Evidence that the WTS Claims to be Inspired

by Lionel_P_Hartley 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  Much evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the WTS is a false prophet even though JWs will say anything to deny this unpleasant fact. Generally they act and teach explicitly that the GB speaks for God - that it is is God's sole channel of communication - but also claim that the GB is not inspired. That is a distinction without a difference.

  This has caused You Know to be on the lookout for JW teachings "channeled" to him by the Slave but which are without a Bible basis. There are a number of them but he refuses to see them when they are supplied. YoYoMama calls everything trivial - in retrospect - but even the smallest current JW teaching is a big deal for JWs, that is, until it is deemed trivial at some future date. Normie67 claimed that the 7000 year long Creative Day was referred to only once in the WTS's literature. Etc Etc.

  It is hard, it seems, to find an honest man or woman among the lot of 'em.

  So here's another chance for the JWs to demonstrate how honest they are.

  Here goes :-

  From where does the GB get the authority to tell JWs which blood parts they can accept and which they cannot? How do they know so surely, e.g., that intact red cells are off-limits but hemoglobin extracts - essentially red cells without the cell walls - are ok.

  So, can any JW explain how the GB is able to decide these life and death matters if (a) such things cannot be found in scripture and (b) the GB is only inspired in the sense that the Bible was inspired and so they base their beliefs only on the Bible?

  LPH
• 

  Will Power

  Excellent question.
• 

  YoYoMama

  I will answer your question after you answer this one: How was the 1st century Governing Body in Jerusalem able to decide the issue on circumsition?
• 

  siegswife

  That's easy Yo, even I know that one. They were able to do it for a couple of reasons, the first being that they were inspired. Because of that, they knew that the Law was no longer needed because the Law was the tutor leading to Christ. When Christ died the death of a lawless man, according to the Law, the Law became a tool for lawlessness, used by lawless men to kill a blameless man. The fact that Christ was resurrected proved that the Law was no longer the way leading to God. Christ is.
• 

  ThiChi

  YOYO: There was no Governing body in the first century. Read Pauls words, see what he thought of “men in authority” Gal 1:1, 10,11, 16, 17. The trouble-makers in Antioch were Jerusalem based men, so Jerusalem was the place to meet for the question on circumcision. .

  Also “it was not some small group of men with special administrative authority who meet together in secret session to make a decision. But was an assembly of elders,... with the whole congragation expressing its approval with regard to some of the decisions reached.”

  “We all fell down from the milky way, hanging around here for the judgement day, heaven only knows who’s in command.”- Jimmy Buffet
• 

  YoYoMama

  siegswife: wrong, at the time that decision was taken, the elders in Jerusalem were not inspired, if they were inspired it wouldn't have been necessary to deliberate on the issue. The point is they had the authority give to them by Jehovah to make a decition after a careful study of the scriptures.
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  YoYoMama,

  That's easy: In Acts 10: it is recorded that Holy Spirit was poured out on Cornelius and others which had tangible results - speaking in tongues etc. This direct manifestation of spirit indicated that Gentiles were now acceptable. Thus, the circumcision issue and the Law was settled directly by God at that point. Later disputes arose and Paul was directed by revelation to proceed to Jerusalem where these facts were considered and a decision made. Without Jehovah physically signalling that Gentiles were acceptable then the decision would not have been possible. Interestingly, the circumcision issue was then decided once and for all.

  So, now, explain, please, how, in these times of enhanced enlightenment, the GB has decided which blood fractions are acceptable - that is which blood parts can be eaten and which cannot. Please be sure to explain why the acceptable vs. unacceptable blood fractions have changed dramatically over the past 40 years, to the point that now no part of blood is unacceptable - it is only the way that it is packaged that is banned ; whole cells bad, smashed up cells good.

  LPH
• 

  Will Power

  siegswife RIGHT
  excellent - christianity (as christians teach it) in a nutshell

  YoYo
  These letters paul wrote, he wasn't inspired? What the heck are they doin in the bible?
• 

  siegswife

  "the elders in Jerusalem were not inspired"

  Read Acts, specifically Chapter 2. Are you denying that these men received Holy Spirit and gifts from the Spirit? Are you really denying that they were inspired?
• 

  Will Power

  siegswife
  He'd have to deny it because the WT prints that only they are equipped with the gifts of the Spirit which if he agreed with Acts chapter 2 he'd be calling the WT inspired which he just spent a whole bunch of key strokes refuting.
  Its just one big circle isn't it?
  (actual quote available if needed)