My questions to JW's

[TraditionalCath]

that is not what i asked you. i asked you, are you saying there has NEVER been ANY scandal in the society? no cover ups perhaps?

 

[TraditionalCath]

that is not what i asked you. i asked you, are you saying there has NEVER been ANY scandal in the society? no cover ups perhaps?

 

[TraditionalCath]

i’d like to ask you to answer my post about the charitable giving if you would.

 

[TraditionalCath]

lets keep it on topic.

 

[BibleSteve]

lets keep it on topic.

Well I’m confused… The thread is “My Questions to JW’s” and I’m receving all sorts of questions and comments from multiple people. I’m doing the best I can to answer questions and provide polite critique to the comments.

Later, I’ve got other things to focus on.

 

[TraditionalCath]

i guess so. we are all busy at some point. you mentioned scandal, so i asked you about the scandal in your own belief, and iam sure you aware of it. do you know what scandal iam speaking of?

 

[Hellisreal]

Hellisreal;2330002:

Reporting this to mods for violating forum rules.
sorry, I asked you and Jeff did to stop derailing.

If you post this in apologetics I will see you there.

Huh?

I’m just trying to answer questions people bring up here.

Are we having a discussion here?

We can gladly discuss the issue of Papal Primacy elsewhere.

This thread is about JW inconsistancies Steve.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The argument you present about 1914 being so important that everything hinges on it, is silly.

Steve, that may seem silly to YOU, but it is not “silly” to the men who have the authority to have you disfellowshiped and shunned for making this very remark you have made.

Have you never studied the WT book called,
**BABYLON THE GREAT HAS FALLEN!
GODS KINGDOM RULES !!" ** ???

They go into great detail in that and other books of how the 1914 chronology, and the 1,260 days and the 1,335 days together
PROVE that they are the Faithful Slave Class, God’s Mouthpiece to Mankind and that Babylon the Great “fell” in the Spring of 1919 and that at that same time Jehovah appointed THEM, the guys in Brooklyn, over ALL his kingdom interests and subjects.
I honestly don’t think you fathom how seriously your Governing Body takes those dates or you wouldn’t have written your statement I quoted above.

If you doubt what I’m saying, try an experiment.
Sit down and write a POLITE letter to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and tell them you think that their claims about 1914 and 1919 are “silly.”

Then, after you’ve mailed the letter, contact all your friends from the Kingdom Hall and tell them it’s been nice knowing them,
because as soon as they read that letter a Judicial Committee will be formed to deal with your “apostasy.”
I’m dead serious.

God bless you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Claude_Kenneson]

In JW lingo, any person who talks about Jehovah is a “publisher”. So statements were published verbally from various public speakers who didn’t follow the clear advice from the President of the WTS. Feel free to post any direct written quotes that say anything would definately happen in writing. Seriously, if you think you can find one, post it.

The official policy of the WTS was clearly stated by the President. The WTS publishes plenty of written material, so go looking for it. It’s not there.

What is there, are various speakers who went beyond the official statement and request of the President.

The WTS apologized that incorrect expectations were developed because of this.

Do you hold every statement of every priest anywhere in the world to the same standard? Does every single one speak exactly as the Pope specificaly requests?

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, 1993, page 104 “In the years following 1966, many Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel {my note: Franz’s admonition to not be specific about what was going to happen between then and 1975). However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in the Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17)…”

But this is verbal publishing and publications you tell us. Yet the 1980 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, pages 30-31 tell us: “The brothers also appreciated the candor of the same talk which ACKNOWLEDGED THE SOCIETY’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOME OF THE DISAPPOINTMENT A NUMBER FELT REGARDING 1975.” Do you need more quotes?

Here’s an interesting assessment of someone who went through this period of time…

members.aol.com/beyondjw/1975.htm

 

[BibleSteve]

The argument you present about 1914 being so important that everything hinges on it, is silly.

Steve, that may seem silly to YOU, but it is not “silly” to the men who have the authority to have you disfellowshiped and shunned for making this very remark you have made.

Just to be consistent. Try doing the exact same thing in any church… say to your church for example… write a letter to the Vatican telling them they’ve misunderstood the scripture at

(Matthew 16:13-20) Now when he had come into the parts of Caes·a·re′a Phi·lip′pi, Jesus went asking his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others E·li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” 16In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jo′nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did. 18Also, I say to you, You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation, and the gates of Ha′des will not overpower it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will be the thing bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loose on earth will be the thing loosed in the heavens.” 20*Then he sternly charged the disciples not to say to anybody that he was the Christ.

Tell them Peter was not the person the Church was built on, that he had no authority, and because of that Apostolic Succession isn’t true and the Catholic Church has no authority. Then start writing letters to all your friends about your feelings and thoughts.

It is only natural that any church organization would find that disruptive and have issue with it.

It’s normal human behavior. It’s not JW behavior… I’d suspect Catholic authorities would have an issue with it also.

 

[BibleSteve]

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, 1993, page 104 “In the years following 1966, many Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that council {my note: Franz’s admonition to not be specific about what was going to happen between then and 1975). However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in the Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17)…”

But this is verbal publishing and publications you tell us. Yet the 1980 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, pages 30-31 tell us: “The brothers also appreciated the candor of the same talk which ACKNOWLEDGED THE SOCIETY’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOME OF THE DISAPPOINTMENT A NUMBER FELT REGARDING 1975.” Do you need more quotes?

I don’t see what we are arguing about. The WTS gave an apology for their responsibility for not doing a good enough job of reigning in verbal comments by those who weren’t following the explicit instructions of the President of the WTS.

What’s the beef?

 

[Hellisreal]

Just to be consistent. Try doing the exact same thing in any church… say your church for example… write a letter to the Vatican telling them they’ve misunderstood the scripture at

(Matthew 16:13-20) Now when he had come into the parts of Caes·a·re′a Phi·lip′pi, Jesus went asking his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others E·li′jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” 16In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jo′nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did. 18Also, I say to you, You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation, and the gates of Ha′des will not overpower it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will be the thing bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loose on earth will be the thing loosed in the heavens.” 20*Then he sternly charged the disciples not to say to anybody that he was the Christ.

Tell them Peter was not the person the Church was built on, that he had no authority, and because of that Apostolic Succession isn’t true and the Catholic Church has no authority. Then start writing letters to all your friends about your feelings and thoughts.

It is only natural that any church organization would find that disruptive and have issue with it.

It’s normal human behavior. It’s not JW behavior… I’d suspect Catholic authorities would have an issue with it also.

I have lost all respect for you.

You are an excellent JW apologist, but you will not beat the apologists here head to head on Papal Primacy.

I wish I could address it here but I cant without breaking the forum rules.

 

[Eileen_T]

on this rock-mass I will build my congregation

…“rock-mass…”???

That is the first time I have ever heard it as rock-mass. Where does that come from? And what is with the “congregation” bit?

My SIL’s stepfather used to sit shut away in a room re-writing the Bible to how he thought it should have read, not from Greek or Hebrew, but from the KJV. Sounds like he may have been related to whoever gave the JWs their translation.

 

[TOP]

…“rock-mass…”???

That is the first time I have ever heard it as rock-mass. Where does that come from?

rich

 

[BibleSteve]

I have lost all respect for you.

You are an excellent JW apologist, but you will not beat the apologists here head to head on Papal Primacy.

I wish I could address it here but I cant without breaking the forum rules.

I seriously don’t have a clue what you are talking about. I have absolutely pure intention of following any and all rules, especially about being respectful of other peoples views.

If someone criticizes the JW organization for something, I think it is only fair for them to use the exact same critical rules on their own organization. Why is that not consistent and fair?

I take their exact same argument and substitute the name of their church for mine. I take the same argument that JW leaders would lose authority based on some scripture being misunderstood and pose the same question in a Catholic frame.

Jeff presents an argument against the WTS and I just present the same argument right back at him to test its validity and I’m the villain that loses all respect?

I really don’t get this.

 

[TraditionalCath]

“Peter was not the person the Church was built on, that he had no authority, and because of that Apostolic Succession isn’t true and the Catholic Church has no authority. Then start writing letters to all your friends about your feelings and thoughts.”

Apostolic Succession is TRUE and the Church does have authority.
what are you claiming it has no authority over? I can tell you this, the watchtower organization has no authority whatsoever. it flips on doctrine and lies and perpetuates the lies. they have no authority to claim they speak for God because there is NO untruth with God.
none.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

I don’t see what we are arguing about. The WTS gave an apology for their responsibility for not doing a good enough job of reigning in verbal comments by those who weren’t following the explicit instructions of the President of the WTS.

What’s the beef?

I was there. I was baptized in 1974. it was a little more than what BibleSteve makes it out to be obviously. I knew faithful JWs who sold everything they had and lost it all on the speculation of 1975. And I was also there to hear the talks given by GB members and others from Bethel and ‘verbal comments’ is a gross understatement. Dan Sidlik and Ted Jarascz (sp?) specifically fed into the 1975 fiasco. In fact it was one of the motivations in my getting baptized the year before and it was also the main reason my father started ‘partaking’ as an annointed in 1974 too. It ruined lives. And in 20/20 hindsight I can honestly say it was the end of my parents marriage too. My sister’s birthday was Sept. 5th, and that was the date they gave as the the date Adam was created–6000 years of mankind (1975).
No big deal. Just a failed prophecy that an entire religion was built on.
Ravyn

 

[TraditionalCath]

This thread is about inconsistencies with the jw belief. it is not about Catholic faith. we are not here to discuss the Catholic faith. what we are here for steve, is discuss the societies inconsistencies and flips in doctrine. so lets keep it on topic shall we?

here is another inconsistency i’d like to adress.

the society says, no transplants years ago. all the sudden not to long ago, people can now have transplants. the society says years ago, no vaccinations, and doctrine changes, and witnesses can have them? oh, and one other thing steve, the elders at your hall would be absolutely mortified if they knew you were calling the kingdom hall a church. when i was studying with them i called it a church and got severely reprimanded.

 

[Claude_Kenneson]

I don’t see what we are arguing about. The WTS gave an apology for their responsibility for not doing a good enough job of reigning in verbal comments by those who weren’t following the explicit instructions of the President of the WTS.

What’s the beef?

The “verbal comments” did not originate in a vacuum. You make it sound like that’s all that was ever written on the topic: Franz’ disclaimer. It was not. Much was written about the urgency of the time and how little of it was left. "The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah–How? (1971), page 216: “Shortly, WITHIN our twentieth century, the ‘battle of the day of Jehovah’ will begin against the modern anti-type of Jerusalem, Christendom.” What century are we in?

Much was written about how important and significant 1975 was supposed to be. Inadvertently, it was. Thousands left the ranks of JWs in the ensuing years because they saw that it was Watchtower hype over nothing.

 

[BibleSteve]

When someone says my religious organization is wrong because of XYZ, the logical question to ask is if they apply the same rules and logic to testing their own church.

Jeff’s argument was JW faith would fall based on understanding of some “authority scripture” he wants to put to the fore. My question was intended to reflect the same question back to him to see if he was consistent.

If that is unfair, inconsitent, or breaks forum rules… then I’m done with this thread.

Have fun by yourselves.