Answering all objections in this one post since I am on a posting limit:
Jeffro said: Apparently my single brief statement about Jesus ("Aside from the fact that there's barely any evidence Jesus existed at all, and absolutely no evidence for anything attributed to him in the Bible") and my single brief statement about 'inspiration' ("There's no basis for the claim that the Bible is 'inspired', nor any clear definition of just what such 'inspiration' would constitute") is allegedly a 'rant'. And since there is no evidence that the Bible is 'inspired', why the hell would 'scriptural arguments' be needed in support??
Yes it was a rant. Your answer to my question was that the Bible isn't inspired anyway, and a whole bunch of anti-Biblical rhetoric that wasn't called for since this is a scriptural debate.
You clearly do not understand the concept of burden of proof. It is up to the person making a claim that something exists to prove that it does, not for others to disprove a negative. Aside from that, no actual definition for the supposed 'mechanism' for 'inspiration' has ever been offered, so there is no basis for any testable hypothesis. It's sad that this is the level of argumentation we're dealing with here. It is probably with good reason that you have a posting limit.
The question acknowledges that JW's have already done their 'proving' of the doctrine. The members of this board are quite familiar with JW's doctrine and thus there was no need for me to 'prove' from the outset the doctrine since it was already known. However, I just proved it again just for the sake of the argument. The burden of proof is on the opposers since they so forthcomingly claim it is false. JW's have proven their side, now the opposers must prove it wrong, since they are the ones claiming it is false. The only thing sad about this argumentation is that you are better debating about the 'burden of proof' instead of actually proving JW's to be in error when interpreting scripture. Thanks for the insults as it was quite expected since you have no scriptural refutation of anything JW's believe and can only resort to insults/petty definition arguments.
DATA-DOG said: Why ask for " evidence from those here and then say that you do not have the desire or time to read it? Please read what I have written below as well. Videos on youtube can be anywhere from one minute to many hours. It is much quicker to simply read an argument and discuss it, than to watch several hour long videos on Youtube and then discuss it. I simply do not have the time to do so, so if there was a specific argument presented in the video, type it up here and I'll discuss it. Secondly, I do not believe I am being disobedient to the FDS and even if I was that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Indian Larry said: Tell me why I should ignore Jesus's command at Luke 21:8. I am not telling you to ignore Jesus' command. I am telling to examine the subject in context. By this logic, if we were first century Christians we should not have listened to the apostles since they claimed to have authority from Christ himself. It is a relative command (to the context), not a definite one.
Tell me why Mark 13:21-23 does not apply to the society. Same reason as posted above. The apostles gave spiritual instruction and told many to obey what they said because they were substituting for Christ. If we apply this line of logic, first century Christians should've ignored these statements:
2 Corinthians 5:20 "We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us."
Ephesians 3:10 "[This was] to the end that now to the governments and the authorities in the heavenly places there might be made known through the congregation the greatly diversified wisdom of God, 11 according to the eternal purpose that he formed in connection with the Christ, Jesus our Lord.."
1 Thessalonians 4:1 "Finally, brothers, we request YOU and exhort YOU by the Lord Jesus, just as YOU received [the instruction] from us on how YOU ought to walk and please God, just as YOU are in fact walking, that YOU would keep on doing it more fully. 2 For YOU know the orders we gave YOU through the Lord Jesus."
You cannot apply such dogmatic logic, 'since they are saying Christ is among them they cannot be God's people' because this would mean the apostles were not inspired of God and were not directed by Jesus to give orders to the congregation. If you were in the first century, the congregation is where the backing of Christ and his father would be at, and so thus they would be saying: 'Here is the Christ!' (in the congregation).
Explain to me why Deuteronomy 18:20-23 does not apply to who you call the "faithful slave" By this reasoning Nathan was also a false prophet when he told David God would be with him in building the temple. But that didn't come true. He later retracted this statement. OOPS! Nathan promised David, he had God's backing in doing something, and it turned out that didn't David didn't build the temple. I guess Nathan was a false prophet as well. However, the WTS is not a false prophet simply because it is not a role it has ever taken on. Whenever its given an explanation for an expectation, it's always provide a warning beforehand that their word is not infallible and should not be taken as the words of God himself
1870s: We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth.... It is our duty to "prove all things."—by the unerring Word,—"and hold fast to that which is good."
1880s: “We have not the gift of prophecy. "
 We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology.  Zion's Watch Tower, 1908 |
1890s: Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures.The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word,in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else.
1900s: It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events—giving also the reasons for our expectations.
1920s: However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.
1930s: We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended
1940s: This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes.It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.... But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles.
1950s: The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.
1960s: The book [Life Everlasting in Freedom of Sons of God]merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it
Our chronology, however, ... is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible)
| Don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975 F. W. Franz, quoted in The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 231. |
1970s: In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God ’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president.
1980s:It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8)
1990s: Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration. But they do have the inspired Holy Scriptures, which contain revelations of God ’s thinking and will. As an organization and individually, they must accept the Bible as divine truth, study it carefully, and let it work in them.
2000s: Although the slave class is defined as “faithful and discreet,” Jesus did not say that it would be infallible. This group of faithful anointed brothers still consists of imperfect Christians. Even with the best of intentions, they can be mistaken, as such men sometimes were in the first century.
I think this proves quite clearly that the WTS has never taken on the role of a prophet and never required that its readers view them as such. Your statements about the nations not beating themselves in lamentations yet can be simply answered with the definition of parousia. Matthew 24:37 "For just as the days of Noah were, so the PAROUSIA of the Son of man will be." Genesis 6:2 tells the days of Noah were 120 years. Christ's presence is not just him coming and avenging his people, but it is quite an extended period time, most of which people take no note that he is already present.
I'll answer your other questions when I'm allowed to write more posts. Same sentiments regarding the posts of King Solomon and outsmartthesystem and sebastious
