Come on Jace I'm still waiting.
Bookman

Philadelphia, PA

#427 May 3, 2012
the jehovahs witness wrote:
<quoted text>

I'm not going to download old watchtowers to disprove a point you haven't even proven.
you are truly a moron, and i do not mean it as an insult, I mean it in the sense that you purposely refuse to even read it. this is a classic example of a JW who willingly, stubbornly, remains ignorant.

the only way to find the answer to his post is to read that article to see if jace is taking it out of context. yet he refuses to do so. LOL!

and note HE started the thread! ROFL!!!!!

jw's like this are some of the most dishonest, willfully ignorant, and morally bankrupt people walking on the earth. and you claim to "have the truth?" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

this is one of the most telling threads i have ever read.
MakesTheTruthHis Own

Montréal, Canada

#428 May 3, 2012
Bookman wrote:
<quoted text>
you are truly a moron, and i do not mean it as an insult, I mean it in the sense that you purposely refuse to even read it. this is a classic example of a JW who willingly, stubbornly, remains ignorant.
the only way to find the answer to his post is to read that article to see if jace is taking it out of context. yet he refuses to do so. LOL!
and note HE started the thread! ROFL!!!!!
jw's like this are some of the most dishonest, willfully ignorant, and morally bankrupt people walking on the earth. and you claim to "have the truth?" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
this is one of the most telling threads i have ever read.
You misunderstand fear. The truth undresses you and its uncomfortable but nothing helps less than ignorance from someone else trying to stuff it down your throat. Try getting naked yourself before asking someone to take their clothes off then we a token of bilateral assurances that we're all willing to seek the truth rather than humiliate and tear each other down.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#429 May 3, 2012
Look at that, Crookman adding nothing to a thread - as usual.
Bookman

Philadelphia, PA

#430 May 3, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
No opinion necessary. The words are written in black and white for all to see.
Daniel 12:9 "And he went on to say:“Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end. 10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand."
Opposers like Jace say NO this is wrong. Rather than many being cleansed and refined because of their wrong teachings and practices, they should have it right from the getgo if they were God's people.
All will have to decide if they believe short-sighted agenda driven ones like Jace who think that the way they would handle God's people is better than God's way or God's prophetic words.
LOL, you take a couple verses out of daniel, isolate then, strip them of your context, and then calim this proves your point? ROFL!!

"Clensing themselves" has about as much to do with watchtower as it does with thirdwitless taking a shower.

JW eisegesis is an amazing thing. they come up with a belief, and then scour over the bible looking for any scriptute that contains the words that have to do with the subject, and then post it as if it has anything to do with them.

sounds fun, let me try: Ezekiel 5:6 "Yet in her wickedness she has rebelled against my laws and decrees more than the nations and countries around her. She has rejected my laws and has not followed my decrees"

this scripture clearly is talking about kim kardashian as she clearly has rebelled against the laws of jehovah. lol
Tao itness

United States

#431 May 3, 2012
Luke 21:20-23 is the only place that pinpoints the begginingof the gentile times. It clearly is reffering to 70 AD.!.ot 607BC. Yet JWs will argue till their blue in the face!_ruly showing they put the WT word ahead of Christs. 1914 was ww1- thats it! A pagan king going mad has nothing to do with Christs return. The prophecies in Daniel fortelling Christs first arrival is straight forward its plain to understand. The 7x prophecy is false and ridiculous!}t also makes Christ out to be a liar that no man knows the day of Christs return!_Thats why we are commanded to stay awake! Also on Christs arrival/enthronement satans anger means persecution for Christ true followers,it will be relentless right to the end ,and men will be faint out of fear. Satans ousting is what starts the great tribulation. jws dont get it. 1914 was divined by measuring pyramids. They had to try to replace it with something in the bible ,thats why it seems so contrived-because it IS!
Tao itness

United States

#432 May 3, 2012
"DO NOT BE MISLEAD,FOR MANY WILL COME ON THE BASIS OF MY NAME SAYING I AM HE(THE BODY OF CHRIST) AND THE DUE TIME HAS APPROACHED,DO NOT GO AFTER THEM!"

Since: Feb 09

Winchester, KY

#433 May 3, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of what was actually meant when biblejesus referred to "this generation," even if we accept the premise of the JWGB that it was "the generation that saw the events of 1914," it was bigger than that dozen or so people.
....referred to "this generation", even if we accept the premise of the JWGB that it was "the generation that saw the events of 1914", it was bigger than....

....

The comma is placed AFTER the quote.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#434 May 3, 2012
Black Liberation Cultist and Pimp For Satan Larry Preston Sims wrote:
The comma is placed AFTER the quote.
Look who just woke up from their nap in their race car bed! Need an ice cream cone, junior?

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#435 May 3, 2012
Black Liberation Cultist and Pimp for Satan Larry Preston Sims wrote:
...blah...blah...blah...
Same question to you as to your friend Trollin "Butters" Moyle:

WHICH generation of the multiple - possibly four - generations of jews living at the time biblejesus told his disciples that "THIS generation" [not YOUR generation] yada yada yada was THE generation?

Chapter and verse, if you please, that both specifies this AND informs us that biblejesus was using the equivalent native-language term "generation" in a way that conforms to any of the definitions of the term [1] in the wonderful modern English language.

Reference:
_____

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genera...

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#436 May 3, 2012
Black Liberation Cultist and Pimp for Satan Larry Preston Sims wrote:
The comma is placed AFTER the quote.
Notice the statement in bold, sports-fan:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/...

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#437 May 3, 2012
Black Liberation Cultist and Pimp for Satan Larry Preston Sims wrote:
....referred to "this generation", even if we accept the premise of the JWGB that it was "the generation that saw the events of 1914", it was bigger than....
....
The comma is placed AFTER the quote.
I notice you didn't address the salient point of that post; let me reiterate it for you, lest you repeat that crass mistake [yet] again:

"'[T]he generation that saw the events of 1914,'...was bigger than that dozen or so people..." pictured on the cover of that magazine.

[Similarly, "THIS generation" [not YOUR generation] spoken of by biblejesus during the lesser "sermon" on the Mount of Olives was bigger than the relative handful, it's safe to assume, of people who were actually in earshot when he made that comment.]

“A voice of reason”

Since: Aug 09

Crooklyn

#438 May 3, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
No I do not agree. Not at all. Not only was the Catholic Church not God's organization in Galileo's day, it also did more than just merely expel him from the church, they imprisoned him, which was indeed further proof that the Catholic Church was not God's organization.
Got it; so your position is that it was okay for Galileo to "cause divisions" in the Catholic Church.
Thirdwitness wrote:
Olin thinks that this:
JWs: So and so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Is the same as this:
Catholic: So and so is no longer a church member. We burned him at the stake.
And I guess Umpires are like Caesars.
Umpire: Your outta here.(Thumb in air)
Caesar: Your outta here.(Thumb pointing downward)
What a laugh!
And here we go again with Watchtower defender "thirdwitness" using his favorite tactic of making up my positions and then attempting to knock them down.

Please try not to pull a muscle fighting that straw man!

“A voice of reason”

Since: Aug 09

Crooklyn

#439 May 3, 2012
We should probably start a thread to discuss the "generation" teaching...but I suppose this thread is as good as any.
FH Chandler wrote:
As many as four generations of people could have also been among "the disciples" to whom biblejesus spoke on the Mount of Olives; again, "the disciples" were a very diverse group of people.

Troll: However, as you have admitted, the statement was not made at the sermon on the mount. In fact, the statement was made "privately" to "his disciples" (see, e.g., Matt. 24:1-3).
Reply: Of which, again, as many as four generations of people could have also been present.
So your interpretation of "this generation" rests on your assumption - with no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise - that the "disciples" Jesus was addressing in Matt. 24 spanned several generations.

I readily agree that the scriptures do not specify the identity "the disciples" Jesus was addressing. The use of the word "privately" indicates two things about the audience:(1) it was small, and (2) it was made up of Jesus's close disciples.

From my reading of the NT, it seems that Jesus's close disciples (e.g., the apostles, his lady-friends, Lazarus) were around his age. I think of them as a First Century version of the cast of "thirtysomething."

From my recollection, that's how illustrations in Watchtower publications generally depicted these individuals as well.

Thus, from the scriptural context, it seems reasonable that the audience was folks around Jesus's age.

“A voice of reason”

Since: Aug 09

Crooklyn

#440 May 3, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
Troll: Rather, it seems that he was speaking to a small group, perhaps his band of merry men (the apostles) or some subset thereof.

Reply: Do you, in your infinite capacity for self-delusion - at least concerning matters JW - imagine that biblejesus' statements regarding "THIS generation" were spoken for only the consumption of those disciples who happened to be in earshot at the time?
The fact that they're recorded in [inspired] scripture speaks to their importance to any and all "men of god," for whom said scriptures were inspired and beneficial - for teaching.
First, I think it's touching that you (someone who holds himself out as a non-believer) refer to scripture as "inspired." While the author of 1 Timothy certainly made that claim about "all scripture," I find it amusing that anyone in this day and age would accept The Bible as an "inspired" product of an almighty god...but hey, I digress...

To your point (such as it is), my position that Jesus was addressing people of a single generation in no way rests upon a premise that his words "were spoken for only the consumption of those disciples who happened to be in earshot."

Jesus is recorded to have said plenty of things that were directly intended for those within earshot (e.g., John 8:44). But (at least for Bible-believers) that does not make his words "for only the consumption of those...who happened to be in earshot." Rather, people read these accounts and apply them as they (or their religious leaders) see fit.

Similarly with Matt. 24:34. Even though Jesus was directly addressing those in earshot, others who read the account can apply it as they (or their religious leaders) see fit.

For example, some Bible believers use this verse to build their faith that Jesus was a true prophet (he allegedly spoke these words in 33 A.D., and Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D.- before his generation passed away).

Personally, I side with mainstream scholarship that Matthew was written after 70 A.D. I think that this passage was added to attempt to show that Jesus was a true prophet--i.e., "see, he predicted this would happen back in 33 A.D.!" It's funny that people are trying to stretch the meaning to try to give it some kind of "modern day fulfillment."

So, at the end of the day, it seems reasonable that when Jesus referred to "this generation," he meant what Roger Daltrey meant when he sang "my generation."

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#441 May 3, 2012
Trollin Moyle wrote:
So your interpretation of "this generation" rests on your assumption...
I'm neither proposing an interpretation, nor am I making assumptions.

Trollin Moyle:...with no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise - that the "disciples" Jesus was addressing in Matt. 24 spanned several generations.

Reply: The statement about "THIS generation" was not merely for the consumption of the disciples in earshot when he spake the words, as stated earlier, and, apparently, ignored by you for no reason other than it doesn't fit with your preconceived notion of what biblejesus meant when he made the comments under discussion.

[You made a comment to the effect of that "THIS generation" mean only people who were the approximate age of the disciples because that is the only thing that "made sense." Forgetting, for a moment, that many things could in the same context "make sense," it would have made much more sense - in as much as that term applies - for him to state that "YOUR generation" would yada yada yada, if, in fact, he was referring only to small range of ages like those of the apostles. But biblejesus wasn't speaking only to his apostles, nor were his words intended only for those who actually heard what he was saying.]

Trollin Moyle: I readily agree that the scriptures do not specify the identity "the disciples" Jesus was addressing. The use of the word "privately" indicates two things about the audience:(1) it was small, and (2) it was made up of Jesus's close disciples.

Reply: It may or may not have been; it matters not because the comments made by biblejesus were not meant only for those who heard him speak them; were that the case, they would not have been recorded in "holy" scripture, "inspired and beneficial for teaching...the man of god," whomever that man or woman may be, regardless of whether or not they actually heard biblejesus say the words.

Trollin Moyle: From my reading of the NT, it seems that Jesus's close disciples (e.g., the apostles, his lady-friends, Lazarus) were around his age.

Reply: A safe assumption, sure, but an irrelevant one; all of the disciples were not of the relative same age, and all of the jews living at the time were certainly not all of the same age. I can say with near certainty that two or three generations of jews were alive at this time, with a good possibility that a remnant of a fourth was still living, and the slight possibility that there may have been a handful of a fifth generation left around.

Regardless of whether or not there were four or five, the substantive point is that there was more than one, so the question of which one is important, especially if one is - as you are - calling into question the "overlapping generation" opinion of your Brooklyn boogeymen.

Trollin Moyle: Thus, from the scriptural context, it seems reasonable that the audience was folks around Jesus's age.

Reply: There is no "scriptural context" that suggests that "the disciples" who were in earshot of when biblejesus made his statements about "THIS generation" recorded in Matthew 24, assuming - wrongly - that said statements were only relevant to the people who actually heard them - were of a particular age group, and therefore no factual basis for assuming that the term "THIS generation" referred only to people who were the same relative age as the character.

You infer this context from other passages that may or may not have any application to the generation comments under discussion. You're, of course, free to do so, but it should be noted that it is nothing more than your own unsubstantiated opinion. As such, it cannot be held up as superior to a teaching of the JWGB.

[Which is not to say that the same doesn't apply to theirs, as it most certainly does. However, the JWGB isn't here mocking the opinions of Trollin "Butters" Moyle.]
MakesTheTruthHis Own

Montréal, Canada

#442 May 3, 2012
Olin Moyle wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I think it's touching that you (someone who holds himself out as a non-believer) refer to scripture as "inspired." While the author of 1 Timothy certainly made that claim about "all scripture," I find it amusing that anyone in this day and age would accept The Bible as an "inspired" product of an almighty god...but hey, I digress...
To your point (such as it is), my position that Jesus was addressing people of a single generation in no way rests upon a premise that his words "were spoken for only the consumption of those disciples who happened to be in earshot."
Jesus is recorded to have said plenty of things that were directly intended for those within earshot (e.g., John 8:44). But (at least for Bible-believers) that does not make his words "for only the consumption of those...who happened to be in earshot." Rather, people read these accounts and apply them as they (or their religious leaders) see fit.
Similarly with Matt. 24:34. Even though Jesus was directly addressing those in earshot, others who read the account can apply it as they (or their religious leaders) see fit.
For example, some Bible believers use this verse to build their faith that Jesus was a true prophet (he allegedly spoke these words in 33 A.D., and Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D.- before his generation passed away).
Personally, I side with mainstream scholarship that Matthew was written after 70 A.D. I think that this passage was added to attempt to show that Jesus was a true prophet--i.e., "see, he predicted this would happen back in 33 A.D.!" It's funny that people are trying to stretch the meaning to try to give it some kind of "modern day fulfillment."
So, at the end of the day, it seems reasonable that when Jesus referred to "this generation," he meant what Roger Daltrey meant when he sang "my generation."
I'd be careful of this gentleman, he uses his mind and its dangerous.
Thirdwitness

Haslet, TX

#443 May 3, 2012
Thus Olin's point is that

1. the medieval Church removed persons for causing divisions

2. JWs remove persons for causing divisions.

3. First century church removed persons for causing divisions.

4. Umpires remove persons for causing divisions.

5. Bedrock's Water Buffaloes remove persons for causing divisions.

In short Olin's comparison was irrelevant and of no value.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#444 May 3, 2012
Olin Moyle wrote:
First, I think it's touching that you (someone who holds himself out as a non-believer) refer to scripture as "inspired."
I do so because it claims to be inspired.

Whether or not I, personally, agree with that claim, or whether that claim is a demonstrable fact is a secondary issue.

If, as I've said before - you might call it one of FH's laws -[ALL]- emphasis added - scripture is, depending on translation, "inspired of god" or "god-breathed," and intended to be THE teaching tool of "men of god" [or women] of every age up to and including this one, then, forgive my redundancy, but [ALL]- emphasis added - scripture actually has to be inspired or god-breathed. Not just some, but ALL. It all has a purpose for being included in what we, colloquially, call The Bible. That purpose? Because "god" wants it there.

So, if "god" wants it there, and inspired the bible writers to put it there, then it is ALL meant for "the man of god," whomever - and whenever - he/she may be.

That would throw a wrench into the theory that the comments under discussion were applicable only to those actually present to hear them spoken.

Trollin Moyle: While the author of 1 Timothy certainly made that claim about "all scripture," I find it amusing that anyone in this day and age would accept The Bible as an "inspired" product of an almighty god...

Reply: And I would agree with you on that point.

However, at issue is not whether or not you or I believe the claim that "ALL scripture is" inspired or god-breathed.

However, if "all scripture is" NOT inspired or god-breathed, then which is and which is not?

How do we determine?

WHY, if not, should we even care?

All good questions, if not exactly relevant to the issue at hand.

Trollin Moyle: To your point (such as it is), my position that Jesus was addressing people of a single generation in no way rests upon a premise that his words "were spoken for only the consumption of those disciples who happened to be in earshot."

Reply: If it does not, then you've wasted about two pages first quibbling over the actual setting in which the statement was made and then trying to assign a modern English definition to the term when we have no evidence that the term as it was used with that definition in mind.

Trollin Moyle: Jesus is recorded to have said plenty of things that were directly intended for those within earshot (e.g., John 8:44). But (at least for Bible-believers) that does not make his words "for only the consumption of those...who happened to be in earshot." Rather, people read these accounts and apply them as they (or their religious leaders) see fit.

Reply: Indeed.

Trollin Moyle: Personally, I side with mainstream scholarship that Matthew was written after 70 A.D. I think that this passage was added to attempt to show that Jesus was a true prophet--i.e., "see, he predicted this would happen back in 33 A.D.!" [It's funny that people are trying to stretch the meaning to try to give it some kind of "modern day fulfillment."]

[Emphasis added]

Reply: What does the first part of your statement have to do with the emphasized part?

"Mainstream" xtianity has believed in the equivalent of a modern day fulfillment of this passage for it's entire existence. Of course, they call it the second coming, or some variation thereof.

The preterist philosophy, while no more or less provable, ultimately, has always been held as factual only by a small minority.

Since: Feb 09

Winchester, KY

#445 May 3, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
Look who just woke up from their nap in their race car bed! Need an ice cream cone, junior?
Just trying to help by drawing useless attention to your poor sentence structure.

Hey, how many klansmen will be at your rally tonight?
Thirdwitness

Haslet, TX

#446 May 4, 2012
And so the way it ends is that the claim that JWs cannot be God's organization because they have corrected wrong teachings and practices is a bogus claim for Jehovah even foretold such refining and cleansing. If JWs are to be proven wrong let it be by examining their teachings in light of God's word.

Anybody making a sincere examination will find that JWs are the only global religion not worshipping some form of the nameless triune sadistic Kingdomless ransomless earth-burning sin- condoning racist nationalistic disunified disorganized god.

If that is the true god then we readily admit JWs are not the true God's organization. If the opposite is true who will admit that JWs are the only ones worshipping the true God and therefore must be God"s organization?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do Christendom make Jesus name sounds so di... 1 hr rsss1 564
Another earthquake in Mexico 2 hr EL C - GSB 1
Trinity...why does it matter?! 2 hr rsss1 1,846
Would Jehovah take me back? 2 hr Honey Bee 447
Speaking out of both sides of their mouth 2 hr NorthPeace 1
What MUST I do to be saved? 3 hr Alank 36
Another REASON why the NWT is the best Bible ever! 3 hr Super Glue 13
If Jesus is NOT Your Mediator, How Can you Pray... 14 hr rsss1 561
More from around the web