why cant jws answer simple questions?

“email at ihveit@aol.com ”

Since: Dec 07

central louisiana

#898 Jan 10, 2013
Kevin 321 wrote:
<quoted text>
My position allows me to accept all of the bible, not just the ones that agree with my beliefs.
A and B.
And I believe JESUS was resurrected, do you?
ihv nope JESUS the man is forever gone.. god recreated mikey

or we can see evolution in the making
will

“email at ihveit@aol.com ”

Since: Dec 07

central louisiana

#899 Jan 10, 2013
HopeReigns wrote:
<quoted text>
The Godhead Debate has been going on for how long...rehashed and remixed...people will believe how they will with regards to the Divine nature of our God. I like to think that "all things are possible with God"
I would like to see in the bible that Jesus is the Archangel Michael....not verbiage the says it's reasonable to assume...hard facts.
I would like to see in the bible that the parable of the "faithful and discrete slave" points to the Governing Body of a publishing corporation.
I would like to see where it says that a publishing corporation is the mouthpiece for God.
Those are just a few things I would like to see what you scan and find in your bible...for it sure isn't in mine.
ihv come on now.. quit asking those hard questions

ROFL LOLOLOLOL

over the last couple years i have been trying to get these jws who dont believ ethe JESUS of the bible to tell me how i can gein eternal life and know today..

GUESS WHAT? TO HARD A QUESTION.. yet the answer is so simple
will

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#900 Jan 10, 2013
ihveit wrote:
<quoted text>
ihv come on now.. quit asking those hard questions
ROFL LOLOLOLOL
over the last couple years i have been trying to get these jws who dont believ ethe JESUS of the bible to tell me how i can gein eternal life and know today..
GUESS WHAT? TO HARD A QUESTION.. yet the answer is so simple
will
Chuckles softly...my theory is if you have to ask if you are saved then.....well you know the answer eh? Place more magazines and more knocking on doors and we will see......((coughs))

“Close enough”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#901 Jan 10, 2013
Boni wrote:
<quoted text>
Your preference of exclamation phrase does not preclude others from using the aforementioned exclamation phrase; of which no one listening would assume that he or she is calling the person they directed the exclamation to as being "God" as "Oh my God!" would suggest.
:)
<quoted text>
That's academic.
<quoted text>
Yeah.
But getting back to Thomas...
Remember that what Thomas uttered was not considered a burst of new theological insight given what John said two verses later. In fact, none of the New Testament writers ever used Thomas' outburst to propose any novel theories about Jesus being God, God-Man, Trinity, or whatever else you'd like to spin.
:)
I would like to add something here, if I might. It would be quite an unusual person who would not cry, "O my God!" or "O God" in a surprising or tense situation. It is not necessarily using the "Lord's name" in vain. People do the unexpected when taken by surprise. Jesus was certainly superior to Thomas, since Jesus showed who he said he was (the Son of God, who after his resurrection appeared not only alive, but who could miraculously appear), Thomas exclaimed, "O my God!" upon seeing Jesus. And obviously, this does not mean that Jesus was equal to the other two persons that some say are in a trinity, since Jesus himself said he had a God. His Father.

“Close enough”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#902 Jan 10, 2013
HopeReigns wrote:
<quoted text>
Chuckles softly...my theory is if you have to ask if you are saved then.....well you know the answer eh? Place more magazines and more knocking on doors and we will see......((coughs))
It means more than believing. The demons believe. I don't see what the problem is. If you're not saved, you're not. If you are, you are. And only GOD does the saving. But each one is drawn out by his desire.

“Close enough”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#903 Jan 10, 2013
HopeReigns wrote:
<quoted text>
Chuckles softly...my theory is if you have to ask if you are saved then.....well you know the answer eh? Place more magazines and more knocking on doors and we will see......((coughs))
chuckle chuckle and cough cough. The idea that one is saved from the mythical hellfire is simply preposterous and presumptuous. and if that's what you think being saved means, hey, you just go on teaching that.

That's what I read in some of the churches' pamphlets. That to be SAVED means you're not going to hell. Since you don't know what the word hell means, perhaps some study is in order for you, "Hope."

“email at ihveit@aol.com ”

Since: Dec 07

central louisiana

#904 Jan 10, 2013
miseracord wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like to add something here, if I might. It would be quite an unusual person who would not cry, "O my God!" or "O God" in a surprising or tense situation. It is not necessarily using the "Lord's name" in vain. People do the unexpected when taken by surprise. Jesus was certainly superior to Thomas, since Jesus showed who he said he was (the Son of God, who after his resurrection appeared not only alive, but who could miraculously appear), Thomas exclaimed, "O my God!" upon seeing Jesus. And obviously, this does not mean that Jesus was equal to the other two persons that some say are in a trinity, since Jesus himself said he had a God. His Father.
ihv i dont think you could find one orthodox jew who would ever use that term... but then you could go to paltalk and ask them..

actually you wont even find most of the writing GOD and LORD.. they use G-D AND L-RD ..

but i guess you have never discussed this with a jew..
will

“email at ihveit@aol.com ”

Since: Dec 07

central louisiana

#905 Jan 10, 2013
miseracord wrote:
<quoted text>chuckle chuckle and cough cough. The idea that one is saved from the mythical hellfire is simply preposterous and presumptuous. and if that's what you think being saved means, hey, you just go on teaching that.
That's what I read in some of the churches' pamphlets. That to be SAVED means you're not going to hell. Since you don't know what the word hell means, perhaps some study is in order for you, "Hope."
ihv i have an idea.. with all your tripe are you willing to go to anothre board and discuss hell? we will only use the nwt bible, the kjv and the wt kit in the discussions and of cource if the wt quotes someone we will check it out too?

and if we do and you follow thru to the end you will see the wt has decieved you

ACTUALLY ANY JW IS WELCOME i will take you all on

ohhh wait i tried that hell board a couple of times and jws didnt show up... COWARDS.. they are afraid of the truth

so maybe one can answer me here.. do you know the meaning of the hebrew word greber or the greek word mnemeion? i doubt it

what about tartarus?(maybe)

will

“Close enough”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#906 Jan 11, 2013
ihveit wrote:
<quoted text>
ihv i dont think you could find one orthodox jew who would ever use that term... but then you could go to paltalk and ask them..
actually you wont even find most of the writing GOD and LORD.. they use G-D AND L-RD ..
but i guess you have never discussed this with a jew..
will
It is well documented that even in the Hebrew Christian translations of the New Testament, the tetragrammaton is there, HOWEVER, most Hebrew Christians will not pronounce the Name, going along with the Jewish superstition as it being "too holy to pass through human lips." Jesus did not feel that way. there is no reason to believe he covered up the divine Name at the time he was alive in Israel. He would have read the Name in Hebrew (not as adonai,'lord') when reading in the synagogue from the book of Isaiah. No religious Jew will say the Name in worship, they will, however, say it in a teaching sense. Check me out with any of your Jewish pals there. Some may know, some may not. That does not mean that was always the case in Israel.

The Name was phased out and vowel pointed as well as printed sometimes to be adonai.(the Lord, Hebrew) Yet the translators of the King James Version had the divine NAME JEHOVAH written out at least four times. If they thought that Jehovah's name was really written as Jesus, they would have said so.
fds

Neath, UK

#907 Jan 11, 2013
Boni wrote:
<quoted text>
Then let's see that progression where Jesus Christ, an apostle, a disciple, or just about anyone connected the dots and declared something like "Eureka, the Trinity!"
And we can read about it in the pages of the New Testament where we can follow the exciting progression to its climatic revelation.
:)
Hi BONI

AS you know im not a trinitarian, but i will not oppose the trinity doctrine unfairly, i was a little tounge in cheek and i was using circular reasoning to prove the doctrines correctness based on the type of circular reasoning employed by the TOWER when they things like "we know God uses an organisation because the organisation exists and is using it" My Irony cannot have gone unmissed on you surley as my thread ended with a Hmmmmmmmmm

thanks

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#908 Jan 11, 2013
miseracord wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like to add something here, if I might. It would be quite an unusual person who would not cry, "O my God!" or "O God" in a surprising or tense situation. It is not necessarily using the "Lord's name" in vain. People do the unexpected when taken by surprise. Jesus was certainly superior to Thomas, since Jesus showed who he said he was (the Son of God, who after his resurrection appeared not only alive, but who could miraculously appear), Thomas exclaimed, "O my God!" upon seeing Jesus. And obviously, this does not mean that Jesus was equal to the other two persons that some say are in a trinity, since Jesus himself said he had a God. His Father.
What Thomas said was ....."The Lord of me and the God of me."

Ya gotta stop with the silly explanations.

“Close enough”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#909 Jan 11, 2013
Kevin 321 wrote:
<quoted text>
What Thomas said was ....."The Lord of me and the God of me."
Ya gotta stop with the silly explanations.
Hello, Kevin.

At first I thought this might have been ihveit speaking as I perusing the board. But then I thought, "No, that quote is too rational." So if Thomas thought or exclaimed that Jesus is the Lord of him and the God of him, that again does not mean that Jesus is his Father, OR a trinity, OR the only God that Thomas recognized. Thomas knew that the Messiah was foretold to be a mighty god, someone VERY HIGH. And Jehovah was even higher, since Jesus said he was going to HIS God.

OTOH, the Greek language is not always clearly translated, and has many and varied meanings to the context.

Since Jesus prayed to HIS Father and God, and since he directed his disciples to follow his instructions, or lead, I also pray to the Father in the name of Jesus.

“Close enough”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#910 Jan 11, 2013
fds wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi BONI
AS you know im not a trinitarian, but i will not oppose the trinity doctrine unfairly, i was a little tounge in cheek and i was using circular reasoning to prove the doctrines correctness based on the type of circular reasoning employed by the TOWER when they things like "we know God uses an organisation because the organisation exists and is using it" My Irony cannot have gone unmissed on you surley as my thread ended with a Hmmmmmmmmm
thanks
My comment: Those of us who believe that God has an organization which He is using, i.e., the Faithful and Discreet Slave in its entire scope, realize upon consideration that it fits the description of what the qualifications of the "faithful and discreet slave," as well as an organization with Jesus as the head. Naturally, this realization will not be for all people, not all are obliged to accept it as such. Since Jesus is head of the congregation, I have come to the understanding that there is only 'one' congregation, and it does not have conflicting doctrine about the Bible or itself. Also, it dispenses the food at the proper time. There are times that the fleshly, earthly organization makes mistakes. And God, through the auspices and merit of Jesus Christ, corrects them by means of the holy spirit, God's powerful active force. Well anyway, you take care.

“Close enough”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#911 Jan 11, 2013
ihveit wrote:
<quoted text>
ihv i have an idea.. with all your tripe are you willing to go to anothre board and discuss hell? we will only use the nwt bible, the kjv and the wt kit in the discussions and of cource if the wt quotes someone we will check it out too?
and if we do and you follow thru to the end you will see the wt has decieved you
ACTUALLY ANY JW IS WELCOME i will take you all on
ohhh wait i tried that hell board a couple of times and jws didnt show up... COWARDS.. they are afraid of the truth
so maybe one can answer me here.. do you know the meaning of the hebrew word greber or the greek word mnemeion? i doubt it
what about tartarus?(maybe)
will
I took you on in the past about proskyneo and the pronunciation of God's Name, and found it an endeavor only to realize that you do not know what you're talking about, and will go to any extent to prove your fallacious points. Including J13 and 14, again you speak without understanding. But especially proskyneo, which was interesting, but despite your losing battle, you proclaim yourself the winner. LOL! You were shot down over and over again by those who were willing to "take you on" verse by verse. Well, have a nice day, IHVEIT.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#912 Jan 11, 2013
miseracord wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello, Kevin.
At first I thought this might have been ihveit speaking as I perusing the board. But then I thought, "No, that quote is too rational." So if Thomas thought or exclaimed that Jesus is the Lord of him and the God of him, that again does not mean that Jesus is his Father, OR a trinity, OR the only God that Thomas recognized. Thomas knew that the Messiah was foretold to be a mighty god, someone VERY HIGH. And Jehovah was even higher, since Jesus said he was going to HIS God.
OTOH, the Greek language is not always clearly translated, and has many and varied meanings to the context.
Since Jesus prayed to HIS Father and God, and since he directed his disciples to follow his instructions, or lead, I also pray to the Father in the name of Jesus.
Thank you for the very nice response. Very refreshing. And I must say, there is not much in your post that I disagree with.

Jehovah IS indeed Jesus' God. HE is also HIS Father. Trinitarians believe that wholeheartily. Jesus carried 2 natures, fully human and fully devine. Otherwise, it would be impossible for HIM to mediate for us. That is part of being a mediator, identifying with both parties.

John 14 will reveal much of this.

Since: Dec 12

Thorne Bay, AK

#913 Jan 11, 2013
Kevin 321 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for the very nice response. Very refreshing. And I must say, there is not much in your post that I disagree with.
Jehovah IS indeed Jesus' God. HE is also HIS Father. Trinitarians believe that wholeheartily. Jesus carried 2 natures, fully human and fully devine. Otherwise, it would be impossible for HIM to mediate for us. That is part of being a mediator, identifying with both parties.
John 14 will reveal much of this.
This seems to be a very common misunderstanding with the JW supporters. The father is NOT the son. Otherwise, John 1:1 would have had the definite article @ "and the word was__God." or, "and the God was the word." That's NOT to say it should have the indefinite article either. He purposely separated their identity, but not quality.
John chose his wording wisely.

Another thing we have to understand is Jesus gave up his divine glory when he LOWERED HIMSELF into human form. There is no way he could have claimed to be 100% human otherwise. To be human, he had to pray, rely on, and be completely humble to the Father just like humans do.

I'm at work right now, but sometime I would like to explain john 1:1 in its entirety because I haven't seen anyone do that on here yet. But in a nutshell, the subject of the three parts of the verse are; The Words' eternal existence, The Words' direct, intimate and continual fellowship with the Father, and the Words' divine status.
fds

Neath, UK

#914 Jan 11, 2013
miseracord wrote:
<quoted text>
My comment: Those of us who believe that God has an organization which He is using, i.e., the Faithful and Discreet Slave in its entire scope, realize upon consideration that it fits the description of what the qualifications of the "faithful and discreet slave," as well as an organization with Jesus as the head. Naturally, this realization will not be for all people, not all are obliged to accept it as such. Since Jesus is head of the congregation, I have come to the understanding that there is only 'one' congregation, and it does not have conflicting doctrine about the Bible or itself. Also, it dispenses the food at the proper time. There are times that the fleshly, earthly organization makes mistakes. And God, through the auspices and merit of Jesus Christ, corrects them by means of the holy spirit, God's powerful active force. Well anyway, you take care.
You obviously are sincere in your beliefs but you can also be sincerely wrong.
What is alarming about The Org is how clever they are at building a web of scriptures and human reasoning round a presumption.
For instance, as I am an ex JW i am well aware of the dogmatism i had to accept even though with the march of time i could see it was wearing a little thin.

For instance, I had to endure and accept the false assumptions that the ORG did say 1925 would see the return of the "ancient worthies", in the 1940s the publication "children" rutherford claimed that Harmagedon was "only months away". I had to admitt to the farce of the Superior authorities being the Civil Powers, then Jehovah and Jesus, and then the Civil authorities again, My mother became a witness in 1972, and was desperate to get her family into the truth before the end came. Before i became a JW i was told by a very sincere witness with whom i studied that "I the end would come before i was 40" I am now 55. I have seen the Generations doctrine evolve beyond all logic, and one of the bedrock foundation doctrines the F&DS become what i beleive is the rise of the Man of Sin who elevates himself over the temple people of God as a god. I have Witnessed my Son and Daughter Loose faith in ALL relgion and i have witnessed enough. It is ironic that the only doctrines that have never been rebuked by the ORG are The Invisable comming of christ into kingdom power 1914 and the choosing invisably of the ORG in 1919 along with the Start of the invisable Resurrection of the anionted in 1914 0r 1919 which ever date Watchtower speakers care to choose.

there are many other dates and doctrines which have changed such as the closing dates of the little flock etc etc. Yet you continue to put faith in this Mouthpiece alone as God's sole channel of communication on earth today.

Just what event has to happen within the ORG to make you all sit up and take notice. Is it the dabbling in hedge funds because if so then the scriptures tell us to put greedy persons out of the congregation. If that were to happen all the Directors and the FDS GOV BODY would have to be Removed even disfellowshipped.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#915 Jan 11, 2013
Kushtika wrote:
<quoted text>
This seems to be a very common misunderstanding with the JW supporters. The father is NOT the son. Otherwise, John 1:1 would have had the definite article @ "and the word was__God." or, "and the God was the word." That's NOT to say it should have the indefinite article either. He purposely separated their identity, but not quality.
John chose his wording wisely.
Another thing we have to understand is Jesus gave up his divine glory when he LOWERED HIMSELF into human form. There is no way he could have claimed to be 100% human otherwise. To be human, he had to pray, rely on, and be completely humble to the Father just like humans do.
I'm at work right now, but sometime I would like to explain john 1:1 in its entirety because I haven't seen anyone do that on here yet. But in a nutshell, the subject of the three parts of the verse are; The Words' eternal existence, The Words' direct, intimate and continual fellowship with the Father, and the Words' divine status.
I think you misunderstood my response. Anyone on here can tell you I am not a JW supporter. I am a Christian, I believe in the trinity, and do not believe in "modalism".

Simple misunderstanding.

Since: Dec 12

Thorne Bay, AK

#916 Jan 11, 2013
Kevin 321 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you misunderstood my response. Anyone on here can tell you I am not a JW supporter. I am a Christian, I believe in the trinity, and do not believe in "modalism".
Simple misunderstanding.
No, no, no... I probably shouldn't have quoted you. I should've quoted miseracord (I think that is who you were responding to). I was just backing you up :)

“email at ihveit@aol.com ”

Since: Dec 07

central louisiana

#917 Jan 11, 2013
miseracord wrote:
<quoted text>
It is well documented that even in the Hebrew Christian translations of the New Testament, the tetragrammaton is there, HOWEVER, most Hebrew Christians will not pronounce the Name, going along with the Jewish superstition as it being "too holy to pass through human lips."
ihv it would pay you to go study up on hebrew beliefs cause its clear you have no idea if what they taught..

the tetra is in the hebrew scriptures.. nobody denies that.. you just make a big issue of it..and today NOBODY knows how to pronounce gods name so they use a catholic make up garbage.

as to the hebrew transaltion of the greek scriptures how old a copy are you referring to? yuou leave a lots of things to beleif instead of proof/
will
Jesus did not feel that way. there is no reason to believe he covered up the divine Name at the time he was alive in Israel.
ihv more wt garbage.. JESUS missed several opportunities to give us the greek spelling of GODS name.. and HE DIDNT.. adn you cant explain why... you have no choice but to use that fake name cause it used by the wt to pump its menbers up thinking they are the only ones using it..

but we have the advantage over you..... WE CAN CALL HIM FATHER.. legally you and non annointed jws dont have that right..
will
He would have read the Name in Hebrew (not as adonai,'lord') when reading in the synagogue from the book of Isaiah. No religious Jew will say the Name in worship, they will, however, say it in a teaching sense. Check me out with any of your Jewish pals there. Some may know, some may not. That does not mean that was always the case in Israel.
IHV BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT.. the name is not used in any synagogue.. and if it is in some its certainly not "jehovah"
will
The Name was phased out and vowel pointed as well as printed sometimes to be adonai.(the Lord, Hebrew) Yet the translators of the King James Version had the divine NAME JEHOVAH written out at least four times. If they thought that Jehovah's name was really written as Jesus, they would have said so.
ihv.. yep and i think this was a mistake and has sense been corrected
will

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
Yet, Another New Forum... 35 min I_know_better_now 210
Why do we owe salvation to both God and Christ? 35 min Omega 17
should a Christian fight in war? 37 min red blood relative 37
The WTS is part-owner of more than 3 MILITARY C... (Oct '15) 46 min coentelpro 27
meaning of immortal 52 min Omega 120
Nomi 1 hr rsss11 57
PrufSammy what you think of these comments said... 5 hr The Real Karen 243
The Bible Jehovah`s Witnesses main text Book 5 hr dee rightful 75
Is smoking a sin? 10 hr TempleBBQ 64