If i ask the elder i study with exactly this question: "Will a child living with unbelieving parents be killed by Jesus at armageddon?" and he says no, what will that signify? If i promise to ask that question, will you then ask your elder the same?
I'm not really sure what this would signify for you. And let me ask you this, assuming that you've read at least a few more of my posts than just the ones I've made to this thread here: If I should be an elder, demonstrating a deep knowledge of what I believe, what Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible teaches, then for what purpose exactly would I be asking someone else this question, considering that I was speaking here in this forum with frankness, whereas what I might teach others not in this forum would be the truth, would be honest, but wouldn't necessarily be as frank or insensitive? The ability to teach includes knowledge what and when to say a particular thing, taking into consideration your audience, just as Jesus told the Greek, Syrophoenician woman at Mark 7;27 that he had been sent to heal and feed the children of Israel and not "little dogs" or "puppies" as we might say today.
If anyone reading any of my posts should read them seeking to know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, what they will be learning is what things the Bible teaches, so that no one should get the idea that the things that Jehovah's Witnesses teach is not exactly what the Bible teaches, when what we teach is exactly what the Bible teaches as the holy spirit has revealed these things to us.
None of your quotes, no matter how many times you repost them, says a child living with unbelieving parents will be killed at armageddon, because its simply not what the witnesses teach. Instead of copy-pasting, please help us connect the dots by elaborating.
Take the personalities out of all of this and you'll see that what things I say in my posts here -- whether someone not a Bible scholar, but with considerable experience being in and living the truth should disagree -- is the truth, and while, in a perfect world, I would be keeping my typos in check so that what I say should be complete in every respect, but I must confess that I am unable to bridle my entire body. (James 3:2)
I thought it appropriate to copy and paste those three articles I posted here, but you have to know that I did so specifically because you had specifically written the following:
This last article (#3) is also in response to your post (notice the date is 25 years later than 1951) and there has been to my knowledge no adjustment made to this viewpoint.
I had omitted to post article #3 in my original post, but when I attempted to edit my post that contained just the first two articles, the time to so edit it had expired, so that I had to repost the corrected post, which included the third article that I had failed to include in my original post. In the event you didn't notice, I fancy using my own words, rather than quoting something written by someone else in one of our publications to explain Bible truths to others. Reading my posts one should gather than I know the truth, in other words, that I know exactly what things the Bible teaches and I know what things Jehovah's Witnesses believe.
I also know that there are some things that some Jehovah's Witnesses believe that aren't based on their having an accurate knowledge of the truth, that some of those that have been in the truth 20, 30, 40 years are saying things today, and even teaching their Bible students, that accord with what we understood to be true 20, 30, 40 years ago, which are not what we believe to be true now due to the many adjustments that have been published in the Watchtower. Depending upon what was said, it may be appropriate to correct such outdated viewpoints from the podium and at other times to effect such corrections privately, but we "should all speak in agreement" (1 Corinthians 1:10), and hope that we do not discover later, because of an inadvertent typo or our omitting the context needed to understand what we have said, that we have ourselves proven to become causes of stumbling to others by what things we say. (Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 8:9; 10:32; 2 Corinthians 6:3-10)
I'm not here to help you or to help anyone to "connect the dots by elaborating"; I'm here to discuss topics of interest with you and others here. Jehovah's Witnesses do not typically conduct Bible studies using mediums like this one, so if you should need some to 'connect some dots,' I would recommend that you seek out that elder with whom you are studying the Bible and let him know what needs connecting, ok?
What do you think of what djeggnog is saying? Do you agree?
And with this, do you really think that you could pressure me into changing any aspect of what things I have said here by putting the matter to a vote? Put me in a room of devout Catholics and ask us to vote "yes" or "no" on whether the Catholic view of Mary being "Ever Virgin" is scriptural, and if there should be 50 or even 100 Catholics in that room, I would expect that my "no" vote would be the sole "no" vote cast against this view.
Ask any one of Jehovah's Witnesses the question, At Matthew 5:43, Jesus stated the following as part of his Sermon on the Mount: "You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy?" Where would we find this command in the Bible? and some of them, lacking accurate knowledge, would actually think that such a command existed under the Law of Moses.
Ask any one of Jehovah's Witnesses the more difficult question, What did Jesus say to the Pharisees at John 8:7 to persuade them that adultery was no longer a capital offense? and some of them, lacking accurate knowledge, would not realize that the premise of my question is just wrong, that this question is more of a trick question, a thinking question, for(a) the passage at John 7:53-8:11 is known to be spurious, and (b) Jesus had not come to abrogate the Law of Moses (and thus become guilty of sin!), but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), so if two witnesses had been brought to him as the Law requires, one of these witnesses being the woman's husband, who is conspicuously missing from this account, and the one with whom she had been "caught at adultery," then there might actually have been a legal case presented to Jesus. (Deuteronomy 17:6; Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22; Numbers 5:11-31) I'd say parenthetically here that one would need to totally suspend credulity and believe that the Pharisees would actually have been persuaded by anything at all that Jesus had taught them.
What is true is going to be true no matter how many people you find that should say that what is true isn't true. Why don't you take a right view?
Okay, out of curiosity, I've called the main contact number at Patterson. I talked to a couple people, explained who I was, what my interest and connection to Jehovah's Witnesses is and posed the question. They've confirmed that the more liberal view on the resurrection is current and gave me a list of additional references which I'll post here.
That's fine. You clearly have the right to telephone anyone you wish in order to perhaps discuss anything that you wish to discuss. You clearly want to argue with me, but I don't want to argue with you over what you believe to be the current and "more liberal view" held by some on any Bible-related topic. Perhaps you are also of the belief that there is a more conservative view on the resurrection doctrine? There isn't; there is only one view; the truth. I'm done talking to you about this particular topic. You want to win an argument? Ok. Then I concede the win to you on this one. I'm willing to accept that I cannot win them all.