Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34056 Apr 24, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is another article about Enoch..........
Watchtower 9-15-2001

Further proof you cannot think for your self and are afraid to go look at scholarly or source material yourself.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/

"For at least the first seven hundred years following our Savior’s ministry, the Book of Enoch was highly respected. In those early centuries, it was read aloud in congregations and studied by ministers for its historic and prophetic value. Among the early Church Fathers who quoted Enoch were Clement, Barnabas, Irenaeus, and others."
http://believersjourney.blogspot.com/2009/03/...

I don't know if you are more in need of a brain or a scrotum, but the cult has you well controlled.
Ella

Rockford, MI

#34057 Apr 24, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you comment on the Jehovah's Witnesses stand on the following scriptures: James 2:18-19, 5:14-16, Mark 16:14-18, Matt. 21:21-22, Matt. 13:14-15.
Student

Cabo San Lucas, Mexico

#34058 Apr 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Further proof you cannot think for your self and are afraid to go look at scholarly or source material yourself.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/
"For at least the first seven hundred years following our Savior’s ministry, the Book of Enoch was highly respected. In those early centuries, it was read aloud in congregations and studied by ministers for its historic and prophetic value. Among the early Church Fathers who quoted Enoch were Clement, Barnabas, Irenaeus, and others."
http://believersjourney.blogspot.com/2009/03/...
I don't know if you are more in need of a brain or a scrotum, but the cult has you well controlled.
The mere writing of a religious book, its preservation for hundreds of years, and its esteem by millions do not prove it is of divine origin or canonical. It must bear credentials of Divine Authorship demonstrating that it was inspired by God.

I do not waste my time reading garbage on the internet.

By the way, from the lack of loving kindness, one can see that you are not a true foller of Christ.
Student

Cabo San Lucas, Mexico

#34059 Apr 25, 2013
Ella wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you comment on the Jehovah's Witnesses stand on the following scriptures: James 2:18-19, 5:14-16, Mark 16:14-18, Matt. 21:21-22, Matt. 13:14-15.
What is you stand on these Scriptures?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34060 Apr 25, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
The mere writing of a religious book, its preservation for hundreds of years, and its esteem by millions do not prove it is of divine origin or canonical. It must bear credentials of Divine Authorship demonstrating that it was inspired by God.

Again you cannot answer with your own brains nor your own words.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000880

And again you commit plagiarism by failing to cite your source.

Has your brain been confiscated by The Cult, or is it kept imprisoned in your own skull.

Student wrote:
<quoted text> I do not waste my time reading garbage on the internet.

By "garbage on the internet I can only assume you mean FACTUAL and WELL DOCUMENTED material that you can't deal with.

A true follower of Christ is brave. You are chickenfeces.

Student wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, from the lack of loving kindness, one can see that you are not a true foller of Christ.

I am trying to save you. You need my help in the most desperate way and I think part of you knows that.

You have to be brave and know that the spirit of Yahweh will guide you. But you have to open the door for him.

I don't know of anything more lovingly kind than that.

BTW, the expression "loving kindness" comes from Buddhism, not Christianity.

Similarly WWJD (popular years ago) was from the Buddhist Sutra's (What would (a) Buddha do?).

Student

Cabo San Lucas, Mexico

#34061 Apr 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you cannot answer with your own brains nor your own words.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000880
And again you commit plagiarism by failing to cite your source.
Has your brain been confiscated by The Cult, or is it kept imprisoned in your own skull.
<quoted text>
By "garbage on the internet I can only assume you mean FACTUAL and WELL DOCUMENTED material that you can't deal with.
A true follower of Christ is brave. You are chickenfeces.
<quoted text>
I am trying to save you. You need my help in the most desperate way and I think part of you knows that.
You have to be brave and know that the spirit of Yahweh will guide you. But you have to open the door for him.
I don't know of anything more lovingly kind than that.
BTW, the expression "loving kindness" comes from Buddhism, not Christianity.
Similarly WWJD (popular years ago) was from the Buddhist Sutra's (What would (a) Buddha do?).
Sorry but I did not go to the internet, but my own libarary, which is the it book vol. 1, p. 406.

I believe you had better save yourself first, before you try to save anyone else.

FYI, I will not be on this forum for at least two weeks, no internet while we are traveling north.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34062 Apr 25, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but I did not go to the internet, but my own libarary, which is the it book vol. 1, p. 406.
I believe you had better save yourself first, before you try to save anyone else.
FYI, I will not be on this forum for at least two weeks, no internet while we are traveling north.

Your own library is now on the internet.

Enjoy your trip.

WAIT! NORTH! That's MY direction!!! NOOooooooo! Not North!

Go South, West, or East, but please not north!!!!

I hope you find Yahweh on your trip.



Student

Cabo San Lucas, Mexico

#34063 Apr 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your own library is now on the internet.
Enjoy your trip.
WAIT! NORTH! That's MY direction!!! NOOooooooo! Not North!
Go South, West, or East, but please not north!!!!
I hope you find Yahweh on your trip.
Yes north, the snow is about gone now, and we need to take care of our home and yard.

si study # 8. p. 327, par.1-----
The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name &#1497;&#1492;&#14 93;&#1492;.

Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed:“Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree,‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name &#1497;&#1492;&#14 93;&#1492;.

Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed:“Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree,‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh.”

Some almighty God with the Hebrew name "Yahweh" and English name "Jehovah."

Yes, Jehovh (Yahweh) knows who we are praying too11

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34064 Apr 25, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>Yes north, the snow is about gone now, and we need to take care of our home and yard.
si study # 8. p. 327, par.1-----
The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name &#1497;&#1492;&#14 93;&#1492;.
Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed:“Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree,‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name &#1497;&#1492;&#14 93;&#1492;.
Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed:“Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree,‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh.”
Some almighty God with the Hebrew name "Yahweh" and English name "Jehovah."
Yes, Jehovh (Yahweh) knows who we are praying too11

First of all, you committed a CRIME in the above post. You AGAIN quoted a passage and did NOT quote the source. You can be sued for this and your cult is not above suing people if they have any money to be gotten.

EVEN IF you had EXPRESSED PERMISSION to quote your cult you are STILL obligated to cite your source. Now I know that cult members like you are indoctrinated to care nothing for the law, so I point it out in case anyone who has not had their brain polluted by your cult knows what you people are like.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990135

On to the issues at hand.

Pfeiffer died 55 years ago.

But the real problem is that you are using writings of your cult to support your cults beliefs. SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SUPRISE, Sgt. Carter. They agree! WHAT A SHOCK!

Do you think that if I was in a Satanic cult they would point me to objective information or to information that supported Satanism?

Duh!

Last, but not at all least, I provided information and references as to WHY the use of "Jehovah" is wrong, HOW the error first occurred and WHY we KNOW that the correct pronunciation is Yah-weh.

Ignore diacritical markings at your own peril!
Student

Cabo San Lucas, Mexico

#34065 Apr 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, you committed a CRIME in the above post. You AGAIN quoted a passage and did NOT quote the source. You can be sued for this and your cult is not above suing people if they have any money to be gotten.
EVEN IF you had EXPRESSED PERMISSION to quote your cult you are STILL obligated to cite your source. Now I know that cult members like you are indoctrinated to care nothing for the law, so I point it out in case anyone who has not had their brain polluted by your cult knows what you people are like.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990135
On to the issues at hand.
Pfeiffer died 55 years ago.
But the real problem is that you are using writings of your cult to support your cults beliefs. SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SUPRISE, Sgt. Carter. They agree! WHAT A SHOCK!
Do you think that if I was in a Satanic cult they would point me to objective information or to information that supported Satanism?
Duh!
Last, but not at all least, I provided information and references as to WHY the use of "Jehovah" is wrong, HOW the error first occurred and WHY we KNOW that the correct pronunciation is Yah-weh.
Ignore diacritical markings at your own peril!
Read my post again, notice at the begining

Student wrote:
<quoted text>si study # 8. p. 327, par.1-----
The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name &#1497;&#1492;&#14 93;&#1492;.
Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed:“Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree,‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of The form Yahweh is generally preferred by Hebrew scholars, but certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable. Therefore, the Latinized form Jehovah continues to be used because it has been in use for centuries and is the most commonly accepted English rendering of the Tetragrammaton, or four-letter Hebrew name &#1497;&#1492;&#14 93;&#1492;.
Hebrew scholar R. H. Pfeiffer observed:“Whatever may be said of its dubious pedigree,‘Jehovah’ is and should remain the proper English rendering of Yahweh.”
Some almighty God with the Hebrew name "Yahweh" and English name "Jehovah."
Yes, Jehovh (Yahweh) knows who we are praying too11
Student

Cabo San Lucas, Mexico

#34066 Apr 25, 2013
Daily Text


Friday, April 26

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.—Heb. 11:1.

Abraham and Sarah were willing to leave a comfortable way of life behind and live as “strangers and temporary residents in the land.” What helped them?“They saw [the fulfillment of God’s promises] afar off.” Moses rejected “the temporary enjoyment of sin” and “the treasures of Egypt.” How did he have the faith and strength to do so? He “looked intently toward the payment of the reward.”(Heb. 11:8-13, 24-26) Understandably, Paul prefaced his description of each of these people with the expression “by faith.” Faith enabled them to look beyond the trials and hardships of the present and see what God was doing in their behalf and would yet do. By meditating on the men and women of faith mentioned in Hebrews chapter 11 and imitating their example, we can cultivate faith and put off “the sin that easily entangles us.”—Heb. 12:1. w11 9/15 4:17, 18

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34067 Apr 26, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
Read my post again, notice at the begining

Nothing I have not refuted. Clearly you either did not read my posts on that subject or you put your blinders on.

Read my last 2 sentences again.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, you committed a CRIME in the above post. You AGAIN quoted a passage and did NOT quote the source. You can be sued for this and your cult is not above suing people if they have any money to be gotten.
EVEN IF you had EXPRESSED PERMISSION to quote your cult you are STILL obligated to cite your source. Now I know that cult members like you are indoctrinated to care nothing for the law, so I point it out in case anyone who has not had their brain polluted by your cult knows what you people are like.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990135
On to the issues at hand.
Pfeiffer died 55 years ago.
But the real problem is that you are using writings of your cult to support your cults beliefs. SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SUPRISE, Sgt. Carter. They agree! WHAT A SHOCK!
Do you think that if I was in a Satanic cult they would point me to objective information or to information that supported Satanism?
Duh!
Last, but not at all least, I provided information and references as to WHY the use of "Jehovah" is wrong, HOW the error first occurred and WHY we KNOW that the correct pronunciation is Yah-weh.
Ignore diacritical markings at your own peril!

Student

Cabo San Lucas, Mexico

#34068 Apr 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing I have not refuted. Clearly you either did not read my posts on that subject or you put your blinders on.
Read my last 2 sentences again.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, you committed a CRIME in the above post. You AGAIN quoted a passage and did NOT quote the source. You can be sued for this and your cult is not above suing people if they have any money to be gotten.
EVEN IF you had EXPRESSED PERMISSION to quote your cult you are STILL obligated to cite your source. Now I know that cult members like you are indoctrinated to care nothing for the law, so I point it out in case anyone who has not had their brain polluted by your cult knows what you people are like.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990135
On to the issues at hand.
Pfeiffer died 55 years ago.
But the real problem is that you are using writings of your cult to support your cults beliefs. SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SUPRISE, Sgt. Carter. They agree! WHAT A SHOCK!
Do you think that if I was in a Satanic cult they would point me to objective information or to information that supported Satanism?
Duh!
Last, but not at all least, I provided information and references as to WHY the use of "Jehovah" is wrong, HOW the error first occurred and WHY we KNOW that the correct pronunciation is Yah-weh.
Ignore diacritical markings at your own peril!
I read all of your post! Jehovah or Yahweh? Neither name is correct. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton. And may be transliterated as YHWH.

The Hebrew consonants are known. But which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name.
socci

Plattsburg, MO

#34069 Apr 26, 2013
Student wrote:
Jehovah or Yahweh? Neither name is correct. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton. And may be transliterated as YHWH.
The Hebrew consonants are known. But which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name.

There's no salvation in pronunciation. The Hebrew & Greek were transliterated to English.

Jesus is Jehovah
www.pilgrimskeyradionetwork.com/sermons/sermo...
Ella

Rockford, MI

#34070 Apr 26, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
What is you stand on these Scriptures?
I believe it as truth. I know this occurs even today as I have witnessed these things in my walk with the Lord.

So how about you?
Ella

Rockford, MI

#34071 Apr 26, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>The Hebrew consonants are known. But which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name.
Superstitious, hardly? You are definitely not aware of Jewish history/tradition.Jews only pronounced God's name in reverence/honor to Him. They did not take the matter lightly. His name was so sacred to them that before they wrote His name they made sure they were ritualistically clean so as not to profane the holiness of His name.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#34072 Apr 27, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
I read all of your post! Jehovah or Yahweh? Neither name is correct. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton. And may be transliterated as YHWH.
The Hebrew consonants are known. But which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name.

This is incorrect. I have demonstrated that this is incorrect. Diacritical marking are hardly superstition!!!!

However, as Hebrew literacy declined, particularly after the Romans expelled the Jews from Israel, the rabbis recognized the need for aids to pronunciation, so they developed a system of dots and dashes called nikkud (points). These dots and dashes are written above, below or inside the letter, in ways that do not alter the spacing of the line. Text containing these markings is referred to as "pointed" text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet
http://www.jewfaq.org/alephbet.htm


Most nikkud are used to indicate vowels. Table 2 illustrates the vowel points, along with their pronunciations. Pronunciations are approximate; I have heard quite a bit of variation in vowel pronunciation.


More details here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_...

Remember the 'J'(jah) sound did not exist in Hebrew.

There is no big mystery in transliteration of Hebrew sounds. Hebrew is a dead language, not a lost or forgotten one.
Ella

Rockford, MI

#34074 Apr 28, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>

Could you comment on the Jehovah's Witnesses stand on the following scriptures: James 2:18-19, 5:14-16, Mark 16:14-18, Matt. 21:21-22, Matt. 13:14-15.

Since: Nov 08

Newark, DE

#34075 Apr 28, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
"Studies in the Scriptures." The first volume was written in 1886 by Charles Taze Russell. In 1927, during Rutherford's presidency, the Watch Tower Society ceased publication of all seven volumes of Studies in the Scriptures, as several core doctrines had been changed from what Russell had taught.
As Jehovah’s Witnesses today review the work that Charles Taze Russell did, the things he taught, his reason for teaching them, and the outcome, they have no doubt that Charles Taze Russell was, indeed, used by God in a special way and at a significant time.
This view is not based solely on the firm stand that Brother Russell took with regard to the ransom. It also takes into account the fact that he fearlessly rejected creeds that contained some of the foundation beliefs of Christendom, because these clashed with the inspired Scriptures.
In 1923, Rutherford began to reject what Russell believed and taught on the ransom, when he introduced his new ideas regarding who can die the second death, as well as his new view on the "sheep and goats". In 1938, Rutherford openely rejected Russell's teaching on the "ransom for all", and replaced it with his new teaching, which basically stated, "join us, or else be eternally destroyed in Armageddon", which is almost the very opposite of what Russell taught.
http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/...
Ella

Rockford, MI

#34078 Apr 29, 2013
Student wrote:
<quoted text>
No I do not speak in tongues. And I haven’t done any of the above!
Have you?
Performing apparently miraculous works would not in itself prove divine authorization, nor would the inability of God’s servants to perform miracles with the help of God’s spirit cast doubt on the fact that they were being used by him.(Mt 7:21-23)
Not every first-century Christian could perform powerful works, heal, speak in tongues, and translate. Paul, and doubtless some others, had by God’s undeserved kindness been granted a number of these gifts of the spirit.
These miraculous gifts marked the infancy of the Christian congregation and were foretold to cease.
In fact, even Jesus indicated that his followers would be identified, not by their performance of powerful works, but by their love for one another.(1Co 12:29, 30; 13:2, 8-13; Joh 13:35)
1st of all I would like to state that Jehovah God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Keeping that in
mind let me add this second point: Jesus said He could only do (John 5:19), hear (John 5:30) and speak (John 12:49-50) what the
Father (Jehovah God) showed Him to do and speak. Jesus further stated in John 7:16 that the doctrine He spoke was not His own
but the Father's. Jesus then instructs us in Matt. 28:18-20 (the Great Commission) and in Mark 16:15-18 Jesus spoke of the signs
which follow the believer. These words remember were not His but the Words of His Father (Jehovah God) who sent Him. So to
deny Jesus' words is to deny Jehovah's Word. Having said all of this let me ask you then, whose words will you trust and believe
in, Jehovah God or your 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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min here 39,064
Play "end of the word" part 2 14 min jasiEL 1,754
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 22 min nanoanomaly 970,197
Why do we live life when we have to die anyway? (Jul '13) 25 min WasteWater 244
Ayo yang di bogor 35 min WasteWater 2
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 47 min Catholic24 642,149
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Annaleigh 104,793
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Ricky F 618,458
More from around the web