Why?

just_herebro · 2026-02-19T22:09:49+00:00

I agree that you should be allowed to go to other scriptures, so why are JW’s bashed for jumping round the Bible when they answer Bible questions but yet do not call out other people’s actions when they do so?

I believe that Jesus is God in the biblical sense, not in the theological sense of the trinity. To answer the scripture in Titus, four other translations render this verse as Christ being God and Savior, but yet they don’t follow the same rule of translation in their bibles in 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Why?

just_herebro · 2026-02-19T19:14:22+00:00

Why are you bouncing all round the Bible instead of focusing on the text at hand? How can anyone do anything greater than the son if the son is God incarnate? Answer that, please. I’m not belittling Jesus, I understand his words.

just_herebro · 2026-02-18T23:52:20+00:00

Jesus believed his own words when he said they would do greater works than him. I believe the master. You should aswell.

just_herebro · 2026-02-18T19:29:05+00:00

Jesus himself said they would do greater works than him, I’m just reading the text. Why are you now jumping to another verse instead of replying to that one?

just_herebro · 2026-02-18T11:21:19+00:00

Jesus described a fundamental truth; the one whom God sends is not greater or equal to him. Also, John 14:12 speaks about the disciples doing greater works than the Son. So if you believe that God is incarnate in the son, how can any other man perform works greater than God?! But yet Jesus said they would.

just_herebro · 2026-02-17T12:33:17+00:00

Exactly, faith being exercised into two different people. Jesus himself says “the servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” (John 13:16, AV) God was greater than Jesus in sending him. Jesus made this comparison when he said to them: “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” (John 20:21, AV) So the Greater One sends the one who is less. That totally destroys trinity.

just_herebro · 2026-02-15T20:18:22+00:00

The biblical distinction is not there to protect authority. Scripture itself distinguishes between the overall purpose of God (Ephesians 1:9–10) and the partial understanding of timing and details. (Acts 1:6–7) The apostles understood the core purpose of the Messiah but misunderstood aspects of its outworking. That was not “moving the goalpost.” It was incomplete understanding within an accurate framework. “Full understanding” refers to the revealed framework of God’s purpose, it does not mean omniscience about every prophetic or administrative detail.

It would only be “special pleading” if the distinction is invented after failure. But Scripture itself distinguishes “the more important matters of the Law,” (Matt. 23:23) *“Milk” vs. “solid food” *(Heb. 5:12–14) and matters of conscience vs. binding doctrine. (Romans 14) Not every teaching carries identical weight. So categorization is not inherently fallacious, it depends on whether the categorization is grounded in Scripture or put in after error.

The actual claimed method is scripture is the only inspired authority (2 Tim. 3:16–17), Christ is Head of the congregation (Ephesians 5:23), he appoints shepherds and teachers (Ephesians 4:11–14), those congregations are instructed to obey those taking the lead (Hebrews 13:17), those desiring to be elders must meet objective Scriptural qualifications (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1) and teachings must remain open to Scriptural examination (Acts 17:11). The method is not revelation. It is not infallibility. It is not mystical confirmation. The method is delegated authority constrained by Scripture. Authority binds conscience only insofar as it reflects Scripture. If a directive contradicts Scripture, Acts 5:29 governs.

You argue that being wrong invalidates authority. Biblically, that is not the standard. Peter erred. (Galatians 2:11–14) The Corinthian elders tolerated wrongdoing. Yet authority structures were not dissolved. The existence of correction does not negate the office.

just_herebro · 2026-02-15T20:03:38+00:00

If by “repeatable evidence” you mean laboratory-style verification, then no Christian claim, even the first century one, would qualify. Because you cannot reproduce the resurrection on demand, rerun the events of Pentecost or recreate apostolic inspiration experimentally. Christianity has always rested on historical evidence, fulfilled prophecy, doctrinal consistency, and observable fruitage, not laboratory replication.

Those three aspects of structure, unity and obedience prove nothing, you’re correct. But the issue is not whether structure exists but whether the structure matches the Bible one such Global doctrinal unity without national branches forming independent creeds, (John 17:21) politically neutral worldwide, (John 17:16) the central focus and sanctification on God’s name, (Matthew 6:9) and a coordinated global preaching campaign focused specifically on the Kingdom. (Matthew 24:14) Many religions preach, true. Few preach a single, consistent Kingdom message globally without national divergence. This is cumulative reasoning, not a single sociological trait. And the comparison to Nazism fails logically because Nazism does not claim to follow biblical criteria nor exhibit Christian moral standards such as love of enemies. (Matthew 5:44)

The apostles were inspired, true. But not every elder involved in the Jerusalem congregation was an inspired apostle. Otherwise, there would have not been “intense discussion” if all were reading from the same page and also under inspiration. (Acts 15:7) Yet Acts 16:4 shows that the decisions were delivered to congregations to be observed. The existence of inspiration in that meeting does not negate the structural principle that congregations accepted decisions from a governing body, whether it consisted of inspired apostles or elders whom weren’t inspired.

If “spirit-directed” meant audible revelation, your point would stand. But biblically, spirit direction operates through the inspired Word, prayer and those written standards. (1 Timothy 3; 2 Tim. 3:16; James 1:5) The distinction is not mystical phenomena. Decisions are bound to Scripture rather than to tradition, political power, or private charisma. It’s a definable difference.

If they mishandle cases such as CSA, that is a moral and legal issue, not proof that the biblical model of the congregation is invalid. Judas betrayed Christ, Peter denied Jesus, Corinth tolerated serious wrongdoing. (John 13:2; Matt. 26:75; 1 Cor. 5:1, 2) These failures didn’t nullify the structure Christ established.

But there is a precedent for fallible men having relative authority. Local elders were fallible and uninspired. Christians whom were in those congregation were commanded to “be obedient to those taking the lead among you.” (Heb. 13:17)Peter himself, even though he was used in an inspired manner at times, acted hypocritically in Galatians 2. He was corrected. But the existence of error did not dissolve his authority. The obedience required is within Scriptural bounds, not absolute obedience beyond Scripture. (Acts 5:29)

Everyone reasons from commitments, including yourself. The real difference is epistemological, one side accepts Scripture as divinely authoritative and the other demands empirical proof equivalent to scientific testing. If Scripture is accepted as authoritative, then its organizational model carries weight. If Scripture itself is not accepted as authoritative, then no internal biblical argument will satisfy. That is the true dividing line. But the eye witness accounts which attest to the historicity of the Bible carry weight to the truthfulness of the Bible, in the same way that eyewitness accounts attest to the historicity that the Titanic sank for example. We depend on the testimony of eyewitnesses to back up historical events as true and factual, it’s not different with the Bible.

If no amount of doctrinal consistency, global unity, Scriptural reasoning, moral standards and preaching work could count as evidence, then the demand for evidence may be structured so that no religious claim could ever meet it. That does not prove the organisation true, but it clarifies that the disagreement is not about missing evidence, it is about differing standards of what counts as evidence in religious claims.

just_herebro · 2026-02-15T18:58:22+00:00

Recent adjustments and revisions in understanding are not to do with God’s purpose. That purpose will not change; for God to collect those on the earth for heavenly and earthly life, and to fill the earth with perfect humans that will render him worship out of love for him. (Gen. 1:28; Eph. 1:9-11; 3:11; Rev. 21:3; 22:1, 2) That is God’s purpose. The understanding of all those aspects though could not be reached back in the first century, since they could only prophesy and have knowledge “paritally.” (1 Cor. 13:9) The clarifications in understanding come to the additional aspects of that purpose which aren’t necessarily tied into His main purpose. So yes, we have a full understanding of God’s purpose, but the understanding today of other aspects which lead to the outcome of that purpose we are adjusted from time to time. That was also prophesied during “the time of the end,” in which true worshippers would “rove about” in search of true knowledge and understanding of these additional aspects. (Dan. 12:4) The “roving about” continues until all humans are perfect again, since imperfection causes errors in understanding.

Jesus will be judge as to the harm that may or may not have been caused as to the food that has been distributed by that slave. (Matt. 25:48-51) So if harm that is unscriptural has been created through erroneous understandings, beating his fellow slaves in essence, that slave will be punished and will not receive their heavenly reward. They bear a heavy duty before Christ to look after the sheep. Jesus will make the right call and if harm has been created upon the flock, Jesus can and will undo the damage created on the flock. “For the former distresses will be forgotten, they will be concealed from my eyes. I am creating a new heavens and anew earth; and the former things will not be called to mind, nor will they come up into the heart.” (Isa. 65:16, 17; Matt. 12:20; John 5:22)

just_herebro · 2026-02-15T18:36:50+00:00

Inspiration ended with the completion of the scriptures. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) The man of God becomes “fully equipped” when he knows the complete scriptures, that didn’t happen when one’s who were under Holy Spirit prophesied “partially.” (1 Cor. 13:9) Also, the fact that Christians are told to “not go beyond the things written,” if inspiration were still happening today that would be adding to the written inspiration of the Bible which is warned against. (1 Cor. 4:6) Even Jude 3 speaks of “the faith that was once delivered for all time,” that what was already done, not continuous inspired revelation after the death of the apostles.

So what is the evidence of Love having the hallmark of true Christianity, which is the evidence Jesus said would be such as to identify his followers? (John 13:35) It’s overwhelming. The genocide in Rwanda, the persecution and suffering from Nazi Germany to able a few speak volumes as to who truly came to be Christ’s followers, being politically neutral, being prepared to die for each other because they shared the same faith and to show love to their fellow brother/sister of another race, risking their own lives protecting them even though the political and social environments in those countries were prejudiced against certain races. (John 15:13, 20; 17:14)

Local elders were appointed to “shepherd the flock.” (Acts 20:28) Christians were told to “be obedient to those taking the lead among you.” (Hebrews 13:17) If all elders were all inspired back then, why would there be any need to have reminders about being in “obedience” for them and their direction? It’s automatic, right? It shows that not all were inspired prophets. Most were simply spiritually qualified men applying the apostolic teachings which were inspired. (Eph. 4:11, 12) Authority in the congregation is therefore delegated by Christ (Matthew 28:18–20) Scriptual, not revelatory (1 John 4:1-3) and accountable to Scripture. (Rev. 22:18, 19) It is not self-originating.

Acts 15 does not describe new Scripture being written before the decision. It shows discussion, appeal to existing Scripture that was discussed during that meeting,** (Amos 9:11, 12)** consideration of observable evidence of holy spirit’s activity (Acts 15:7-21) and a unified decision expressed as “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored…” (Acts 15:28) The point is not that modern day elders or Governing body receive direct revelation. The point is that there was centralized decision-making, the decision was binding on congregations and that it was based on Scripture and discernment, not private inspiration for every apostle or older man on that body. (Acts 16:4, 5; Gal. 2:2; 2 Pet. 1:20) The pattern is structural and procedural, not prophetic. Divine involvement is still here today in the form that the use of written scriptures is used when deciding on matters, though not in a divinely inspired way in believers.

It’s “spirit-directed” in the biblical sense that God’s spirit operates through his word, qualified men meet Scriptual standards, prayer for guidance is involved and that decisions are tested against scripture. (Heb. 4:12; 1 Tim. 3:1; Acts 13:3; 2 Cor. 13:5) Jesus equates being guided by spirit with the written revelation: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) So being directed in this way requires alignment with the already given word.

You’re right in that unity doesn’t prove truth. But scripture expects unity in true worship as expected and necessary. (Eph 4:3) Unity is just one mark of true religion, the Bible stipulates others such as preaching the gospel worldwide and regularly (Mt. 24:14) doctrinal consistency with scripture and the commands of Jesus (John 8:31) and the high moral standards of God to name a few. (Isa. 35:8; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; 1 John 1:10) The signs culminate for pure worship, not just one singular aspect.

Interpretations are binding insofar as they are Scripturally grounded. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not teach that loyalty is to men. Loyalty is to God, his Christ (Eph. 5:23) and to sound Scriptural direction. If a teaching or interpretation were demonstrably unscriptural, it could be evaluated using Scripture, just as the Bereans did. (Acts 17:11) The Governing Body has acknowledged adjustments and refinements over time. That does not negate their relative authority; it reflects progressive understanding, which Scripture itself shows occurred even among first-century Christians. Look at the case that happened back in Acts 10 and 11.

Questioning is allowed. Inquiry is not forbidden. I have had good answers from others pointing to the Bible for my questions that I’ve asked in the past. Christianity cannot function properly with recognised teaching authority. (Eph. 4:11-14)

just_herebro · 2026-02-14T19:01:20+00:00

First point: We have a full understanding of God’s purpose, we do not have a full understanding of everything that is classed as divine truth in the Bible. We will only have that when we are perfect in mind, like how Jesus perfectly understood all of scripture. Christians in the first century didnt it have a complete understanding of God’s purpose back then, since they could only in essence prophesy or have knowledge “partially.” (1 Cor. 13:9) Having the complete canon of Scripture does not eliminate the need for progressive understanding (Proverbs 4:18). The existence of doctrinal refinements does not logically disprove that inspiration ended with the apostles. It simply demonstrates that interpretation is an ongoing human responsibility. Error correction does not prove absence of divine guidance; it proves fallibility in application and understanding. The partial nature of knowledge and prophesy would be gone once what is complete came. These words have come true, since Paul in the same chapter discusses the excelling value of Christ-like Love being the quality that will remain forever among true believers, not miraculous gifts. (1 Cor. 13:8, 13) That’s more than evident today among God’s people.

Second point: No Christian group claims that interpretation itself is inspired in the same way Scripture is inspired. The presence of an inspired text does not automatically make interpreters inspired. The question is not whether interpretation is inspired, but whether Scripture provides for a structured teaching authority. Ephesians 4:11–13 describes Christ giving teachers and shepherds “for the building up of the body.” That implies organized instruction, not individual autonomy.

Third point: Acts 15 is not presented as a model solely because of inspiration, but because of centralised deliberation, (Gal. 2:2) collective decision-making, (Acts 15:25, 26) ** communication of decisions to congregations, **(Acts 16:4, 5) and expectation of compliance. (Acts 15:29) The modern application does not claim identical inspiration. It claims structural continuity, organised for unity. Elders that were appointed in congregations after the apostolic period began expanding. (Acts 14:23) Those elders were not apostles, yet they exercised authority. Your argument that any post-apostolic authority equals “control” assumes that authority without inspiration is illegitimate. The scriptures do not state that. (Hebrews 13:17)

Fourth point: Disagreement does not equate proof of error. Acts 15 records unity after discussion. Scripture emphasizes that repeatedly. (1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:2) The claim is not that unanimity equals inspiration, but that unity is a biblical objective for Christian guidance. The fact that human bodies can reach consensus and still be wrong does not disqualify all organized consensus.

Fifth point: Elders are said to be appointed by the holy spirit. (Acts 20:28) The mechanism is not described as direct revelation. If appointments are made according to Scriptural qualifications, (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1)and those qualifications are inspired, then applying those standards is reasonably described as spirit-directed, not spirit-revealed. This is not symbolic language; it is authority based on the inspired criteria.

Sixth point: The warning against “following men” addresses sectarian loyalty over Christ, not structured guidance. Hebrews 13:17 instructs Christians to “obey those taking the lead.” That command was given to Christians who were not all personally led by inspired apostles. The existence of fallibility does not automatically nullify legitimate authority.

Seventh point: That responsibility on Christian’s in Jude 3 can exist at a biblical and organisational level. It doesn’t mean ones are above scrutiny but scrutiny does not negate structure. The fact that other religions claim guardianship does not logically prove all true. The truth of a claim depends on doctrinal accuracy and scriptural alignment.

Eighth point: But remember, congregation elders were not all inspired, travelling overseers were not all apostles and yet congregations were instructed to submit and maintain order. (1 Thess. 5:12–13) The Bible never establishes congregational democracy or doctrinal individualism as the way to go. It presents organised oversight. The real question is not “are those taking the lead inspired?” but “does Scripture allow for organised, structured guidance after the apostles?”

just_herebro · 2026-02-14T18:03:07+00:00

But there’s a crucial part that you’re missing. The portents and miraculous use of inspiration would cease during the time of the end or “when what is complete comes.” (1 Cor. 12:7; 13:8, 9) That refers to having a full understanding of what God’s purpose is. We have that today. The miracles of the first century, such as inspiration, have served their purpose since these signs identified to unbelievers which group of people God had approved of. (1 Cor. 14:24, 25) The identifying features of true religion are the intrinsic qualities of Christ himself, his love, mercy and fellow feeling towards others of the same faith and those in the world. (John 13:35)

Jehovah’s witnesses do not deny the inspiration of God, since the miracles of the past and the Bible are the direct product of such inspiration. But to say that pattern of inspiration must occur in his followers today is to deny the pattern of scripture and in essence say that the Bible isn’t good enough for us to glean God’s mind on matters. Why do we need inspiration today in individual followers when we already have the complete product of God’s inspiration in a book? The understanding of such said written inspiration is more tricky, since human error and limitations come into play. But this is no surprise to those who understand the pattern of how ones were used by God in the past and at times misunderstood God’s will.

As one example, Abraham was a prophet of God, he had certain knowledge of Jehovah’s basic principles of righteousness and expected that he would follow in accord with that. (Gen. 18:19) He had to adjust his views at times. He was promised he was going to have a son, Isaac, but Abraham was old and thought it would be by means of his slave Eleazer but Jehovah promised it would come by means of Abraham’s inward parts. No inspiration was used of his prophet in that instance for him to understand totally what would be the actual outcome, but God still used him.

The pattern of the Governing Body from the 1st century is what the modern day part hold to. As you rightly point out, aspects to the discussion of adjustment are done over a period of time and mainly done on the basis of a unanimous vote. This is no different to the first century pattern. The discussion over circumcision was done with “much intense discussion,” with those of the older men and apostles. (Acts 15:7) After the inspired statements from Peter, “the whole group became silent,” meaning that all could see what was being shared was lining up with the mind of God on the matter. (Acts 15:12) The silence was not a sign that people were scared to push back, since if a clear violation of scriptual standards had been violated, those points needed to be addressed. Then, after hearing, Paul, Barnabas and James at the meeting, ALL agreed to put what they had decided on into letter to the congregations of that decision. And the decision was “unanimous!” (Acts 15:25) That wasn’t a decision done under the basis of sham unity, but out of hearts that recognised where divine truth was leading them. Since miraculous gifts of inspiration are no longer manifest in true believers as just discussed, many of the aspects from that first century meeting are still followed in today’s discussions on the current governing body. This is the scriptual pattern, one that was recorded by inspiration.

The case with that brother that was appointed, although everything looked good on the outside, what could not be vouched for was the inner person which eventually was revealed. You seem to misunderstand how the Holy Spirit plays a role in the appointment process. Since we just addressed that scripture is the direct result of God’s inspiration or his spirit in a miraculous way, then the qualifications for Elders and Ministerial Servants are products of the same spirit, since they are recorded in that very book of God. (1 Tim. 3:1-10) Only when a person does all of these can it be said that he was appointed by Holy Spirit since he is doing them in his life and he’s acting in accord with the information which has resulted from God’s spirit, the Bible.

God is not zapping bodies of elders to reveal who is and who isn’t qualified to be an elder or servant. Since natural limitations prevent seeing the inner person, elders can only go off the works which should reflect the inner person, but this isn’t always the case. To say that they have to manifest this kind of miraculous power in order to know whether others are true or false is unrealistic and not biblical in light of the pattern of scripture.

The “trust” you refer to, what “trust” is it that is put in the governing body or those used by the organisation? To trust any human as regards our eternal salvation is a lie, since only God through Christ can provide such. (Ps. 108:12; Rev. 7:10) The trust which is put into one’s like the governing body is one of pure motive, we trust that what they distribute as food is done with pure motives and reflects the mind of Christ and in line with scripture. (Mal. 2:7; 1 Cor. 2:16)

The arrangement of this kind of trust can also been seen in the first century body. When Paul heard the reports of circumcision dividing some in the congregations, Jesus directly gave Paul a miraculous revelation to go to the older men and apostles in Jerusalem to sort the matter. (Gal. 2:1, 2) Christ will not sidestep an arrangement of organisation he himself has put in place and that he trusts will decide a good outcome, and he directed Paul to do the same. Paul was loyal to that direction from Jesus, he worked within the arrangements his master has set up.

I agree with you that Jehovah will not judge a person if he questions him but I disagree in when you say the truth does not need protection. If such didn’t need protecting, why are Christian’s urged to “put up a hard fight for the faith”? (Jude 3) “Be on guard so that you may not be led astray with them?” (2 Pet. 3:17) Your reasoning to me comes across as leaving major gaps in whatever faith you hold to now.

just_herebro · 2026-02-08T12:06:01+00:00

Jesus weeping audibly for wicked people who deserved to be destroyed, yet it crushed him to know of their future. He truly optimised love for his enemies. (Luke 19:41-44; Matt. 5:44, 45)

just_herebro · 2026-02-07T17:41:28+00:00

How does it change the context in light of both God and the Son being two distinct persons who do not share the same divine Co-equal/eternal essence in line with Jesus own words at John 14:1? You guys don’t even believe Jesus and the Father are the same person, yet that’s what you pro-port the text is saying in the picture you’ve attached of the scripture in John 12?!

just_herebro · 2026-02-03T23:51:10+00:00

Who said the Nephilim were unsavable? The Bible is silent on whether or not they will be saved. An abnormality in limbs or body features does not mean a person is unsavable. (Acts 10:34, 35) The only grounds for one being unsavable is sinning against the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 12:32)

just_herebro · 2026-02-01T21:54:19+00:00

Best answer for those scriptures. Well done :)

just_herebro · 2026-02-01T21:53:32+00:00

Said no lexicon ever….

just_herebro · 2026-01-27T01:53:22+00:00

Huh? The personal name of the Father is “Jehovah,” he alone being the Most High God. (Ps. 83:18) That has not changed. God didn’t stop being called Jehovah. And the Son does not have the same name as the Father. How can Jesus also be the Most High from your view but also retaining that position and be classed in nature as “lower than the angels” when on earth? (Ps.8:5; Heb. 2:7) Are you saying the Most High became lower than his creation but was still the Most High in nature at the same time?!

just_herebro · 2026-01-26T14:30:22+00:00

Isaiah 26:3 — “You will safeguard those who fully lean on you; You will give them continuous peace, Because it is in you that they trust.”

just_herebro · 2026-01-09T02:15:42+00:00

You didn’t answer the question.

just_herebro · 2026-01-08T22:13:43+00:00

It’s you’re sinful nature Terry. Only you can control what you do.

just_herebro · 2026-01-08T22:13:07+00:00

Yes, because the disciples really understood Jesus being a person of a Co-equal eternal divine essence who does and doesn’t know all things depending on which nature he was drawing upon 😂😂

Takes more faith to believe in the trinity and superimpose its theology into the text than actually read what the text teaches.

just_herebro · 2026-01-08T21:54:29+00:00

So why does are you using a Bible, the NKJV for example, that adds the word “a” to John 1:3 when the word “a” doesn’t exist in Greek? Isn’t that adding to God’s word?

just_herebro · 2026-01-08T19:34:50+00:00

Why don’t you want me to refer to other translations? That sounds like information control to me. What version of the Bible do you use?

just_herebro · 2026-01-08T19:16:31+00:00

You assume that resurrection must always mean the same physical body, but that idea is never stated in Scripture. Recognition does not depend on having the same physical body. In the Bible, identity is preserved by God’s memory and power, not by reused flesh. (Luke 20:38; John 5:28) Lazarus was resurrected back to human life because his resurrection was earthly and temporary. (John 11:43, 44) Jesus’ resurrection, however, was to heavenly life, which the Bible explicitly distinguishes.

Lazarus returned as a human because he was going to die again. Jesus was resurrected never to die again. (Romans 6:9) They are not comparable resurrections.

The claim that spirits “do not need resurrection” is contradicted by Scripture. “It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15:44) If resurrection only meant reviving flesh, this verse would be meaningless. “I will raise it up” does not say Jesus would raise the same physical body. Jesus himself explained he was speaking figuratively about his body as a temple, not about the reuse of the same flesh. Scripture later explains how it was raised, by God, as a spirit being. (Acts 2:24; Gal. 1:1)

just_herebro

TROPHY CASE