a typo by using red type, as I have also done in this thread. I have no need to be dishonest and I don't care if my conclusions don't make any sense to you. I'm not really talking to you, per se, but to the lurkers of this thread.

  As far as your "corrected" Chronology, here are my observations:

  1. You add 3 months to Eiromos. This is nonsense as Josephus is clear on how long he reigned. The 3 months comes from Abbalos reign, not Eiromos. Please also add to this [explanation] how 54 years and 3 months are attributed to the reign of the Phoenician kings.

  I don't believe I'm going to do that. You explain this "54 years and 3 months" for yourself.

  2. You try to confuse the issue with regnal year of Cyrus. Josephus mentions Cyrus from the Chaldeans perspective and contrasts it to the Phoenicians history. Cyrus took over the kingdom from the Chaldeans in 539 BC, which you are in agreement with. I don't see how the regnal year allows you to add another year to Eiromos' reign. If you use the regnal year of Cyrus, it takes you [further] away from your precious 577 BC that you cling to.

  The year 577 BC is not "precious" to me. My calculations pointed to the year 577 BC. If I had used a different number when referring to the reign of Eiromos -- say, the number "14" -- then I would have landed in the year 579 BC, which would also not be precious to me, but the date to which my calculations will have pointed. As I have already explained, I think it necessary to give some consideration to when the first year of Cyrus' reign began and to the fact that Josephus says that there were three additional months beyond the 54 years.

  I think it important to keep in mind that in Against Apion, I, xxi, Josephus referred to the reigns of the Phoenician kings to make the point that the Phoenician histories, which occurred during the time when Solomon's temple lay desolate in a "state of obscurity for fifty years," provide some context with respect to the Chaldean histories with respect to Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege on Tyre during the reign of Ithobalos. IMO, if you didn't get this point, then it was really a waste of your time reading this chapter. Again, none of this is about my finding any particular year -- 577 BC or any other year -- "precious." If today was July 7, 2011, and you told me that four days from now -- not "54 years and 3 months" but just four days from now -- you will be dropping a check in the mail addressed to me for $300 (US), then I would expect you to do this on July 11, 2011, because four days from today I would land on July 11, 2011. Now had you said five days from today, then I would expect you to be mailing that check on July 12, 2011. If you had said "54 years and 3 months" from today, then I would expect you to be mailing that check, even if my expectation were totally implausible, on October 7, 2065. You have to know that your objection here to my calculation wastes time.

  It certainly doesn't allow you to add anything to Eiromos. You also round up 14.25 years up to 15 years adding 0.75 years to the reign, when Josephus mentions nothing of the kind. All of your reasoning are devious methods to try to confuse the unknowing reader. Go read Proverbs 3:32, you hypocrite!

  You are an apostate, and yet you are here telling me to read God's word? Ok, if you insist, but back to the point, let me ask you something: How many months are there between Tishri 539 BC and Nisan 538 BC? Perhaps you should give some thought to the answer you get after you have made this rather simple calculation.

  3. Please provide proof for your statement that Nebuchadnezzar was dead when Baal was reigning. I am not interested in an arithmetic lesson, provide proof that Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended in 582 BC (562 BC is the generally accepted date, by the way) or provide proof that Nebuchadnezzar was dead when Baal was reigning. Neither of these statements are correct and two incorrect assumptions doesn't proof anything.

  What's wrong with you? If Baal began to reign as the king of Tyre in 577 BC, then his predecessor, Ithobalos, would not have been reigning, correct? Why would you need proof that Nebuchadnezzar's reign ended in 582 BC when if Josephus indicated that Ithobalos was the king of Tyre when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre, then according to the popular premise that his siege on Tyre began in 587 BC and ended 13 years later, then this siege would have occurred during the reign of Baal, who Josephus essentially tells us had by 574 BC been ruling as the king of Tyre for three years since 577 BC. If Ithobalos was no longer the king of Tyre in 574 BC, then logically Nebuchadnezzar wasn't either. Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe Josephus indicated that the siege occurred during the reigns of both Ithobalos and Baal, did he?

  @djeggnog
• 
  43

  The imperfections of the elder

  by outsmartthesystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  outsmart - you keep mentioning the imperfections of the elders....and how people need to overlook them because we are all imperfect and we need to learn what true humility is.....etc etc.

  dj - if this is what you believe to be true, then you are mistaken, because even though jehovah's witnesses are directed by holy spirit, we have at times 'gotten it wrong.

  dj - i can agree that jehovah's witnesses are god's mouthpiece today, that we do speak for god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @outsmartthesystem:

  This is going to take some time to respond. I'm leaving for a long weekend. I'll be back Sunday night. You shall hear from me next week. I hope you and everyone else has a good weekend.

  Thanks, but listen: I've spent much time discussing many of your concerns as to the God-given authority of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses and some of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses teach others, things it was clear to me from having fielded all of the concerns you shared with me here you that you do not believe, and I'm ok with that. However, several times you repeated the same question over and over again, and while I didn't make mention of what you were doing every time you did so, I did make mention of this to you, and so I'm satisfied, like it or not, that you have my answer. I'm sure there are a few elders that would give ear to your concerns as I did in this thread in reading and responding to the ones you mentioned, but there are more than a few elders that would not be willing to do so. Having said this, I think I should clarify, in the event you missed this in my response to your quite lengthy message, that I didn't really do this so much for your sake, but for the lurkers that may have themselves had an interest in hearing what my responses to your questions and concerns were.

  Enjoy your weekend, but know this: Any question that you should ask me in follow-up that you have already asked me that is still of concern to you will not be entertained by me; you will receive no response or the response, if any, will not be as substantial as my responses to your message were. I don't imagine that all of your concerns have been exhausted, and so I welcome new questions from you on different or related topics, but I will regretfully decline to respond to any question or concern already raised by you to which questions or concerns I have already addressed in my responses.

  @outsmartthesystem wrote:

  Again...imperfect men...claiming to be speaking from God.....but only until the proverbial **** hits the fan and then demanding unquestioning loyalty to doctrines that can change at any time.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Jehovah's Witnesses do claim to speak for God and we have never taken some other position in this regard whenever it is some "proverbial ****" hits the fan," whatever this "proverbial ****" happens to be. Furthermore, Jehovah's Witnesses have never demanded unquestioning loyalty to doctrines by anyone. You make this same statement above, but you made this up since you cannot prove this statement of yours to be true.

  @outsmartthesystem wrote:

  That doesn't sound cult like?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Does what sound cultlike? Many of the people here on JWN are members of a cult, followers of Ray Franz, since these folks to whom I refer all seem to have read one or both of Franz' books, and subscribe to many of the things that Franz believed, just as one might expect any follower of a cult to do. Many of these folks tend to believe many of the same things and will often speak in agreement, with the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses being their principal foe-in-chief as they put on a pretense (some of them) of being Jehovah's Witnesses when these Franzite cult members are really counterfeit Christians.

  @outsmartthesystem wrote:

  Does what sound cult like? How about telling the individual witnesses that to have God’s approval they must obey your edicts even though you have been and will be wrong?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  There is no requirement on the part of any of Jehovah's Witnesses to believe anyone's "edicts" in order for the individual Witness to gain God's approval. Where are you getting this nonsense?

  @Knowsnothing wrote:

  Found this little gold mine right here.

  Oh, we get this "nonsense" right from the WT no less.

  "Naturally, all elders must submit to Christ's "right hand" of control, guidance, and direction, which he exercises by means of the spirit and the spirit-begotten members of the Governing Body." Watchtower 1987 Aug 1 p.19

  How does what you quoted here from what you claim to be taken from a 1987 Watchtower magazine undermine my statement to the effect that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't required to believe or submit to anyone's "edicts" to gain God's approval? On the face of what you quoted, it would appear that the reference is to elders, not to the rank-and-file Witness per se, and if a central body of elders, which is our governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, should be the ones taking the lead over the preaching and teaching campaign taking place worldwide, then it does seem sounds to me that submitting to the lead of the governing body instead of going off and doing one's own thing -- like some of the local elders might want to preside over a private book study arrangement of their own -- would facilitate unity and prove to be more beneficial to the flock than placing an undue burden on some in the congregation that might think such voluntary adherence to this private book study arrangement might end up becoming a mandatory obligation heaped upon them.

  Look: I would rather you not quote anything from our publications, because I have no way of knowing, unless I should review the article to which you may be referring itself, whether you have a clear understanding of the article or how it is you are thinking it should be applied. In this case, it is clear to me from what you ostensibly quoted from this Watchtower article, that it is not at all applicable to rank-and-file Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not serving as an elder.

  As for us being "followers of Franz"?

  DJeggnogg, how low will you go in your accusations of "ex-JW's"?

  How about if I were to have said instead that those who have left the ranks of Jehovah's Witnesses, not because they died, but for personal reasons that seemed good to them, people who have taken the path of Cain in ignoring what Jehovah directs in his word the Bible, who have followed the course of Balaam in seeking to cause harm to Jehovah's Witnesses, including taking down the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society that has been set up primarily to help people come to a knowledge of the truth that they might be saved, and who have joined in the rebellious talk of Korah against God's anointed representatives here on earth? (Compare Jude 11)

  Ray Franz was guilty of apostasy, having been guilty of all of these things of which he was accused, and his story makes clear that it is a lie for anyone to claim that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses are enriching themselves when Ray Franz' dismissal from the governing body didn't result in his being able to buy a mansion somewhere and one or more cars to live out the rest of his days in luxury, did he? Anyone that leaves Jehovah's organization has become a follower of Ray Franz in the sense that they will have impaled the Son of God again for themselves as had Franz after he had come to an 'accurate knowledge of the path of righteousness,' since Jesus' ransom cannot be applied to the sins of anyone that has committed the unforgivable sin. (2 Peter 2:20, 21)

  As I see it, anyone that assents to the opinions and beliefs of Ray Franz in either of his books has, in fact, become a follower of Franz in that he or she is following in the same path as he in rebellious talk and in speaking against divinely constituted authority. If I were, for example, to start speaking about how awful it is that there are folks that rise up in protest against the fact that state law will permit gay couples from anywhere in the world to come to New York after July 24, 2011, and get married, without any need on their part to fulfill any residency requirements as some states currently impose upon gay couples wanting to be married., then one might rightly accuse me of being a follower of Gov. Cuomo, who was one of those that advocated and pushed hard politically to make the marriage of gay couples legal in New York. Likewise, anyone that takes up the cause of Ray Franz against Jehovah's Witnesses, against the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, against the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society make themselves disciples of Franz and of his opinions and beliefs.

  This is how low I'm willing to go in accusing those who were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses, and who are no longer Jehovah's Witnesses of being apostates and of become disciples, followers, of Ray Franz if those who were former Jehovah's Witnesses should be engaged in the same rebellious talk and slander in which Franz engaged when he was alive. I would view such individuals as members of a cult, the cult of Ray Franz, Franzites, Franzotes or Franzians, take your pick.

  @djeggnog