leaving_quietly

Joined

• started 82 topics
• posted 1,676 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by leaving_quietly

• 
  4

  What percent are getting baptized only at 'Regional' Conventions?

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what 'percent' at circuit assemblies or special day assemblies?

  are ones inclined to wait for the regionals (more exciting) or not necessarily?

  these regional conventions reporting quite low numbers, averaging approx.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  Any comments you get here will be purely anecdotal and would be based on what each individual observes at the RC they attend. At the one I attended, if I recall, it was at .39%. 26 or 27 (somewhere around there) out of ~7000 attendees.
  
• 
  29

  Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

  by paradisebeauty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

  here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  At 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 identifies the archangel with Michael. Michael was the archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor does the Bible use “archangel” in the plural. “Archangel” means “Chief of the angels.” Among God’s spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thes. 1:7; Rev. 19:11-21). Either their roles overlap or it is the same person.

  1 Thess 4:16 says "an archangel's voice", not "the archangel's voice", indicating more than one exists.

  Daniel 10:13 calls Michael "one of the foremost princes", again, indicating more than one exists.

  But, to me, the most compelling evidence that Michael is NOT Jesus is in Daniel's description of the one who talked to him in Daniel 10:4-6:

  On the 24th day of the first month, while I was on the bank of the great river, the Tiʹgris, I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen, and around his waist was a belt of gold from Uʹphaz. His body was like chrysʹo·lite, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like fiery torches, his arms and his feet looked like burnished copper, and the sound of his words was like the sound of a multitude.

  This one says, in verse 13, "But then Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me." So, this one who was clothed in linen, had a face like lightning, eyes like fiery torches and so on, was speaking and was not himself Michael.

  Notice this description in Revelation 1:12-16:

  I turned to see who was speaking with me, and when I turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, clothed in a garment that reached down to the feet and wearing a golden sash around his chest. Moreover, his head and his hair were white as white wool, as snow, and his eyes were like a fiery flame, and his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars, and out of his mouth a sharp, long, two-edged sword was protruding, and his countenance was like the sun when it shines at its brightest.

  WTBTS says this is Jesus. Yet, the description is very, very similar to the one speaking with Daniel who was NOT Michael. My view is that the one speaking with Daniel was Jesus, and there referred to Michael as someone else.

  Noting, too, the use of "God's trumpet" in 1 Thess 4:16. Rev 1:1 says that Jesus "sent his angel" to give John the vision. Rev 1:10 says that angel's voice was "like that of a trumpet" whereas the voice of "the son of man" in verse 14 was as "the sound of many waters." Could it be that Michael is Jesus' angel? I can't see why not. Thus, when Jesus comes with a commanding call, an archangel's voice and God's trumpet, why would he not come with his angel, Michael? After all, Matt 24:31 says, "he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound" to gather his chosen ones.
  

  Then, the strange use of Michael in Revelation 12:1 where the rest of the vision names Jesus all throughout. Why call him Michael here? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
  

  I went back and forth on this issue for a long time, but I firmly believe now that Michael is NOT Jesus.
  

  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 
  64

  Geoffrey Jackson: "That would be presumptuous of us"...

  by Calebs Airplane in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  within the first few minutes, mr. stewart asked geoffrey jackson if the members of the governing body consider themselves to be god's spokesperson on earth.. his response: "that would be presumptuous of us" (implying that they don't consider themselves to be god's sole channel of communication).. to me, that was the worst lie of about 26 lies he's told during this hearing.

  however, mr. stewart missed an opportunity to call out mr. jackson on this bold-faced lie.

  he should have asked him to explain why the watchtower magazine teaches otherwise.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  Christ was asked by Pilate: Are you the king of the Jews?

  Jesus didn't say, "that would be presumptuous of me." No, he said, "You yourself say it." When the chief priests questioned him, he said nothing, but when Pilate the governor did, he answered. (Matt 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:33-38)
  

  So much for imitating Christ.
  
• 
  84

  The Kingdom Halls are empty

  by punkofnice in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my jw spies tell me that the kingdom halls are empty compared to how they used to be, since i left 5 years ago.

  not saying they're empty because of me though.. is that what you are hearing?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  The hall I attend (less frequently now) isn't empty. Fuller than ever. Of course, the congregation that shares the KH with our congregation is emptying. Something big happened over there and a bunch of people just left and started going to other halls. Our got an influx of wounded, pissed off people. Great. Just great.
  
• 
  49

  GEOFFREY JACKSON THE PERSONABLE FACE OF JW.ORG...BUT IT AIN'T OVER YET BUDDY

  by steve2 in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  since geoffrey jackson's appearance before the australian royal commission on friday there has for some been an expressed feeling of anticlimax.

  it is as though he was given too much latitude to preach, to claim ignorance and to skirt questions.

  more to the point, as much as i myself thought i would never have expected to say this, gj actually came across as likeable and - don't throttle me please!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  There's some very intelligent and respectful posts in this thread, so thanks all, for that.

  I have only watched a portion of Mr. Jackson's testimony. Time is not on my side at the moment. What I've been able to glean is more of an inside look into the functioning of the governing body and it's role in relation to the rest of the organization. This, to me, is very key from a doctrinal perspective. The portion where I stopped watching is where they were just starting to get into the real issue at hand, but the first 40 minutes or so of the testimony is, in my opinion, quite damaging to the claim of being the "faithful and discreet slave". And it's out of the horse's mouth, so to speak.

  Two phrases that jumped out were "Guardians of Doctrine" and calling the Bible our "constitution. "Guardians of Doctrine" never appears in any literature, so that's a new one. However, calling the Bible our "constitution" seemed to be somewhat popular in the 1970s and 1980s, the last reference to it that way in the March 15, 1984 Watchtower (p. 19 par. 18).

  
  As for the phrase, "Guardians of Doctrine", that too is telling. They truly have placed themselves in a position, a self-appointed position, that even the Bible says is not necessary or required. Note Galatians 3:23-25: "However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed. So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian."
  
  

  I do hope some good comes of all of this. At the very least, the light is shining into this critical area. It's on the world stage for all to see. It's on the internet, and it won't be going away any time soon.
  
• 
  5

  Finally got a copy of the silver NWT

  by wozza in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after not having a nwt translation for a few years i scored the latest edition still wrapped in plastic !

  but guess where ?

  at the local salvation army shop ...for free!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  Still wrapped in plastic? That's amazing to me. Probably a JW gave it to a non-JW relative who didn't want it to begin with and they donated it to a worldly religion. LOL! (Yes, Salvation Army is a religion. I've seen one of their churches.)
  
• 
  22

  Advice on Waiting for Jehovah

  by Anon_SA1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi guys, .

  in discussions with a current jw, they told me that have big concerns with regards to the 607 bce date, but they are waiting on jehovah for refining.

  any suggestions on questions to pose to them based on their feedback?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  My retort to the "waiting on Jehovah reply" is usually, "Maybe Jehovah is waiting on us."
  
• 
  232

  Geoffrey Jackson Royal Commission update

  by umbertoecho in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  hello people.

  the rc will still go ahead with it's live stream on friday 14th august.

  however, it seem that it will be a video link.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  It's easier to pull the plug if a question gets uncomfortable. "Oops! Video link went down. Technical difficulties!"
  
• 
  53

  What is their official explanation for not allowing beards?

  by keyser soze in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i ask because my gf, who knows all about my jw upbringing, convinced me to grow a goatee, just to see how it looks.

  we both decided it looked good so i decided to keep it.

  i tried to explain to her that as a jw, i wasn't allowed to grow one, but then drew a blank when she asked me why.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  Years ago, when I was a lowly MS, an elder showed me a letter a brother in the congregation wrote to the branch asking for an explanation about why brothers could not wear beards. The branch responded. It basically said that a brother could wear a beard if he so desired, but could not have any privilege in the congregation, nor give public prayers. The only exception was if a beard was covering an embarrassing facial blemish (e.g. deformity, rash, etc.)

  I knew one elder who had a beard because of a facial blemish.
  

  I knew another elder who got removed because he grew the tiniest bit of hair below his bottom lip and refused to shave it off. He was deemed "proud" and "haughty" because he wouldn't accept counsel based on man-made rules. He was a real nice guy. I think he faded soon thereafter due to the way he was treated.

  Oh, and if you want to see how much beards are frowned upon, take a look at the illustration on page 13 of the Good News From God brochure to see the progression of a resurrected man. Better yet, here it is. Of course, the relevant question to ask is: If God resurrected him WITH a beard, why does he have to shave it later???
  

  
• 
  33

  Regional Convention in Scotland

  by The Searcher in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  walking towards my seat after lunch, i made eye-contact with a j.w.

  male walking towards me.

  as we were passing, he smiled and said 'hello', so i replied with, 'hello'.. well, if a member of the g.b.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  leaving_quietly

  @Prefect, exactly my thought when I saw each video. I didn't applause at all when I attended.