My response to Apostolic succession in this thread was not meant to be a counter argument as you put it. It was meant to be the truth as far as the WT teaches us. Is not this what we are supposed to be teaching, the truth.
Yes, truth is what we should be teaching and it is also the distinguishing feature that I prefer. I only wish more people would let the truth speak—both inside and outside the WTS, including forums such as this one. Too often we let our present conclusions, opinions or mindsets get in the way of expanding our base of knowledge of what is true. Such a disposition produces self-limitation; it is intrinsic to the nature. I hate to see that happen to anyone, but real life teaches us that it is unavoidable.
As far as the arguments in the apostolic succession thread, the points to each of your questions was met. You just did not like the answers or did not want to understand the answers presented. You have tried to not only skew the subject on this thread, but have done the same on the thread about the Society evading taxes and the apostolic succession topic. I left a response to RedhorseWoman on that thread, (Swaggart).
No, “points” to each of my questions were not met. If they were please repeat those questions with concise answers following them. Please do not reword my questions. I will look for your answers on this thread.
I am not sure what you mean by asserting that I have attempted to skew the subject. Is representing facts skewing? Perhaps you mean my presentation of the four (4) possible relationships between differing ideas. Well, I’ve got news for you; “different” does not always connote “oppose”, which is what you apparently believe. Such a belief is a bifurcation of the worst magnitude; it is self-deception.
I also wondered, being you are so good at pointing out that two different ideas can basically mean the same thing or as you put it, (help us resolve the sum of what is actually being taught), can you help me with this.
The men of Sodom will be resurrected. INSIGHT, VOL. 2 PAGE 985 (1988)
The men of Sodom will not be resurrected. REVELATION, PAGE 273 (1988)
Hear we have two different opinions on the same subject released the same year at the summer Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Is it time to start flipping a coin for our answers?
Your presentation above you demonstrates serious miscomprehension of what I said previously about the four (4) possible relationships between differing ideas. In that case you are hardly in position to declare that my corollary questions are answered or not—as you have done.
Those two statements above represent two different ideas that oppose one another, which is one of four (4) possibilities. Remember my illustration, “Johnny can read. Johnny cannot read.”? Do you? Do you recall that little part where I said that those two differing views represented differing views that oppose one another? Do you remember that? Well, guess what? Those two views above fit that description, to a tee.
Your notion that we should somehow flip a coin between those two views above is an argument to the crowd.
The paradox you represent in that the two ideas were released at the same convention is your own construction because there is a simple and reasonable explanation for what happened in that instance, an explanation that you are either unaware of or do not want to believe. Here it is:
The expression in the Insight volume had been printed months before the convention and prior to the change in teaching. The one in the Revelation book had been printed not so long before the convention and after the change in teaching.
Is it so hard for people to realize that publications like Insight on the Scriptures take a long time getting through the publishing process?
Edited by - Friend on 9 June 2000 9:31:51