Posts by djeggnog

posted

39
Still Feeling Lost...What to Do Next?
by daringhart13 in
1. jw
2. experiences
i'm wondering how many of you still feeling a burning need to know god and have a relationship with him.. i am dealing with the horrible emotions of having faded, done some things that would be considered immoral, stopped praying (not sure i ever prayed right) and generally just feeling lost...... what have some of you done to get back on track?

i've been fading for a year and a half.

missing my first dc..... ugh.....having a crappy morning i guess...... just feel like i want to talk to god, but can't.. ironic, huh?
djeggnog

@BluesBrothers:
"... I see no reason to allow their disdain of other churches put one off finding out. The beauty of this new life is freedom...to explore want you want and to think...."
You've got to be kidding me! I don't know how long you were yourself actively associated with Jehovah's Witnesses (I understand from what you wrote that your wife continues to be an active Witness), but from whom did you learn that Jehovah's Witnesses have disdain for the people of other churches or other religions for that matter? That's just not true at all! Jehovah's Witnesses all have to believe themselves to be numbered among God's people today, else what would be the point of being a Christian associated with a particular religious group if you really do not believe this group to have God's blessing resting upon it? Your worship would just be in vain if it should turn out that God is blessing another group, and you're not a part of that group, would it not?
I cannot imagine a Catholic, a Seventh-Day Adventist, a Lutheran, a Methodist, a Baptist, on and on, confessing that he or she knows that the worship that are giving to their Trinitarian god is in vain, that they know that they are aware that the folks in that group over there are the true worshippers of God, but they like the people in their church and that they would rather perish with them than to be saved from God's wrath along with the true worshippers in that other church when God brings judgment upon the world. Can you imagine that anyone that is a member of a particular church thinks that what he or she does and has been doing every Sunday for at least 50 out of 52 weeks for some 20, 30 years is all in vain? My question would be, What are you smoking? Your thinking is way off! Your perspective on what is it we feel for the people that attend these "other churches" is "wack," as kids not in the truth are wont to say.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe themselves to be holier or special. If that's what you felt, then that would be your thought and projecting that perspective on me and on other Jehovah's Witnesses is a delusion on your part, for such a perspective is just foolish talk. It's true that we could develop a little self-righteous attitude and say about the people to whom we preach that are Baptists or Catholics or Muslims or Buddhists, "They're not going to listen. They're just Baptists. They're just Lutherans. They're just Catholics." "There are only Muslims and Seventh-Day Adventists here in this territory, and none of them are really worth our wasting time preaching to them about God's new system of things because they won't listen to the message." "Only Jehovah's Witnesses are worth Jehovah's giving such a glorious opportunity, only Jehovah's Witnesses are worth Jehovah's giving to us the prospect of living forever in God's new order."
Wow! Talk about being self-righteous and having a holier-than-thou attitude! If this is what you thought when you were actively with us, then you took the wrong perspective on matters. Tell me: Is it not true that we all of us need to rely upon God's undeserved kindness for mercy? Are we not all of us sinners that need to avail ourselves of the ransom provision that God had made that provides atonement for our sins? (Matthew 20:28)
Our works as preachers of the Kingdom message -- that is, assuming that we are not in denial as to the message of the Bible, believing instead some other message is what we ought to be preaching -- merely fulfill a command; they don't save us. We should know and remember this. But am I saying that when we read at 2 Peter 3:9 that Jehovah God wants "all to attain to repentance," that we should take away from this the understanding that God doesn't mean Baptists, Catholics, Lutheran and Muslims? Am I saying that when we read at 1 John 2:2 that Jesus "is a propitiatory sacrifice for ... the whole world's [sins]," that we should understand that no Seventh-Day Adventists, no Buddhists, no Baha'is need make application to God for salvation through the one that propitiates for all of our sins? Of course not! If this were the case, then for what reason in the world would Jehovah have us out there preaching to these folks? Tell me: What exactly do you think the phrases "former Catholic," or "former Methodist, or "former <anything>" mean when you hear one of our brothers or sisters describe themselves in this way?
Is our message one of gloom and doom, or one that involves the declaration of denunciations? Or, is the Christian message a life-saving one that Jehovah's Witnesses are declaring to anyone that will listen to us, if not today, then maybe tomorrow or next week or next month or next year? We do the work and at the same time we demonstrate what love God has for them to send us to help them to learn what they must do to survive God's war of Armageddon that is coming just as surely as night follows day, and when we are doing God's work we demonstrate our love for the people that live in our respective communities, the love that we have for our neighbors. None of us is worth saving, but we are persuaded that God intends to save those of us that are both "sighing and groaning over all the detestable things" that have taken place and are taking place on the earth today, as we mark them for salvation. (Ezekiel 9:4)
As to the freedom you were going on about here, you have always possessed the ability to explore what things you wanted to do, to explore doing all of those things about which you have always thought you wanted to do. Did you want not to attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall? Did you want to be one of those watching Super Bowl <fill in the Roman numeral> Sunday live and not on videotape or DVR after the Big Game has been played? Did you always want to watch the latest "R" movie when it opened, rather than having to wait a month or so until it was released on DVD? Did you always want to smoke marijuana or do cocaine with your friends in the world?
Did you always want to go on a junket to Las Vegas to exclaim "Seven!" or "Hard Eight!" before throwing the dice at a crap table or tell the dealer to "Hit it!" when you have been dealt "11" or to "double down" on "11" with a hefty bet on the line? Did you always want to "hook up" with your co-worker at the job, the one that wants just to have a good time with you because you are one of the few "good, mature and stable" married men that she knows? Maybe you are someone that relishes such compliments; I don't know.
There's absolutely nothing but your dedication to Jehovah that was preventing you from exercising all of the freedom that there exists in the world, and laying aside the vow that you made to your God, even for just one night, you have always had the liberty to do, even if you knew that neither Jehovah nor your wife would not have really appreciated this exercise of your freedom.
At 1 John 5:3, we read, "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome."
So you are familiar with this verse, so what's the standard here? The standard for Christians is obedience and so anyone that claims to love God would have to be someone that is obeying Him (why?), because to claim to love God and not obey His standards would mean that one in actuality didn't love God. But note that it says there, "and yet his commandments are not burdensome."
Now you might have said this: "I think it's a burden. I'd like to serve Jehovah God and become one of His worshippers, but He's too strict. I like all of His promises, but look what I'd have to give up? Look what things I couldn't do? That's the very reason I'm not serving Him now, or why it is I'm not serving God fully and acceptably." Some of these things that you'd have to "give up" were mentioned, but the fact is that when it comes to doing things that are right, there's no restriction at all on your doing that which is right. For example, if you want to be a loving person, Jehovah God lets you be as loving as you want to be and you are free to do all that is humanly possible to be loving toward others.
If you want to be a merciful person, you are free to demonstrate as much mercy as you wish. Maybe your thing is generosity, so you want to be a generous person, but Jehovah God lets you be as generous as you can be, for when it comes to doing what things are good and right, there's no limit; there's no restriction on this.
But when does Jehovah God place a limit? When someone wants to do something hateful that can only please the Devil. When someone wants to do something evil, then naturally God is going to make a law and prohibit one from doing those kinds of things. Like when a man wants to sleep with someone's wife or with someone's husband -- and, yes, this last desire on the part of some of the brothers and sisters occurs often than you might realize -- shouldn't God limit such indecent behavior? I mean, we know from reading 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 that your "vessel" meaning your body belongs to God. As one of God's dedicated servants, even if you should become disfellowshipped, you disowned yourself, and it's just that God knows you, but you are God's property. So God does impose a limit on the exercise of our Christian freedom.
Your wife is a dedicated servant, too, so why wouldn't you expect a loving God to give you advice that would protect you and she from the many diseases that flow from oral sex and anal sex. With oral sex, there's chlamydia, chronic Hepatitis B, cytomegalovirus, genital herpes, genital warts, Hepatitis B, Herpes simplex, HIV/AIDS, pelvic inflammatory disease, pubic lice, sexually transmitted diseases and scabies. With anal sex comes all of the above, including amoebiasis, cryptosporidiosis, E. coli infections, giardiasis, gonorrhea, granuloma inguinale, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis C, human papilloma virus (HPV), Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (HHV-8), lymphogranuloma venereum, syphilis, trichomoniasis, salmonellosis, shigella and tuberculosis. (Yes, folks engaging in certain sexual activity are already infected with TB, so they unwittingly infect their sexual partner with TB.)
Jehovah is not interested in limiting anyone's freedom, but in not having His servants sin against Him or sin against their marriage mate through their engaging in risky sexual relations that could affect the status of a marriage and any children of their union. He doesn't want fathers advising their teenage sons and daughters to make sure they or their sexual partner uses a condom if they should decide to engage in sexual activity with anyone either. There are no special rules on hygiene that can protect someone from contracting a disease, and what exactly does it mean that the attendant risks of becoming infected by one or more of the aforesaid diseases can be minimized if a parent advise his or her children to maintain committed monogamous sexual relationships with other children, except that there is the realization that one can become infected?
No, this isn't true for adults and this isn't true for children either. Adults are certainly free to explore their freedom by ignoring the risks attendant to their engaging in risky sexual behavior to maybe find out if wife-swapping can actually help the marriage, but would it not be irresponsible for an adult to be teaching their own children this "minimalization" doctrine of careful hygiene and condoms? If these unmarried children are baptized, then a parent would really be advising dedicated servants of God on how they might actually sin against God, would they not?
Also, Jehovah God doesn't give to elders the authority to turn Kingdom Halls into "Confessionials," so that they might become mentally titillated through their brothers or sisters coming to them with a contrite, repentant heart to confess the sordid details of their sin. There are no priests here and we do not take auricular confessions; except for Jesus Christ, no human being has ever been given the authority to grant absolution from one's sins. Anyone reportedly doing these things are not qualified to serve as an elder, but the friends that have fallen into sin may be intimidated from reporting an elder or might think that their making such a report will just be ignored. No report is ignored, but a non-report cannot be placed in a file, can it?
When someone wants to sell somebody's youngster drugs, when they want to sneak in your house and take out that which you have worked many long hours to earn the money to get, well shouldn't there be laws against what is indecent and what harms one's neighbor, laws against making our children drug dependent addicts and laws against stealing? God's commandments are not a burden at all! In fact, if you have a righteous heart and you love what is right, and you want to imitate Jehovah God in being loving, then you have all of the freedom that you can have, but it is only when it comes to what is wrong and what works against one's neighbor, and what is harmful, that Jehovah God places a limit, and rightly so, and those that love Him, they want to become like Him.
We want to imitate God in His unselfishness, in His love, in His mercy, in His generosity, and we can do all of this within what is humanly possible for us to do, for appreciating that God has standards is part of our knowing Him and doesn't at all interfere with our freedom as a free people.
We never want to use the Christian freedom we have 'as a blind for moral badness, but as slaves of God, having love for the whole association of brothers in fear of God, while assigning honor to our Lord and King, Jesus Christ.' (1 Peter 2:16 ,17)
39
Still Feeling Lost...What to Do Next?
by daringhart13 in
1. jw
2. experiences
i'm wondering how many of you still feeling a burning need to know god and have a relationship with him.. i am dealing with the horrible emotions of having faded, done some things that would be considered immoral, stopped praying (not sure i ever prayed right) and generally just feeling lost...... what have some of you done to get back on track?

i've been fading for a year and a half.

missing my first dc..... ugh.....having a crappy morning i guess...... just feel like i want to talk to god, but can't.. ironic, huh?
djeggnog

@daringhart13
That you are conscious of your spiritual need after having received discipline from Jehovah through the body of elders is not a bad thing; many of the folks here seem to have no conscience at all as they rejoice over the severance of their relationships with God and with Jesus Christ, the one that they used to call, "Lord." There are many folks that, like you, want to have a good conscience toward God, want to know that they are doing God's will, want to walk in accord with love. (Ephesians 5:2)
That you now will have to deal with being the elder formerly known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses among both your personal and business contacts due to your decision to leave God's organization instead of accepting the "scourging" rendered through the body of elders of your former congregation, which, as you know due to your having served as an elder in God's household, is Jehovah's way of disciplining those He loves, because discipline yields righteousness. (Hebrews 12:5, 6, 11)
Christians are commanded to honor all sort of men, while having love for the whole association of brothers, in fear of Jehovah, and to have honor for Christ Jesus our Lord and king. (1 Peter 2:17) You wanted to be totally free of all restraints upon your Christian freedom, and Satan's world is all about freedom, but not Christian freedom.
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you were the target of extreme prejudice and misconceptions lobbed against you as a member of a totally misunderstood "cult," but now you will be known by those that knew you well and by those "on the outside" (where you evidently wanted to be when you evidently decided to leave God's organization, instead of your accepting God's discipline as He administers it throughout the congregations of God) as having been "the elder formerly known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses." Christians are commanded to walk in wisdom toward those "on the outside" (Colossians 4:5), but as you know, Jehovah doesn't permit any haughty or unrepentent person, that refuses to keep his or her robe white to remain in His spiritual temple and so there you are, outside of God's temple wearing a soiled robe.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you will come to experience the fulfillment of Jesus' words at John 16:33, "in the world you are having tribulation," except because you were "handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (1 Corinthians 5:5), when you are "being slapped" by someone "on the outside," there be no merit in it even if you should manage to endure those "slaps," for the kind of tribulation you are going to have is what happens to those who are part of the world, which as you know is the kind of thing that typically happens to those persons that are alienated from the life that belongs to God. (1 Peter 2:19, 20)
You might expect the tribulation you experience to be enhanced were you disfellowshipped for a sexually-related offense that involved another adult, male or female, but even more so if you were disfellowshipped for such an offense that involved a child, after which you will never be permitted to serve as an elder, or be assigned to serve as a regular pioneer or in any position of responsibility in God's organization (that is, should you decide to return to us).
Hopefully, you are not an accused sex-offender, for typically what this means is that you will forever be listed, not just in Brooklyn's database, but in the world's many databases as a registered sex-offender, since the world is tolerant of affairs of the heart, but not the creepy kind that involve young children, in which case your tribulation will probably be enhanced now that you've been handed over to Satan for the world does destroy those who are its own, for Satan's world does know how to effectively shun an accused sex offenders, how to make their lives seem like a living hell as they must find work and live in shadowy places, while they manage somehow to keep in check the unnatural affection they have for young children as they hide from the parents of these children and the world's activist vigilantes.
If you think the shunning that Jehovah's Witnesses do when someone is disfellowshipped for not walking in love with their brothers and for not walking in love with their neighbors is pretty bad, it is worse for someone that should be expelled for what the world views as a criminal offense -- pedophilia -- for it shuns such persons by obtaining court orders that force such unclean persons at bay some 50 feet and more from the places where its children go. At least a disfellowshipped person can attend meetings with us and strengthen their faith, and can have open and frank discussions with one or more of the elders until he or she should has returned to their senses and is allowed back into God's Great Spiritual Temple.
No matter the basis for the decision of the committee, not praying is a mistake, and the elders can help you to do this, and your decision to miss one day of the "Remain Close to Jehovah" DC wasn't very wise IMO either, even though you know there may be hundreds of your brothers and sisters in attendance that knew you when you were walking with them in love, and knew you when you were serving as an elder, that would soon find out about your current status when they approach you with a greeting since your status doesn't permit you to speak with them, to have spiritual fellowship with them. So as someone that is momentarily afflicted with spiritual leprosy, you would want to call out "Unclean, unclean!" as it were to let those that do not know your status of the need for them to stay away; you're unclean now. (Leviticus 13:44-46)
Your wanting to duck your former brothers and sisters at a district convention and maybe be invisible to them there, but you are not invisible and as you cannot duck your former brothers and sisters at a DC, but you know that the humiliating experience that awaits you there is unavoidable no matter when it is you should decide to attend any assembly of God's people. So why not take a first step, find a little courage and try to attend Day Three of the convention? Here's Sunday's program:
SUNDAY MORNING
9:20 Music
9:30 Song No. 51 and Prayer
9:40 Symposium: Appreciating Jehovah's Endearing Personality
• Approachable
• Empathetic
• Appreciative
• Generous
• Impartial
• Forgiving
• Reasonable
• Loyal
11:00 Song No. 63 and Announcements
11:10 Public Bible Discourse: "How Can You Draw Close to God?"
11:40 Summary of The Watchtower
12:10 Song No. 106 and Intermission
SUNDAY AFTERNOON
1:30 Music
1:40 Song No. 16
1:45 DRAMA: "Walk By Faith and Not By Sight"
2:45 Song No. 49 and Announcements
2:55 Remain "in the Secret Place of the Most High"
3:40 Song No. 2 and Closing Prayer
Now if you have questions, you can talk to me, ask me those questions, ask me privately even, and I will pray for you, not now, but if you should tell me that you really desirous of returning to us. This was your 133rd post, so you know those who are here, many of them being of a very different opinion than I, some who will blatantly deceive you and tell you how some "on this board have found another faith" as if there is exists another "Jesus" or another "good news" than the one that Jehovah's Witnesses preach (2 Corinthians 11:4), but you know that there isn't, don't you? You know that this is not true. You are able to recognize a blind guide when you should see one, can you not?
If anyone should tell you that it is possible for you can have a clean standing with Jehovah, have a relationship with the true God, Jehovah, even though your "white robe" isn't white, but is either soiled or some other color, they're wrong, you're being deceived, for there is only one faith, one God, and even the demons know this (Ephesians 4:5, 6; James 2:19), and so you would do well to ignore such counsel if it is truly your desire to cure the breach that severed your relationship with God and obtain a good conscience toward God again. For "when you are doing good and you suffer, you endure it, this is a thing agreeable with God." (1 Peter 3:21; 2:20)
64
Help with irrefutable arguments- creating dissonance
by confliction in
1. jw
2. friends
hello- i'm arguing with my parents now... well, call it debating.

i'm trying to give them a question they'll actually think about- something that will make them want to do more research.

a question (or questions), that if right, will make them reconsider whether they are in the "truth".... .
djeggnog

@bennyk:
I find that more often times than not, this question you ask is raised due to a failure on the part of those who have been baptized to comprehend what it means for someone to have God’s spirt in them or for God’s spirit to be operative upon them. At 1Thessalonians 4:3-8, the apostle Paul states that whomever it is that has God’s spirit in them "that shows disregard," even contempt, for what things they have learned to be God’s will, he or she is showing disregard, but not for man, not for the brother or sister from whom they came to learn the truth, but for God, since it was He that put His holy spirit in them. Everything that we read in the Bible is God-breathed, that is, these things were written down by some 40 men that were inspired by God to do so, and while there are many people today that have voiced many doubts as to whether God had anything at all to do with the passages we read in our Bibles today, for many of us that have studied the Bible for many, many years, we have no doubts whatsoever as to whose thoughts were written down by these men.
I know you remember the following words that Jesus uttered when praying on behalf of his followers back then that had been actively taking in knowledge of his Father, the only true God, Jehovah, and of the Lord Jesus Christ: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ"; these familiar words I've quoted from John 17:3. But focusing on the words "taking in knowledge," to what "knowledge" do you suppose Jesus was referring here? At John 17:17 refers to this "knowledge" of God and Christ as being "the truth: "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth." When Jesus says what he does at John 17:3, he was referring to "the truth," and he left us in no doubt as to what the truth is, Jesus stating here that God's word "is truth."
The scriptural injunction placed on all Christians is that they should "go on acquiring power in the Lord and in the mightiness in his strength," and to"make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine." (Ephesians 6:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:21) This requires that Christians take in knowledge of the Bible so that they are sure of what they say when they speak to others about the good news of God's kingdom. But do you speak to others about the good news? Ever? If so, what do you say?
I would note that earlier, by what Jesus says at John 14:16, 17, about "the helper" being with us forever, he refers to this "helper" as "the spirit of the truth," and says that while we ourselves would "know" the "helper" because the spirit of the truth "remains" with us and is also in us, the world cannot receive the helper because the world can neither "behold" or discern the truth, nor does it possess the knowledge that we have. Why?
At 1 Corinthians 2:13, 14, the apostle Paul tell us why, saying that "a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him," and so Paul points out that this is why the world "cannot get to know them," since the things 'taught by the spirit of the truth' can only be "examined spiritually." But at 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Paul goes to say about those brothers that walk according to "the spirit of the world" with jealousy and strife, that they aren't walking as "spiritual men," but, rather, as "fleshly men," that they are walking as "babes in Christ," for unlike the physical man, these "fleshly" Christians have some knowledge the truth. Just as Jesus had God's spirit and sanctified himself by means of the truth for our sake by making himself "a vessel for an honorable purpose, ... useful to his owner," those that also have God's spirit have themselves been sanctified as 'vessels for an honorable purpose' according to God's will through the offering of Jesus' ransom "once for all time." (John 17:19; 2 Timothy 2:21; Hebrews 10:10)
So then whether one should be a spiritual man or woman or a fleshly man or woman, you have come to know the spirit of the truth, and this is not something that a physical man or woman in the part of the world that is alienated from God can say. Consequently, the reason you can understand at least some of what I'm saying here in this post is because some of God's spirit is in you; for example, were I to say to you that the account at Luke 16:19-31 about the rich man and Lazarus is a parable and is not to be taken literally, or that Jesus died on a Friday and rose on a Sunday, or even that 1 John 5:7 as rendered in the KJV Bible, your knowing these things proves the validity of what Jesus says at John 14:16, 17, about "the spirit of the truth" being with us forever, even if you should now blaspheme this same spirit by suggesting that God's spirit cannot operate upon a false prophet; of course it can.
Did God's spirit operate on Balaam despite the fact that he was himself a false prophet that orchestrated the events that led to the deaths of 24,000 Israelites? According to what God's spirit breathed into Moses and into the apostle Peter, whether you should now accept nothing of all that the Bible teaches, is your answer to this question Yes or no? (See Numbers 24:2; 2 Peter 2:16)
If, on one hand, your opposition to the things you were taught by the spirit of the truth should be due to deception or imperfection, God's knows, but if, on the other hand, your opposition to God's spirit should be both wilful and deliberate actions on your part, then as someone that knows the truth, the you must know that such blasphemy will never be forgiven you. But why fight against the truth? Why should anyone fight about God at all? Why should anyone be on the other side of the issue of universal sovereignty?
Why all of the "jealousy and strife" over the work of salvation that is being done through the imperfect men and women that are a part of God's visible channel of communication, a work that He wills to be done before the end comes? (2 Peter 3:9; Matthew 24:14) Why meddle or attempt to interfere with the preaching work being done by those folks that are the ones wearing the white robes? (Matthew 12:30; Acts 5:38, 39; Revelation 7:9, 14)
And why would anyone not be on Jesus' side of the issue? I mean, if every has a white robe on, that is, everyone but you, how would the angels fail to see who is rightly a member of the assembly standing before God's throne holding palm branches in their hands? The soiled robe will give you away! Why on earth would anyone at all want to be found "liars against the truth" when there is no successful winning strategy that can be employed against Jesus and His angels when they come as executioners to bring God's vengeance against all opposers of the truth? (James 3:14; Ephesians 4:25; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10)
As to that statement of yours questioning whether or not the fact that the association of Jehovah's Witnesses today is the only Christian group that is preaching the established kingdom of God in the hands of Jesus Christ evinces that what Jehovah's Witnesses are doing today fulfills Jesus' prophecy, may I ask you: Do you know of any other Christian group, apart from Jehovah's Witnesses, that you know to be preaching and declaring God's kingdom as mankind's only hope for a witness to all of the nations on the planet that they are able to reach with this message as foretold at Matthew 24:14? If so, what is the name of this Christian group.
Lastly, you asked if I honestly believed Jesus would appoint the faithful and discreet slave over all of his belongings when the organization itself would be "rightly branded apostate" by "its own published standard," and I believe the 'faithful slave' was so appointed by Jesus even though you believe them to be apostates.
64
Help with irrefutable arguments- creating dissonance
by confliction in
1. jw
2. friends
hello- i'm arguing with my parents now... well, call it debating.

i'm trying to give them a question they'll actually think about- something that will make them want to do more research.

a question (or questions), that if right, will make them reconsider whether they are in the "truth".... .
djeggnog

@bennyk:
I find that more often times than not, this question you ask is raised due to a failure on the part of those who have been baptized to comprehend what it means for someone to have God’s spirt in them or for God’s spirit to be operative upon them. At 1Thessalonians 4:3-8, the apostle Paul states that whomever it is that has God’s spirit in them "that shows disregard," even contempt, for what things they have learned to be God’s will, he or she is showing disregard, but not for man, not for the brother or sister from whom they came to learn the truth, but for God, since it was He that put His holy spirit in them. Everything that we read in the Bible is God-breathed, that is, these things were written down by some 40 men that were inspired by God to do so, and while there are many people today that have voiced many doubts as to whether God had anything at all to do with the passages we read in our Bibles today, for many of us that have studied the Bible for many, many years, we have no doubts whatsoever as to whose thoughts were written down by these men.
I know you remember the following words that Jesus uttered when praying on behalf of his followers back then that had been actively taking in knowledge of his Father, the only true God, Jehovah, and of the Lord Jesus Christ: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ"; these familiar words I've quoted from John 17:3. But focusing on the words "taking in knowledge," to what "knowledge" do you suppose Jesus was referring here? At John 17:17 refers to this "knowledge" of God and Christ as being "the truth: "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth." When Jesus says what he does at John 17:3, he was referring to "the truth," and he left us in no doubt as to what the truth is, Jesus stating here that God's word "is truth."
I would note that earlier, by what Jesus says at John 14:16, 17, about "the helper" being with us forever, he refers to this "helper" as "the spirit of the truth," and says that while we ourselves would "know" the "helper" because the spirit of the truth "remains" with us and is also in us, the world cannot receive the helper because the world can neither "behold" or discern the truth, nor does it possess the knowledge that we have. Why?
At 1 Corinthians 2:13, 14, the apostle Paul tell us why, saying that "a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him," and so Paul points out that this is why the world "cannot get to know them," since the things 'taught by the spirit of the truth' can only be "examined spiritually." But at 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Paul goes to say about those brothers that walk according to "the spirit of the world" with jealousy and strife, that they aren't walking as "spiritual men," but, rather, as "fleshly men," that they are walking as "babes in Christ," for unlike the physical man, these "fleshly" Christians have some knowledge the truth. Just as Jesus had God's spirit and sanctified himself by means of the truth for our sake by making himself "a vessel for an honorable purpose, ... useful to his owner," those that also have God's spirit have themselves been sanctified as 'vessels for an honorable purpose' according to God's will through the offering of Jesus' ransom "once for all time." (John 17:19; 2 Timothy 2:21; Hebrews 10:10)
So then whether one should be a spiritual man or woman or a fleshly man or woman, you have come to know the spirit of the truth, and this is not something that a physical man or woman in the part of the world that is alienated from God can say. Consequently, the reason you can understand at least some of what I'm saying here in this post is because some of God's spirit is in you; for example, were I to say to you that the account at Luke 16:19-31 about the rich man and Lazarus is a parable and is not to be taken literally, or that Jesus died on a Friday and rose on a Sunday, or even that 1 John 5:7 as rendered in the KJV Bible, your knowing these things proves the validity of what Jesus says at John 14:16, 17, about "the spirit of the truth" being with us forever, even if you should now blaspheme this same spirit by suggesting that God's spirit cannot operate upon a false prophet; of course it can.
Did God's spirit operate on Balaam despite the fact that he was himself a false prophet that orchestrated the events that led to the deaths of 24,000 Israelites? According to what God's spirit breathed into Moses and into the apostle Peter, whether you should now accept nothing of all that the Bible teaches, is your answer to this question Yes or no? (See Numbers 24:2; 2 Peter 2:16)
If, on one hand, your opposition to the things you were taught by the spirit of the truth should be due to deception or imperfection, God's knows, but if, on the other hand, your opposition to God's spirit should be both wilful and deliberate actions on your part, then as someone that knows the truth, such blasphemy will never be forgiven you.
As to that statement of yours questioning whether or not the fact that the association of Jehovah's Witnesses today is the only Christian group that is preaching the established kingdom of God in the hands of Jesus Christ evinces that what Jehovah's Witnesses are doing today fulfills Jesus' prophecy, may I ask you: Do you know of any other Christian group, apart from Jehovah's Witnesses, that you know to be preaching and declaring God's kingdom as mankind's only hope for a witness to all of the nations on the planet that they are able to reach with this message as foretold at Matthew 24:14? If so, what is the name of this Christian group.
Lastly, you asked if I honestly believed Jesus would appoint the faithful and discreet slave over all of his belongings when the organization itself would be "rightly branded apostate" by "its own published standard," and I believe the 'faithful slave' was so appointed by Jesus even though you believe them to be apostates.
64
Help with irrefutable arguments- creating dissonance
by confliction in
1. jw
2. friends
hello- i'm arguing with my parents now... well, call it debating.

i'm trying to give them a question they'll actually think about- something that will make them want to do more research.

a question (or questions), that if right, will make them reconsider whether they are in the "truth".... .
djeggnog

@Razziel
As I stated in my response to @bennyk's post, it seems I am being tag-teamed here as to what is a weak point, at best. "You guys" seem to all believe you know the truth better than Jehovah's Witnesses know it, and what is at the root of this beliefs "you guys" seem to all have is that all of you seem to have been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses at one time (if I currently serve as an elder and one of "you guys" here formerly served as such, I see this really as being a distinction without a difference), since I'm not greater than anyone else is here and I'm no less imperfect than anyone else is here. You want to boast in your achievements, fine, but, if I'm being honest, I don't view someone being disfellowshipped as being "an achievement."
In my experience, what this circumstance often means is that someone is disgruntled with one or more of the elders, believing himself or herself to be a target, their whipping boy or girl (I know this to be true in many cases!), or the power to disfellowship gets the best of a body of elders in which environment where mercy could never exult over judgment (I know this to be true as well) where pettiness and arrogance gets the best of us. (James 2:13) But this is Jehovah's organization and He appoints imperfect men to guide and direct His people (compare Hebrews 7:28), and it's a gradual process that will take 1,000 years to lift us to perfection when we will be able to bridle our own bodies. (James 3:2)
As to my argument I made in my post to @mentallyfree31, my answers were subjective (1) because I told you they were, and (2) before the What Ifs sounded to me as if I were being asked about whether I believed it relevant what nonsense someone may have believed 20 years ago, or 100 years ago, in 1910, when Russell was alive. In a "Questions from Readers" article, w67 11/15, pp. 702-704, a wrongheaded idea found its way into the Watchtower regarding organ transplants:
"Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others." (Id. at 702.)
As incredible as this was to me to believe that this comment had been published in the Watchtower, what some of the friends may have missed back in 1967 was that the decision to accept an organ transplant was the personal decision of the conscientious Christian and no one else's:
"Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions..." (Id. at 704.)
Thirteen years later, in a subsequent "Questions from Readers" article, however, w80 3/15, p. 31, what with the friends thinking believing that their acceptance of an organ transplant as part of a medical procedure to have been a disfellowshipping offense, a more balanced view was published regarding organ transplants, beginning with this:
"Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient’s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth...."
And later, in the same article, we read the following:
"Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the 'donor' is not killed to supply food.... [E]ach individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant."
My question to you -- well, not really to you -- is whether you think Jehovah's Witnesses or the Governing Body or the Writing Committee should be faulted for the 1967 article making it to press? Should Jehovah's Witnesses in 1980, the year when a more balanced article went to press, rightly be called upon to defend anything in the 1967 article? What about Jehovah's Witnesses in 2010? Should they be required to defend what this 43-year-old article stated about organ transplants? I say "No," because this is not our view of such today, but you say "Yes," and I can accept this opinion of yours, even though I cannot agree with it.
Oh, I understand, too, that Russell mistakenly thought Armageddon was going to arrive in 1914, but thankfully Jesus was right when he said that 'nobody knows the day and hour' (Matthew 24:36), including Russell, else I would not have been born! Should I today be required to defend what Russell taught when he was alive, especially when I know now that he was mistaken in his view? I think not, but I'm appreciative that Jehovah used his love for Him to advance the Kingdom truths that he was instrumental in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses in advancing for so many people.
Now if you are really an apostate, then I have no interest in teaching you anything, because you will likely ignore anything I say here were I to use the Bible to support the statements I'm about to make here, but Jesus was describing to the Samaritan woman a "paradigm" different than that of the Samaritans and the Jews; it was the "new wine" that later came to called "Christianity." (Matthew 9:16, 17)
As to my "restroom" analogy, I'm sorry to read that you "flushed" it. Pun intended. That you think I'm arrogant is an interesting read on your part. What I am is annoyed that we cannot have a direct discussion without including all of these other irrelevant moving parts. BTW, I do not "[elevate] the interpretations of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses"; I am instrumental in contributing to many of the articles that you might even be reading today, but contrary to what you evidently believe about Jehovah's Witnesses (I don't know why!), we have no private interpretations, not do we publish any of such. (2 Peter 1:20, 21)
64
Help with irrefutable arguments- creating dissonance
by confliction in
1. jw
2. friends
hello- i'm arguing with my parents now... well, call it debating.

i'm trying to give them a question they'll actually think about- something that will make them want to do more research.

a question (or questions), that if right, will make them reconsider whether they are in the "truth".... .
djeggnog

@bennyk:
In your post, you are making reference to things that Jehovah's Witnesses today do not teach, for there have been many adjustments made over the years in our understanding of Bible doctrines, which is why many of our older publications become obsolete as new publications are printed which contain our then-current understanding of the Bible as our understanding has increased over the years since the days of Charles T. Russell, Jonas Wendell, Nelson H. Barbour, George Stetson, Henry Grew and George Storrs, all of whom believed many of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses believe today, and quite a few things that Jehovah's Witnesses today have never believed. Three of these men (Russell, Wendell and Barbour) were born during the 19th century and the other two (Grew and Storrs) during the 18th century, and they shared many beliefs that with the passage of much time today, who live during the 21st century, know to have been ridiculous. But it is evident that while none of them were inspired, God's spirit was upon all of these men, imperfect though they were, and God used them to prepare the way that ultimately led to our being an integral part of the fulfillment of many of the prophecies contained in the book of Revelation and Jesus' prophecy concerning the worldwide preaching work that only Jehovah's Witnesses are doing.
Your other point was similar to the one made by @confliction, so I guess you and he are tag-teaming me here. In response and so as not to be redundant, I'd just incorporate by reference the remarks I made to @confliction.
64
Help with irrefutable arguments- creating dissonance
by confliction in
1. jw
2. friends
hello- i'm arguing with my parents now... well, call it debating.

i'm trying to give them a question they'll actually think about- something that will make them want to do more research.

a question (or questions), that if right, will make them reconsider whether they are in the "truth".... .
djeggnog

@confliction:
Oh, do you? I couldn't glean from your post what you thought I was trying to do, so I can only respond here to the problems you are having with my post:
I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and this means nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you imagine that you know more about what we teach than I do, and I have no problem with your giving yourself as much [expertise] as you might feel you need in this regard, but there is nothing "doctrinally sinful," for lack of a better way to convey my point here, about someone visiting a website that might also [be used] by an apostate, no more [so] than that it would be "doctrinally sinful" for you and I using the very same restroom at Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles, California, for a restroom is provided to the public. Now one doesn't normally need to sign-up to use a restroom, but I'm hoping you are getting my drift.
I'm not here to hobnob with apostates, but perhaps you will remember learning (or maybe you learned very little!) that elders speak to disfellowshipped persons all of the time, privately for the most part, and some of these expelled ones might be apostates.
However, it is by one's own choice that one takes the necessary steps that have led many [to] making his or her dedication to Jehovah and baptism. Through an assent of his or her own will decide if he or she will serve Jehovah or not, for no one should be forced (and over the years I've become aware of cases where coercion or force was applied to a baptismal candidate) to do anything against their own will.
Now if you, for example, were baptized without your having gained an appreciation for the spiritual things that you were learning -- if you, like many former Jehovah's Witnesses, came away from the truth with a lot of head knowledge, with no one ever explaining to you, by your getting baptized, that you would be becoming a part of the household of faith with duties and responsibilities, not just toward Jehovah, but toward the people for whom Christ died, and that were, in fact, being invited by Jehovah into a Holy Place, the earthly realm of His spiritual temple -- then those particular elders, as has often been the case in the past with other elders, may have had their own agenda (i.e., a quota contest between other congregations in a circuit). But I personally pray for those that have elected to leave us that they may reconsider and come back to Jehovah with the help of someone more mature that the elders that forced them to don that white robe before they were ready to put it own themselves in the first place, someone that can help them make spiritual progress.
You evidently read my post in some skewed fashion, which in my experience typically does happen when someone is in attack mode, not to say that you are in "attack mode" here, but I wasn't implying anything in what I said. I was essentially saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are not inspired, not infallible, and while our being so enthused over the fact that Armageddon is so much more closer than it was when we first learned the truth, and our being so excited over the possibility that we might be numbered among the survivors that see the end of this wicked system of things might lead some to say things that just aren't supported by the Bible, we are happy to accept whatever changes are made in our understanding of scriptural doctrine since we desire to worship God in truth, and will abandon any teaching that we discover to not be in harmony with the Bible.
It's commendable that you are still doing research on what Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching even though you may have severed your relationship with us, and I say this because maybe you'll eventually come to realize that all Jehovah's Witnesses are doing is trying to build faith in God and in His purposes for the earth so that those that listen to us might be saved, both they and we. (1 Timothy 4:16) I wrote a couple of posts having to do with how we now have come to understand the meaning of Jesus' words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, and I'm sure you can find them, but Jesus did say at Matthew 24:36, that 'nobody knows the day and hour,' which means that Jesus and his executional forces are still coming as a thief, 'at an hour that we do not think it to be it,' I believe our Lord said, because we simply will not be able to figure out "on what day [our] Lord is coming" (Matthew 24:42-44).
As I stated elsewhere (in other posts, that is), when Jesus used the words "this generation" at Matthew 23:36, he had in mind those Jews that were alive contemporaneous with the tribulation that befell the Jewish system of things in 70 AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. However, the words "this generation" that he uses at Matthew 24:34 are contemporaneous with the events that would occur "after the tribulation of those days" when "the sign of the Son of man" will appear in heaven "during the presence of the Son of man" at the end of this wicked system of things. (Matthew 24:37) In this regard, I think it important to take into consideration what Jesus says at Matthew 24:29, 30.
Pertinent to this discussion that we are having here is what I posted the other day:
[EXCERPT]
At Genesis 7:1, reference is there made to Noah's generation ("After that Jehovah said to Noah: 'Go, you and all your household, into the ark, because you are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation'"), and Noah, who was born in 2970 BC, would have been (and was!) 600 years old when the flood waters deluged the earth in 2370 BC. (Genesis 7:6) But the Bible indicates (Genesis 5:28), too, that Lamech, Noah's father, who was born in 3152 BC, gave birth to Noah when he was 182 years old (2970 BC), and that in 2375 BC, Lamech died at the age of 777, but while Lamech's life overlapped that of his son by 595 years, Noah's "generation" began with Noah's birth, and Noah's three sons, Japheth, Shem and Ham, were Noah's contemporaries when their father died in 2020 BC, some 350 years after the Flood, when Noah's generation came to an end.
So from the day that each of Noah's sons were born until the day their father died, Japheth, Shem and Ham were contemporaries of Noah, so for example, Japheth, who was born in 2470 BC, would have been a contemporary of Noah for some 450 years, so even though Noah and Japheth were not born of the same generation, they were both a part of "this generation" that were alive when the 120-year "countdown" began in 2490 BC marking the last days of that ancient world and when the Flood brought that ancient world to an end. Jesus parallels "the presence of the Son of man" with the 120-year period that culminated with the Flood, through which period, Jesus says, the people "took no note" of the message that Noah preached as to the end of that ancient world. (Matthew 24:38, 39)
Similarly, at Exodus 1:6, which refers to Joseph's generation ("Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation") is used to describe those who were Joseph's contemporaries, even though the verse itself doesn't use this word, which is evinced by the words "...and all that generation," which would not be limit "generation" to just Joseph and his 11 brothers, but would include Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who would also have been as much contemporaries of their father as were Joseph's nephews (and nieces), would they not? All of these were contemporaries of Joseph and thus a part of "that generation [of Joseph's]."
As I wrote elsewhere, there is no "1914 generation" and no "Armageddon generation"; there is but one "anointed generation" -- "this generation" of folks that lived contemporaneous to when the composite "sign" that Jesus provides in Matthew 24 and 25; Mark 13 and Luke 21 appeared in 1914, and many of the people in this generation will still be alive after the great tribulation and "will by no means pass away until all these things occur," so these anointed ones will live to see the end of this wicked system of things.
[END]
You also asked me the following:
"[H]ave you ever wondered why the Organization has more qualified law students than it does bible scholars?"
I haven't really considered this question, but with the exception of the apostle Paul, none of Jesus' apostles were well-educated men, Bible scholars or the like. Peter and John, for example, are described at Acts 4:13 as being "unlettered and ordinary." I recall reading somewhere (John 7:15) that Jesus wasn't regarded as being a Bible scholar either, "not [having] studied at the schools." Believe me, I don't wonder about such things at all, but you certainly can.
64
Help with irrefutable arguments- creating dissonance
by confliction in
1. jw
2. friends
hello- i'm arguing with my parents now... well, call it debating.

i'm trying to give them a question they'll actually think about- something that will make them want to do more research.

a question (or questions), that if right, will make them reconsider whether they are in the "truth".... .
djeggnog

@bennyk:
"Would you be disfellowshipped today from the Watchtower, if you believed and taught the Society’s doctrines of 1920? _____YES __x__NO"
Not really. Anyone not wearing a white robe cannot be disfellowshipped, and anyone whose white robe is soiled has already been disfellowshipped.
The QfR article to which you refer would not be applicable to this, for anyone that should be found teaching what things that we do not teach today would be like the Samaritan woman, who believed she was "in the truth" even though she was in reality worshipping a God that did not exist. Jehovah had revealed so much more about Himself than what the Torah had revealed, there having been an additional 34 books (as we reckoned them the Hebrew Scriptures today) than she had been taught about God. This is why when we read John 4:21-24 (and I'm paraphrasing): 'You are worshipping a God that you don't even know, for the hour is coming when neither at some mountain in Samaria or at a temple in Jerusalem will people be worshipping God, for true worshippers will be those that are worshipping God in spirit and truth.'
Contrary to what you are have suggested here, anyone teaching old doctrines are not Christians, are not worshipping the true God, and no more so could that Samaritan woman be put to death for false worship than a former Witness that doesn't know God. Apostasy is an offense that can only be committed by someone that intentionally deviates from the truth by distorting God's word by maliciously teaching different doctrines and twisted things in order to subvert the faith of others, perhaps to draw folks after themselves, and things like these. (1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:18; Acts 20:30).
An individual that teaches wrong doctrine wouldn't even be someone that Jehovah would have invited into His spiritual temple where He dwells in our midst in person, and not just in spirit, for God's temple is a Holy Place and only true worshippers of God can enter the [true] God's temple. As we await the beginning of the great tribulation, Jehovah is elevating the household of faith progressively, little by little, as we make what adjustments are necessary to grow in love for our brothers, so that we may continue to qualify to wear the "white robes" of purity that we were given when we were baptized that we might eventually maintain our place in God's spiritual house forever.
Both apostates and persons on the outside (like those teaching wrong doctrine because they do not know any better) are not God's people, for as you said, they do not "[accept] the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible," so anyone not wearing a white robe is naked and cannot be disfellowshipped since he or she is like that Samaritan woman in that he or she is not even in the truth, but anyone whose white robe is soiled has already been disfellowshipped.
@Mad Sweeney:
I didn't realize that you were qualified to grade my answers to those questions I answered, and I still don't believe you to be in possession of such qualifications, especially since those questions seemed to me to have been subjective ones, meaning that the answers I provided were mine and thus no one could have answered for me but me, but please allow me to share something with you, just one thing: I don't start arguments; I finish them.
64
Help with irrefutable arguments- creating dissonance
by confliction in
1. jw
2. friends
hello- i'm arguing with my parents now... well, call it debating.

i'm trying to give them a question they'll actually think about- something that will make them want to do more research.

a question (or questions), that if right, will make them reconsider whether they are in the "truth".... .
djeggnog

@tec:
As you know, what you quoted here came from Appendix 1D (The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures), pp. 1564-1566 from the NWT Reference Bible, which appendix lists each instance where it is clear that the Tetragrammaton that makes use of four Hebrew characters, would have been used in the Greek text (since the majority of these verses in the Greek text are either quotations from or allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures or to the Greek Septuagint, the latter being a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that was commissioned by Ptolemy II during the third century BC and produced by 72 Jewish scholars [which Greek translation is also known as "the LXX"]).
Since we know that the writers of the Greek Scriptures would have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures or the Septuagint in which the Tetragrammaton appears, and we also know from Jerome's fourth century AD writings that before Matthew's gospel was translated into Greek that the apostle Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew "for the circumcision," that is to say, for the benefit of Jewish Christians that read Hebrew, for Jerome indicates that had been permitted by the Berean Nazarenes to make a copy of Matthew's gospel for his own use, which "is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea...." Matthew's gospel alone contains over a hundred quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures that include the Tetragrammaton in them, and "according to the practice of that time," when Matthew's gospel was translated into Greek, it would also have included the Tetragrammaton in it, even as would the rest of the Greek text in which the Tetragrammaton appeared. Now we come to your quote:
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, 'Lord' or The·os´, 'God.'"
What this Appendix is saying here is that instead of their faithfully copying the Tetragrammaton along with the rest of the Greek Scriptures, the Tetragrammaton was substituted by second or third century AD scribal copyists with with kyrios (which in the English language is rendered "Lord") or _theos_ (which in the English language is rendered "God"), and the Appendix goes on to list 237 instances where the divine name was restored to the NWT Reference Bible as it is believe it would have appeared in the Greek Scriptures.
Professor George Howard (University of Georgia) stated: "When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint [so that b]efore long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars." (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, p. 14.)
Consequently, while Jews refused to even pronounce the divine name, by the third century at the latest, the apostate Christian church had managed to completely remove God's name from Greek language manuscripts of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures.
Now by way of response to one of the questions raised in the book, Reasoning on the Scriptures, "How can we be sure the Bible has not been changed?" from which you quoted, reference is made to something contained in the introduction of Sir Frederic Kenyon's work, "The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri," on page 15, in which he stated that upon comparing the extant manuscripts that have been unearthed to date with one another, they confirm the soundness of the existing texts themselves. And here we come to what you quoted: "No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines." Let me go on here to include the rest of Kenyon's quote though: "The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used... But their essential importance is their confirmation, by evidence of an earlier date than was hitherto available, of the integrity of our existing texts."
Notice that Kenyon here is not talking about the divine name at all, but is discussing the integrity he found to exist in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures that are available to us today when the manuscripts with one another, saying that while he did find there to be variations in the text that affect minor matters, maybe the words in some of the text is ordered different or there might be an imprecision as to the words used, there was found to be "no striking or fundamental variation" in these texts, "no important omissions or additions" were found to have been made, and no variations that "affect vital facts or doctrines."
So in response to your question, "which is it," these two quotations that you present in yhour message are not mutually exclusive, for whereas Appendix ID from which you quoted speaks to the substitution of words like "Lord" (Greek, _kyrios_) and "God" (Greek, _theos_) in place of "Jehovah" (that is, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, "YHWH") and the restoration of Jehovah in the Reference Bible in some 237 instances where the divine name occurs in the Greek Scriptures, the quote found in the Reasoning book highlights to integrity of the Bible that we have today, and note that Professor Kenyon isn't referring specifically to the NWT Bible, but to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts on which all Bibles today are based. The two things you quoted are both true and independent of one another, referring to two different things.
@besty:
What answers do you think I need? Please be specific. If there is something I stated above that you find confusing or hard to understand, I believe I am competent to respond to any question that you might have.
@debator:
I didn't understand your question. It seems that you have a question as to Paul's authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ to have brought back the decision that was made by the first century AD governing body as to the non-necessity for Gentiles to submit to fleshly circumcision before their being accepted into the Christian congregation as Christians, but I don't want to guess what it is you meant to say; your question is unclear. Please rephrase your question and if I can understand it, I'll answer it.
64
Help with irrefutable arguments- creating dissonance
by confliction in
1. jw
2. friends
hello- i'm arguing with my parents now... well, call it debating.

i'm trying to give them a question they'll actually think about- something that will make them want to do more research.

a question (or questions), that if right, will make them reconsider whether they are in the "truth".... .
djeggnog

@mentallyfree31:
Below this post are my responses to your questions, but I thought I should preface my responses with a few remarks. I didn't realize when I was writing this that so many of them would be needed to explain my responses. I would suggest that you please review the "Questions from Readers" article, w54 10/15, pp. 648, 639, which may help you to understand my responses to your questions below (slightly edited). I am not aware of the existence of the concept of either "retroactivity" or "reverse retroactivity," which is why a few of the questions below can only be answered with a "No." To paraphrase the Bible principle on which my responses here is based, 'in the absence of a law, there cannot be any transgression.' (Romans 4:15)
Consider the following scenario: Almost 15 years ago, there was a bombing at Centennial Olympic Park on July 27, 1996, during the Olympics being hosted in Atlanta, Georgia, and a man named Richard Jewell, who was a security guard at Piedmont College there in Georgia, discovered a bag that contained three pipe bombs and who was instrumental in perhaps saving many people's lives at the time (although two were killed and over a 100 people were wounded by the explosion), becoming a "person of interest" to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who pored through the man's life making it impossible for the man to make a living until he finally got his life back upon his being exonerated in 2005 when a man named Eric Rudolph pled guilty to having been responsible for the 1996 bombing at the park.
During the eight-, almost nine-year period between July 27, 1996 and April 13, 2005, were you to ask anyone that knew Richard Jewell -- whether it was someone at Jewell's old job at Piedmont College or someone that lived here in Los Angeles, California, and didn't know the man at all, but believed the media reports which implicated him as being the man that exploded a bomb during the Atlanta Olympics -- everyone would tell you that Jewell "did it," that everyone knows that the man was responsible for the deaths of those two people and the injuries that some 100 people sustained as a result of the explosion, but there was no evidence that implicated Jewell for these crimes, which is why he was never arrested during the nine years that he fought to get his life back.
My question to you is this: If you were a school teacher during the above nine-year period between 1996 and 2005, and were to have taught your students during this period of time that Richard Jewell to have been responsible for killing two people and wounding 100, do you think you have been guilty of slander had you told someone to the effect that you believe Richard Jewell killed two people and wounded 100 even though you had no evidence to support your false statement? Do you think you would have been guilty of libel had you included as a question on one or more of the quizzes you handed out to your classes during this nine-year period a question positively naming Jewell as if you knew it to be a fact that he was responsible for these crimes? The answer to both of these questions is no, because you can only be held criminally responsible for what you said or wrote about Jewell if it can be proved that you knew at the time, or had reason to know at the time, that Jewell had not committed these crimes.
Similarly, if you were able to prove that the WB&TS knew at the time that it had published anything that is now known to be false that it knew those things to have been false, only then could it rightly be suggested that it was guilty of prophesying falsehoods in God's name and stealing God's words away from the people for whom Christ died. (Jeremiah 23:21, 22, 25, 30) So when any of Jehovah's Witnesses becomes aware of a doctrinal inconsistency with the Bible or an inaccuracy that it has been teaching, a letter spelling out the issue becomes forwarded to the WB&TS for consideration, and the matter is resolved immediately by way of a letter to all of the congregations impacted by the matter, and corrections are printed in the Watchtower and/or may be included as a KM article.
The Watchtower dated January 1, 1935, when Joseph F. Rutherford was at the helm at president of the WB&TS, stated as part of its "mission" statement, that "[i]t publishes Bible instruction specifically designed to aid Jehovah’s witnesses. It arranges systematic Bible study for its readers and supplies other literature to aid in such studies.... It adheres strictly to the Bible as authority for its utterances.... It is not dogmatic, but invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures."
As a footnote contained in an article that appeared in the Awake! dated March 22, 1993 ("Why So Many False Alarms?"), the following statement is made:
"The Watchtower has also said that the fact that some have Jehovah’s spirit '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.' (May 15, 1947, page 157) 'The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic.' (August 15, 1950, page 263) 'The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)'--February 15, 1981, page 19."
In addition, the above-cited Watchtower dated May 15, 1947, p. 155, ¶24, cites John 14:16, 26, in making the point that it is 'the spirit of the truth that teaches us all things and brings back to our minds all the things that Jesus tells us in Scripture,' and it can be a wonderful feeling to the one that studies and meditates on what things he or she reads in the Bible that God's spirit is not given by measure at all (John 3:34), but it is only by studying God's word and praying for it (Luke 11:13) that one is able to hear "what the spirit says to all of the congregations." (Revelation 3:6)
For example, although those jailers and their respective households back there in the first century AD may have already heard the message that was being preached at the time, but didn't just "instantly" become believers by listening to a sermon, but as indicated at Acts 16:30-33 they first needed to study with Paul and Silas before they could be baptized in water. And think about his: Apart from studying the Bible, how then would it be possible for the spirit to bring back to one's mind what one has neither read nor learned? Without their cultivating God's spirit, many leave our ranks or are shown the door, as it were, which is sad, but it's 'not like God is unrighteous as to forget our work or the love we showed for his name.' (Hebrews 6:10) Since one of the things we all learn is that just as God appointed men having weakness as high priests (Hebrews 7:28), He uses imperfect men in his visible organization today, and like us, they are also dust. Some of these "imperfect men" are going to do and say some pretty dumb things over time, so what we all need to do is to 'continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another'; this is often hard to do and for some might be the one trial that tests your faith in Jehovah. (Colossians 3:13)
While some do fail this test and end up leaving us, some others return with an even greater determination to serve God and to do His will. Because some spiritually immature elder might lord the fact that he is an elder over you should not make you blame Jehovah, even if you cannot help doing so. But if you cannot help but blame Jehovah for the conduct of any elder in the congregation, then you would do well to take your complaint directly to Him daily and wait patiently for His answer. Look around for yourself and you'll notice that there is no other channel that God is using on the earth.
RESPONSES
Would you be disfellowshipped today from the Watchtower, if you believed and taught the Society’s doctrines of 1920? _____YES __x__NO
Would a J. W. of 1920 have been "in the truth" if he at that time then believed and taught present-day Watchtower doctrines? _____YES __x__NO
Would a J. W. living in 1913 have been disfellowshipped from the Watchtower if he believed and taught that 1914 was not going to be the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" or Armageddon, as the Society was then saying (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II, The Time Is At Hand, 1908 ed., pp. 101, 172 and 245)? _____YES __x__NO
Did you know that the Watchtower once taught that 1874 was the "exact date" of the Lord’s return (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II, The Time Is At Hand, 1908 ed., p. 170)? __x__YES _____NO
Could the 1874 "exact date" change to 1914? __x__YES _____NO
Since the Watchtower’s doctrines and practices are continually changing, would you say that thousands of J. W. s in the past were not really "in the truth," as they confidently confessed, according to present-day Watchtower teachings? _____YES __x__NO
Have thousands of J. W. s died believing and teaching Watchtower "errors," according to present-day Watchtower teachings? _____YES __x__NO
Are you sure the same won’t happen to you? __x__YES _____NO
Do you agree with the founder and first president of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell) who said that if one lays aside the Scripture Studies and goes to the Bible alone, "within two years he goes into darkness" (Watchtower, 9-15-10, p. 298)? _____YES __x__NO
"True, there have been those in times past who predicted an ‘end to the world,’ even announcing a specific date .... Yet, nothing happened. The ‘end’ did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? ... Missing from such people were God’s truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them" (Awake, 10-8-68, p. 23). _____TRUE __x__FALSE.
Why doesn’t the Watchtower [apply] the preceding bit of information [to itself]? __x__THE WATCHTOWER DOES NOT DO SO_____THE WATCHTOWER HAS A DOUBLE STANDARD
In Acts 10:34-43, we read the [Apostle] Peter’s sermon that brought instant salvation to people who "received the word of God" (Acts 11:1). How much "accurate knowledge" did Cornelius and others have to take in to become Christians? __x__MORE THAN MOST PEOPLE HAVE TODAY _____NOT VERY MUCH
Did they have to submit to a 6 month book study, then join an organization before they were "saved" (Acts 11:14)? _____YES __x__NO
Are you going to try to forget about any Watchtower inconsistencies, deceptions, false prophecies, false claims, and heresies? _____YES __x__NO
If you were wrong, would you change? __x__YES __x__NO